Contesting the Far Right by Claudia Leeb (chapter 1)

Castration Anxiety and Capitalism

Fear of castration is one of the commonest and strongest motives for repression and thus for the formation of neuroses.

— SIGMUND FREUD, NEW INTRODUCTORY LECTURES ON PSYCHO- ANALYSIS

Castration in the age of concentration camps is more characteristic for social reality than competition.

— THEODOR W. ADORNO, “DIE REVIDIERTE PSYCHOANALYSE”

The far right, I will argue, does not appeal to rational economic interests. Instead, it taps into deeper anxieties, particularly castration anxieties, around people’s subjectivities. The distinction between objective conditions of suffering and subjective experiences of suffering is my innovative theoretical approach, which I use to build up the dialectic of the psychological and socioeconomic sides of the rise of the far right.

Contemporary capitalism engenders two interconnected forms of suffering: The first results from the objective conditions of capitalism, such as the threats of declassing, exploitation (e.g., lengthening of the working day, an intensification of workload via new technology), alienation, and isolation. The second, less obvious form of suffering refers to how objective forms of suffering in capitalism generate castration anxieties and affect subjectivity.

The objective conditions of suffering in capitalist societies generate castration anxieties in three related areas: first, in economic security; second, in interpersonal relationships; and, third, on the bodily level. People experience castration anxieties as a threat to their “whole” subjectivity—these make them feel “nonwhole” or in danger of becoming nonwhole (that is, castrated) as subjects. Also, castration anxieties manifest differently along class, gender, and “racial” lines.1

I understand the subject as fundamentally and irrevocably nonwhole. Such fundamental nonwholeness generates anxieties and the desire to attain (or restore) an impossible wholeness. Objective conditions of suffering in capitalism heighten the castration anxieties of nonwhole subjectivities and further strengthen the desire to reach wholeness. Far- right propaganda techniques are effective because they provide their followers with the illusion of being “whole” subjects again, which allows them to quell their castration anxieties.

I do not aim at a “wholesale” explanation of the source of the far right in castration anxieties.2 Instead, I want to draw attention to how the socioeconomic conditions of precarity capitalism generate castration anxieties in people, which the far right exploits for its own purposes. I argue that objective conditions of suffering in precarity capitalism make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to live up to economic, interpersonal, and bodily “success” standards, which result from classed, raced, and gendered ideologies of what it means to be a “whole” subject.

As a result, objective conditions of suffering generate subjective forms of suffering, which people experience as castration anxieties and that I theorize as their anxieties about being “nonwhole” subjects. Psychologically oriented far-right techniques prey on such anxieties because they offer the hope that people can experience themselves as “whole” subjects again. However, the far right does nothing to change the objective conditions of suffering in capitalism that generated such anxieties in the first place. To the extent that subjects are satisfied with the illusion of wholeness the far right provides, this cycle can be perpetuated without capitalism’s objective conditions changing. So, subjects keep being made miserable by their objective conditions in capitalism. As a result, they keep wanting the far right to put them into states where they can enjoy the illusion of being whole subjects, without the objective conditions of suffering that generated their subjective forms of suffering changing. 3

In “The Threat of Declassing,” I explain the classed, raced, and gendered elements of economic castration anxiety. In “Castration Anxiety of White Subjects,” I introduce decolonial feminist theory to explain why white men believe they should be at the top of the economic hierarchy. In “Exploitation and Subjectivity,” I demonstrate how capitalist exploitation generates bodily and interpersonal castration anxieties. In “The Alienated Subject,” I explain the connection between alienation in capitalist societies and the far right. In “The Castrating Conditions of the Culture

[ 16 ] CASTRATION ANXIETY AND CAPITALISM

Industry,” I outline how the culture industry of mass media and its technology generates subjectivities susceptible to far-right propaganda.

The Threat of Declassing

In Aspekte des neuen Rechtsradikalismus (Aspects of new right radicalism), Adorno warns us not to resort to easy economic explanations for the rise of the far right, because fascism, once it has established itself as the dominant political force, “always has a tendency to become independent of the existing economic interests.” Furthermore, since fascism needs a mass base but favors the few over the many, it cannot sustain itself by appealing to and satisfying its subjects’ rational economic interests. Instead, it must appeal to its subjects’ emotional needs and irrational anxieties and wishes.4

In “Die revidierte Psychoanalyse” (The revised psychoanalysis), Adorno further explains the anxieties and wishes to which fascist propaganda appeals. Here he reiterates that it is not rational economic interests, such as competition for resources (money, jobs, housing, etc.), as suggested by the neo-Freudians, that activate the antidemocratic potential in the great mass of people. Instead, the antidemocratic potential is activated because people live in a capitalist society held together by indirect threats of physical violence— threats of castration, which Freud, according to Adorno, clearly understood.5 Furthermore, he points out that the neo-Freudians, who aim to do away with the “terrible and unmistakable phenomena such as the threat of castration,” castrate psychoanalysis itself because they do away with its critical Stachel —its sting.6

Adorno, in Aspekte des neuen Rechtsradikalismus, points out that the preconditions for the reemergence of far-right movements remain in the Germany of the 1960s intact, because of the concentration of capital, which implies “the possibility of a permanent declassing of those layers of society, who were in their subjective class- consciousness bourgeois and who want to hold on to their social status and perhaps even strengthen that status.” 7

The threat of declassing generates economic castration anxiety (the first of my three forms of castration anxiety) for those subjectively identified with or objectively part of the bourgeois class.8 This anxiety is the result of capitalist ideology, which generates the standard of “economic success.” This standard implies that in capitalist society, to be a “whole” and

noncastrated subject you must have “economic success.” A failure to live up to that standard generates castration anxiety on the economic level, which takes on different forms along class, gender, and “racial” lines. A bourgeois subject (particularly if this subject is also white and male) who fails to hold on to or strengthen their bourgeois class position experiences economic castration anxiety, which the far right taps into to catch followers.

As Albena Azmanova points out, today’s neoliberal capitalism has transformed into precarity capitalism, where everybody faces the threat of declassing, even “labor market insiders” who have well-paying jobs. Precarity capitalism has created economic and social insecurity among most of the population, including the bourgeois class. Through offloading social risk to society, precarity capitalism, as she puts it, has “created a condition of generalized precarity from which the labor-market insiders— those who are skilled and have well-paying jobs— are not sheltered.” She further argues that generalized precarity has generated heightened competition among people (for jobs, resources, etc.) and anxieties, which the far right has exploited.9

I agree with Azmanova’s argument that the far right today is “an expression of a broadly shared and lasting anxiety” generated by precarity capitalism. However, as Adorno has emphasized, the rise of the far right is not the result of heightened competition in capitalism. Instead, it results from the threat of declassing, which generates economic (as well as interpersonal and bodily) castration anxieties.10 For subjects identified with or objectively part of the bourgeois class, precarity capitalism has heightened their castration anxieties because it has made the threat of becoming declassed a reality. Such potential or actual declassing means the potential or actual loss of their class privileges and the social status associated with it. Precarity capitalism also has made it more difficult for subjects of the bourgeois class to strengthen their class position.

For example, one means by which the bourgeois classes aim to secure their class position is by sending their children to the “right schools” to secure bourgeois jobs. However, it has become more difficult for young adults from the bourgeoisie to meet their parents’ class standards and positions despite holding advanced degrees from such schools and universities. As a result, instead of securing or keeping a bourgeois job, they are not landing their first job or are losing their jobs and not finding new ones.

[ 18 ] CASTRATION ANXIETY AND CAPITALISM

The possibility of declassing within the constraints of precarity capitalism generates subjective forms of suffering, making bourgeois subjects experience their subjectivities as nonwhole, with accompanying castration anxiety. In particular, young white male bourgeois adults who are, despite the class and racial privileges they enjoy, not economically “successful” are often viewed as failures in the eyes of society and their parents.

As I will show in chapters 5 and 7, the alt-right in the United States and the identitarian movement in Europe tap into the economic castration anxieties of young male bourgeois adults. Its propaganda specifically targets a college- educated audience, and its psychologically oriented techniques allow frustrated young white male subjects from the bourgeois class to experience an illusory wholeness that quells their economic castration anxieties. Unfortunately, these same techniques also unleash the subjects’ antidemocratic potential.

The threat of declassing means something slightly different for the poor and working classes. To be a “whole” and noncastrated subject from the poor and working classes, you need to be able to secure a job that pays a living wage and possibly offers an opportunity to “move up” the economic hierarchy. Here the threat is not so much of declassing but of not being able to “up- class,” or live up to the capitalist standard of “economic success.”11

As a result of precarity capitalism, many of the poor and working classes either have lost their jobs or cannot get a job that allows them to “up- class” and secure a decent livelihood; more acutely, often they cannot even ensure their current survival. However, the bourgeois ideology of “upward mobility” (particularly in the United States) promotes the fantasy of rising from dishwasher to millionaire, from janitor to CEO. This ideology ignores existing class, gender, and racial barriers that make such “mobility” difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. It’s all up to the individual to succeed or fail. This ideology makes all those not living up to the capitalist standard of “economic success” individually responsible, which further heightens the castration anxieties of poor and working- class subjects. In reality, working- class hopes to move “higher” up the economic hierarchy, either through their efforts or their children’s efforts, have been mainly frustrated.12

The capitalist ideology of “upward mobility” also hides the fact that children of the working classes rarely find themselves in elite institutions of higher education. As Louis Althusser has shown us, the reason for this is

not their incapacity to succeed in such institutions but because they are subtly pushed into education destined for the working classes (such as vocational training), because capital needs a new generation of “fresh blood” for exploitation.13

Those children from the working classes who pursue higher education find themselves often not in the “right kind” of institutions, that is, those that could increase their chances of securing a job and making a decent livelihood. Moreover, in contrast to their bourgeois peers, they cannot rely on their families to pay the expenses of higher education— tuition, housing, etc. and must take out loans to finance their education. And unlike their peers from the bourgeois class, they lack the necessary social connections that would enable them to secure a decent job to pay back their college debts.14

Also, for many subjects of the poor and working classes, the specter of becoming homeless and living on the streets has moved closer to reality or has already become a reality. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more people live on the streets in tents in urban centers in the United States, which underlines the inhumanity of a capitalist system that insists that each individual rely on themself and has done away with most social safety networks. Insofar as becoming homeless is a core expression of finding oneself “economically castrated” in capitalist societies, precarity capitalism has heightened such castration anxieties, particularly for the poor and working classes.

Current economic conditions in precarity capitalism have also heightened economic castration anxieties around subjectivities in a genderspecific way. Capitalist ideologies that propagate the idea of “economic success” interconnect with patriarchal ideologies of masculinity and manhood: They expect men of all classes, and more so than women from the same class, to have “economic success.” Not being able to live up to such standards has heightened particularly males’ castration anxieties around their subjectivities.

Capitalism has heightened the threat of declassing for all subjects of the bourgeois class. However, castration anxieties are more substantial for men from this class because the bourgeois class expects them to be responsible for maintaining or strengthening the privileges and social status associated with it (although more and more, women are also taking on this function). Thus, the threat of declassing heightens castration anxieties particularly of bourgeois men.

[ 20 ] CASTRATION ANXIETY AND CAPITALISM

All subjects from the gendered and raced proletariat experience economic castration anxieties around their subjectivities. However, such anxieties are heightened for proletarian men particularly, as there is still the expectation that as males they are the “breadwinners” (even though more and more women from the poor and working classes are carrying out this function). Not “making it” heightens the castration anxieties of proletarian men.

These class- and gender- specific threats of declassing (or threats against “up- classing” for the poor and working classes) have created subjective forms of suffering in men of all classes. They express themselves in anxieties that one is not a “whole” person or not a “real man”— that is, a castrated subject. Thus, it is no surprise that far-right propaganda techniques effectively win over men across the class spectrum.

Far-right propaganda techniques are effective because they allow men to feel like “real men” again. But again, as I will emphasize throughout this chapter, these techniques tap into subjective forms of suffering (castration anxieties and the threat to manhood) and offer so- called relief without doing anything substantive to eradicate the objective conditions in capitalism and patriarchy that created such forms of suffering in the first place.

For example, such techniques generate in the followers a process that allows them, via the idealized “whole” leader figure, to feel themselves as “real men” again and quell their economic castration anxieties.15 In chapter 4, I show how Trump’s self- styling of himself as a “self-made man” (which hides the class, racial, and gender privileges that made him “economically successful”) allows his male followers to feel via the leader figure the illusion that they are themselves “economically successful” or on the way to become so (if they support Trump).

Castration Anxiety of White Subjects

Some scholars have examined how economic suffering and racial attitudes have contributed to whites supporting the far right today. For example, Wendy Brown suggests that the rise of white nationalist authoritarian political formations results from the socioeconomically aggrieved white working- and middle- class populations and their racial attitudes. For her, such rise is “animated by the mobilized anger of the economically abandoned

and racially resentful, but as contoured by more than three decades of neoliberal assaults on democracy, equality, and society.”16

Similarly, Johanna Fern á ndez details how economic suffering and racial attitudes are interconnected in the rise of the far right today. She points out that while workers of color in the United States have always been exploited, white workers have seen their livelihoods decline significantly too. Such decline created a “social injury” for white workers, which they perceived as a fall from the top of the country’s racial hierarchy. Furthermore, their economic suffering went hand in hand with the growing presence of people of color, gays, lesbians, and women in public, economic, and political life, and “the perceived rising fortunes of these Others flouted their sense of white superiority.”17

White working classes have relied on their “white superiority” to compensate for their economic status— that is, they might not be able to feel good about their economic status but instead could emphasize their “white superiority.” With the advent of precarity capitalism and the contemporary focus on multiculturalism, neither their economic status nor their privileged racial status enables them to feel good about themselves. According to Fern á ndez, the far right has channeled white subjects’ “social injury” by blaming Black Americans and immigrants from Mexico and Latin America for the social (and, I would add, economic) problems.18

While both thinkers (Brown and Fernández) suggest that economic suffering is interconnected with racial attitudes, they do not further explain why whites of all classes believe they should be on the top of the economic hierarchy and why they become “racially resentful” or experience a “social injury” if they are not (an “injury” the far right exploits). Furthermore, both thinkers do not (or only marginally) discuss the psychologically oriented techniques far-right leaders and movements use that allow them to exploit white supremacist attitudes in the context of their economic suffering.

The Peruvian decolonial thinker and sociologist Annibal Quijano helps us understand why whites believe they should be at the top of the economic hierarchy. He explains it as being the result of the legacies of a global model of power he calls the “coloniality of power.”19 This model of power had a specific geopolitical location—it was initially established through the European colonization of the Americas, and from there it expanded through further European colonial projects over the entire world.

The coloniality of power also has a specific rationality—Eurocentrism, which assisted the social classification of the world’s population around the

[ 22 ] CASTRATION ANXIETY AND CAPITALISM

idea of “race.” 20 Through Eurocentric knowledge production that exclusively associated white Europeans with modernity and rationality and dismissed knowledge productions of the colonized as “premodern,” such rationality situated colonized peoples in a natural position of inferiority to white Europeans, which allowed the conquerors to feel naturally superior.

The new global model of power also allowed the assignment of all forms of unpaid labor to the colonized and the assignment of salaried labor to the colonizing whites in Europe and the colonies only. Given their “racial inferiority,” the colonized were not considered worthy of wages and were naturally obliged to work for the profit of the colonizers. The exploitation of natural resources in the colonies and colonized people (enslaved Black people, the indigenous population, and mestizos) allowed the colonizers to produce profitable goods for the world market, which established world capitalism with Europe at the center. 21

The coloniality of power engendered a global raced division of labor, where racialized subjects were relegated to the most degrading, dangerous, and underpaid jobs. This division is still in place worldwide today. Maria Lugones further expands upon Quijano’s theoretical coloniality of power. She shows us that European colonialists not only introduced the hierarchical classification of whites as “naturally” superior to all other races but also the idea that women are “naturally” inferior to men. The colonialists enforced rigid gender and sexual roles, which led to the devaluation and disempowerment of indigenous women and those that did not conform to such roles. 22

While Quijano and Lugones allow us to understand how capitalism and colonialism are intrinsically connected, they did not theorize the connection between colonialism and fascism. However, other thinkers have. For example, George Padmore coined the term “colonial fascism” and explained that settler- colonial racism was the breeding ground for the European fascist mentality. Furthermore, he considered England’s criticism of Nazi Germany hypocritical “when fascism and racial terrorism are flourishing within their own Colonial Empire.” 23

Similarly, Aimé Cé saire explained that European colonial imperialism generated fascism and that Hitler’s crimes were the enactments of “colonialist procedures” on the European continent. These provoked international outrage only because Hitler applied to Europe procedures that until then had been reserved exclusively for colonized subjects in their colonies. 24 More recently, James Whitman argues that the brutal history of

legally sanctioned and codified antiblack racism in the United States may have served as a model for the Nazis’ antisemitism.25 Also Anne Spice points out that expressions of fascism today are nothing but “timeless colonial techniques.” As she puts it, “neofascist and white supremacist movements also attempt to make a deeply hierarchical social order appear to be the natural order of things. This is an old colonial trick, and one that Indigenous people know about.”26

So the feelings of whites in both the U.S. and European contexts that they ought to be on the top of the racial hierarchy are a continuation of colonial- era racial classifications in which whites appear naturally superior and more “deserving” of the best jobs. At the same time, people of color are supposedly “inferior,” which makes them “naturally” fit for the most degrading, dangerous, and underpaid jobs.

Since the United States and Europe have largely failed to work through their violent colonial pasts, such classifications got passed on from one generation to the next, and they continue to circulate in subjects’ unconsciouses. Fascists used such classifications during the National Socialist era, and the far right continues to use them today in their propaganda techniques.

In the context of precarity capitalism, white men (and women) from all classes are threatened with objective conditions of suffering (such as the threat of declassing and the impossibility to “up- class”), which heightens their castration anxieties and desires around their nonwhole subjectivities. Far-right propaganda techniques exploit these anxieties to win their support. The same techniques that allow them to feel better about themselves on a subjective level (although nothing has objectively changed) also permit colonial- era classifications to resurface in their consciousnesses, which the far right redirects toward its targets of hatred. 27

Exploitation and Subjectivity

It is the objective conditions of suffering, in particular exploitation, as one cause of our subjective forms of suffering in precarity capitalism, that engender castration anxieties on the bodily level, not the scapegoat causes that the far right comes up with (immigrants, foreigners, and refugees). Adorno in Aspekte des neuen Rechtsradikalismus points at another precondition

[ 24 ] CASTRATION ANXIETY AND CAPITALISM

Why have so many people responded to the insecurity, exploitation, alienation, and isolation of precarity capitalism by supporting the far right? In this timely book, Claudia Leeb argues that psychoanalytic and feminist critical theory illuminates how economic and psychological factors interact to produce this extreme political shift. Contesting the Far Right examines right-wing recruitment tactics in the United States and Austria, where people discontented with the status quo have turned to far-right parties and movements that further cement capitalism’s adverse effects. At once theoretically rich and politically engaged, this book also offers ways to resist the far right and counter the psychological appeal of its propaganda techniques.

“Claudia Leeb masterfully recuperates early critical theory’s fecund use of Freud to illuminate a hard-right social turn. Drawing as well on feminist and anticolonial insights, she analyzes the white male psyche forged in the crucible of neoliberal precarity. This work is an important inquiry into the psychological drive toward fascism today.”

—WENDY BROWN, INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY

“Contesting the Far Right provides an essential framework for understanding and resisting the resurgence of fascist movements today. Leeb offers a combined approach that involves both psychoanalytic theory and structural analysis of capitalism, racism, and masculinity. This book should be discussed and read by all scholars and researchers seeking to understand the fascist threat today.”

—JOAN BRAUNE, AUTHOR OF UNDERSTANDING AND COUNTERING FASCIST MOVEMENTS: FROM VOID TO HOPE

“How does precarity capitalism redefine identity? How are ideals of success our collective undoing? Drawing on the Frankfurt School, Leeb forcefully analyzes the psychological investments that hold the structures of precarity capitalism in place. With a sober assessment of the United States and Austria, Leeb explores the curious desire for wholeness that attracts many to right-wing politics.”

—NANCY LUXON, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

CLAUDIA LEEB is associate professor of political theory at Washington State University. Her recent books include The Politics of Repressed Guilt: The Tragedy of Austrian Silence (2018) and Power and Feminist Agency in Capitalism: Toward a New Theory of the Political Subject (2017).

NEW DIRECTIONS IN CRITICAL THEORY

Cover design: Milenda Nan Ok Lee

Cover image: Kwangmoozaa / Shutterstock