What do you think?
Rate this book
Enjoyment Right & Left
While understanding the psychological structure of pleasure and desire might seem to be unrelated to understanding our current political crisis, Todd McGowan argues that the intrinsically excessive nature of what Lacan would call jouissance, what McGowan calls Enjoyment, is critically important to understand as we try to overcome the contradictions and conflicts that arise in a world that appears split between right and left. The discursive analysis of ideology fails to capture the mode of enjoyment an ideology mobilizes. In his new path-breaking book, Todd McGowan elaborates on the formal structure of enjoyment which distinguishes the Left from the Right. The enjoyment mobilized by the Left is not sustained by envy and resentment. It leaves behind the motifs of the theft of enjoyment that permeates racism and sexism. Enjoyment Right and Left deserves to become an instant classic - it cuts into the very heart of what is wrong in today's fundamentalism and its apparent opposite, permissive liberalism. - Slavoj Žižek, author of Less Than Nothing
Paperback
Published October 31, 2022
10 people are currently reading
281 people want to read
About the author
Todd McGowan
50 books214 followersTodd McGowan is Associate Professor of Film at the University of Vermont, US. He is the author of The Fictional Christopher Nolan (2012), Out of Time: Desire in Atemporal Cinema (2011), The Impossible David Lynch (2007), The Real Gaze: Film Theory After Lacan (2007), and other books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
July 27, 2023
Todd McGowan writes with clarity about subjects that defy easy explanation. Before this book, I was unaware that the Lacanian term "Jouissance" translated (although imprecisely) to the english word "enjoyment".There's still some work to be done defining the concept, I like my friend's definition: He says that Jouissance is the feeling you get after eating a whole bag of fun-sized snickers in a single sitting - a kind of comatose and pleasurable stupor, then. But even that doesn't quite do it.
McGowan's main aim with this book is to define the role Jouissance (enjoyment) plays in contemporary politics. His two big takes are that conservatives indulge in enjoyment adversarially, thus excluding certain groups from the scope of the movement (today that would be transgender people, gay people, or immigrants), while leftist causes insist on a Hegelian universalism, thus deriving their enjoyment from the very sense of belonging and community that forms the bedrock of the ideology.
McGowan's main aim with this book is to define the role Jouissance (enjoyment) plays in contemporary politics. His two big takes are that conservatives indulge in enjoyment adversarially, thus excluding certain groups from the scope of the movement (today that would be transgender people, gay people, or immigrants), while leftist causes insist on a Hegelian universalism, thus deriving their enjoyment from the very sense of belonging and community that forms the bedrock of the ideology.
July 2, 2023
literally such a slay oh my god i need to email this man as soon as possible literally his mind
February 9, 2023
Far too often, when people explore the motivations for political action, they assume power drives the decision-making process. That is to say, when people seek to assert themselves in political struggles, they do so to accumulate power. This is why Donald Trump is such a confounding figure for his political opponents. He acts and speaks in ways that hinder the accumulation of power. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, President Trump refused to wear a mask (he missed a real chance to market and sell MAGA masks), often deemphasized the virus's severity, and attacked medical professionals within his administration who disagreed with him. Therefore, unlike many world leaders who "trusted the science" and experienced massive approval from their constituents, Trump lost the 2020 election in spectacular fashion. But in doing so, he sustained enjoyment for both himself and his supporters.
This Trump example codifies an important principle about politics and power: enjoyment, not power, motivates political struggles. Todd McGowan's book Enjoyment Right & Left firmly plants itself on the side of enjoyment as the motivating force for political struggle. The book's opening sentence is suggestive here: "Political struggles take place to determine what form of enjoyment will predominate" (1). On the same page, McGowan clarifies what he means when he writes "enjoyment" since enjoyment means something quite specific when inflected with psychoanalysis: "Enjoyment is not just pleasure but the experience that goes beyond pleasure—an experience of excess. There is always too much enjoyment, never just enough" (1). Enjoyment, therefore, is a contradictory experience. We seek enjoyment unconsciously but fail to realize how "ruinous" and "damaging" enjoyment is. This leads McGowan to conclude that "one must suffer one's enjoyment" (3).
The mingling of suffering and pleasure is as key to psychoanalysis as it is to enjoyment. This is because we cannot exercise the amount of control and domination over our actions as we presume. The unconscious acts through us to sabotage what we suspect is logical and reasonable, and, as counter-intuitive as it seems, this is the site of enjoyment.
This understanding of enjoyment leads McGowan to theorize the differences between Right and Left forms of enjoyment. Both operate by mobilizing excess, but they do so differently. For the Right, enjoyment resides in the exclusion and ostracization of an "other." Using Donald Trump as an example of Right enjoyment, McGowan writes, "The enjoyment that Trump promised and proffered required an enemy" (7). In other parts of Enjoyment Right & Left, McGowan defines this "enemy" as someone or a group of people who occupy a position of "nonbelonging" (5). McGowan means that for the Right to enjoy, a figure of nonbelonging must exist, and through the existence of this nonbelonging figure, the Right fits or belongs. This leads McGowan to conclude that the Right's enjoyment is "fundamentally parasitic" (6).
By contrast, the Left or Left enjoyment is universal. But McGowan is clear that universality is not positive, instead, it is negative. That is to say, each individual's singular nonbelonging is the universal. Unlike the Right's enjoyment, the Left knows that no one belongs. The figure of exception (i.e., the non-lacking figure) is a fantasy. In short, lack (i.e., nonbelonging) is the one thing we all share.
Therefore, McGowan argues, "All enjoyment emerges out of nonbelonging" (15). The most important question to consider is what someone does with this nonbelonging. The Right, like the Left, recognizes nonbelonging, but the Right fails to see itself as subject to nonbelonging. By contrast, the Left embraces nonbelonging's emancipatory potential by recognizing nonbelonging in everyone. The Right always assumes exclusion from nonbelonging exists; the Left does not. As McGowan suggests, "Rather than continuing to emphasize the distinction between those who belong and those who don't, the emancipatory project emphasizes that there is no belonging, that all belonging is an illusion sustained only through the contrast with nonbelonging" (21).
I would argue we see a perfect example of both Right and Left enjoyment in the television show Arrested Development. Michael Bluth, the show's main character, moves from Right enjoyment in the first four seasons to Left enjoyment in the final season. Throughout the show's first four seasons, Michael defines himself in opposition to his dysfunctional family. For example, he often threatens to leave the family and "move to Arizona." One might argue his decision in the show's pilot episode to remain in California to save his family is an example of Left enjoyment, but Michael does this for parasitic reasons. He defines his family as figures of nonbelonging so he can deconfigure himself as a figure of exception.
One of the better examples of this dynamic occurs in the pilot episode. Michael informs his family that the Bluth family patriarch (George Sr.) is in jail for a variety of crimes ranging from money laundering to "light treason." His family does not react to this revelation. But what he says next clarifies how Michael sees himself as a figure of exception (i.e., a non-lacking figure):
Michael: Also, the attorney said that they're going to have to put a halt on the company's expense account.
All: shocked.
Michael: Interesting. I would've expected that after "They're keeping Dad in jail."
His family members audibly groan once they learn the news about the company's expense account, suggesting they cannot continue to spend company money with impunity. Yet, they do not react to the news regarding George Sr.'s impending prison sentence.
Michael's reaction is also significant. Since Michael understands the severity of his family's legal and financial situation, he exists in stark contrast to his family. Yet, without his family's misdeeds, Michael's status as a figure of exception, a figure of belonging, would be impossible. In the show's first four seasons, Michael must frame his family in these terms; otherwise, his identity (i.e., his form of enjoyment) fails to materialize.
But all of this changes near the end of Season 5. In a silly but dramatic moment, Michael confesses to killing Lucille Austero (a plot point that animates most of Seasons 4 and 5). Of course, Michael did not murder Lucille Austero, but his willingness to admit guilt matters. Instead of imagining that a family member committed murder, Michael assumes responsibility. This means Michael sees and accepts himself as a "Bluth," which, for a show like Arrested Development, means he rejects his status as a figure of belonging. In many ways, in a show like Arrested Development, "Bluth" is synonymous with non-belonging. In short, Michael enjoys his nonbelonging.
For McGowan, we must reckon with enjoyment, not power, to understand political motivations. Importantly, we must identify the form enjoyment takes because form dictates content. This is far from an easy path. It requires an embrace of negativity. It refuses any positive, pseudo-Left political configurations, or, as McGowan writes, "the space of beloning is constitutively empty" (45). I will close by citing McGowan one last time. Here, he emphasizes the essential connection between enjoyment and failure: "No conquest is ever enough, not because we strive for infinite power but because enjoyment lies at the moment when the conquest fails" (68).
This Trump example codifies an important principle about politics and power: enjoyment, not power, motivates political struggles. Todd McGowan's book Enjoyment Right & Left firmly plants itself on the side of enjoyment as the motivating force for political struggle. The book's opening sentence is suggestive here: "Political struggles take place to determine what form of enjoyment will predominate" (1). On the same page, McGowan clarifies what he means when he writes "enjoyment" since enjoyment means something quite specific when inflected with psychoanalysis: "Enjoyment is not just pleasure but the experience that goes beyond pleasure—an experience of excess. There is always too much enjoyment, never just enough" (1). Enjoyment, therefore, is a contradictory experience. We seek enjoyment unconsciously but fail to realize how "ruinous" and "damaging" enjoyment is. This leads McGowan to conclude that "one must suffer one's enjoyment" (3).
The mingling of suffering and pleasure is as key to psychoanalysis as it is to enjoyment. This is because we cannot exercise the amount of control and domination over our actions as we presume. The unconscious acts through us to sabotage what we suspect is logical and reasonable, and, as counter-intuitive as it seems, this is the site of enjoyment.
This understanding of enjoyment leads McGowan to theorize the differences between Right and Left forms of enjoyment. Both operate by mobilizing excess, but they do so differently. For the Right, enjoyment resides in the exclusion and ostracization of an "other." Using Donald Trump as an example of Right enjoyment, McGowan writes, "The enjoyment that Trump promised and proffered required an enemy" (7). In other parts of Enjoyment Right & Left, McGowan defines this "enemy" as someone or a group of people who occupy a position of "nonbelonging" (5). McGowan means that for the Right to enjoy, a figure of nonbelonging must exist, and through the existence of this nonbelonging figure, the Right fits or belongs. This leads McGowan to conclude that the Right's enjoyment is "fundamentally parasitic" (6).
By contrast, the Left or Left enjoyment is universal. But McGowan is clear that universality is not positive, instead, it is negative. That is to say, each individual's singular nonbelonging is the universal. Unlike the Right's enjoyment, the Left knows that no one belongs. The figure of exception (i.e., the non-lacking figure) is a fantasy. In short, lack (i.e., nonbelonging) is the one thing we all share.
Therefore, McGowan argues, "All enjoyment emerges out of nonbelonging" (15). The most important question to consider is what someone does with this nonbelonging. The Right, like the Left, recognizes nonbelonging, but the Right fails to see itself as subject to nonbelonging. By contrast, the Left embraces nonbelonging's emancipatory potential by recognizing nonbelonging in everyone. The Right always assumes exclusion from nonbelonging exists; the Left does not. As McGowan suggests, "Rather than continuing to emphasize the distinction between those who belong and those who don't, the emancipatory project emphasizes that there is no belonging, that all belonging is an illusion sustained only through the contrast with nonbelonging" (21).
I would argue we see a perfect example of both Right and Left enjoyment in the television show Arrested Development. Michael Bluth, the show's main character, moves from Right enjoyment in the first four seasons to Left enjoyment in the final season. Throughout the show's first four seasons, Michael defines himself in opposition to his dysfunctional family. For example, he often threatens to leave the family and "move to Arizona." One might argue his decision in the show's pilot episode to remain in California to save his family is an example of Left enjoyment, but Michael does this for parasitic reasons. He defines his family as figures of nonbelonging so he can deconfigure himself as a figure of exception.
One of the better examples of this dynamic occurs in the pilot episode. Michael informs his family that the Bluth family patriarch (George Sr.) is in jail for a variety of crimes ranging from money laundering to "light treason." His family does not react to this revelation. But what he says next clarifies how Michael sees himself as a figure of exception (i.e., a non-lacking figure):
Michael: Also, the attorney said that they're going to have to put a halt on the company's expense account.
All: shocked.
Michael: Interesting. I would've expected that after "They're keeping Dad in jail."
His family members audibly groan once they learn the news about the company's expense account, suggesting they cannot continue to spend company money with impunity. Yet, they do not react to the news regarding George Sr.'s impending prison sentence.
Michael's reaction is also significant. Since Michael understands the severity of his family's legal and financial situation, he exists in stark contrast to his family. Yet, without his family's misdeeds, Michael's status as a figure of exception, a figure of belonging, would be impossible. In the show's first four seasons, Michael must frame his family in these terms; otherwise, his identity (i.e., his form of enjoyment) fails to materialize.
But all of this changes near the end of Season 5. In a silly but dramatic moment, Michael confesses to killing Lucille Austero (a plot point that animates most of Seasons 4 and 5). Of course, Michael did not murder Lucille Austero, but his willingness to admit guilt matters. Instead of imagining that a family member committed murder, Michael assumes responsibility. This means Michael sees and accepts himself as a "Bluth," which, for a show like Arrested Development, means he rejects his status as a figure of belonging. In many ways, in a show like Arrested Development, "Bluth" is synonymous with non-belonging. In short, Michael enjoys his nonbelonging.
For McGowan, we must reckon with enjoyment, not power, to understand political motivations. Importantly, we must identify the form enjoyment takes because form dictates content. This is far from an easy path. It requires an embrace of negativity. It refuses any positive, pseudo-Left political configurations, or, as McGowan writes, "the space of beloning is constitutively empty" (45). I will close by citing McGowan one last time. Here, he emphasizes the essential connection between enjoyment and failure: "No conquest is ever enough, not because we strive for infinite power but because enjoyment lies at the moment when the conquest fails" (68).
July 10, 2024
I got the book because I like McGowan’s podcast. He’s a Slavoj Zizek disciple and a film theorist. Good talker. I’m also not a leftist so I thought this book might help make me a little more politically informed.
I like the clarity and simplicity of McGowan’s style. He’s a follower of notoriously difficult writers like Hegel and Lacan, but he isn’t into jargon. Instead, he’s clearly aiming to popularize and make abstract ideas politically actionable. He never loses his thread or indulges in showy digressions. He uses abundant concrete examples and illustrations. It’s a concise, practical, almost breezy read—not a way you’d describe a lot of works based on continental philosophy and critical theory. So that was good.
If I understand him, McGowan’s fundamental point is that all people desire the thrill and fun of not fitting into social structures. That “non-belonging” adds spice to life. It’s not “pleasurable” to not belong. Actually the opposite. But (as Freud noted) we don’t just desire pleasure. A life of pure pleasure would be numbing and bland. “Enjoyment” as McGowan uses it is in fact the deferral of pleasure that makes ultimate gratification more intense. Social non-belonging, he says, is the supreme source of this thrilling deferral we long for. People respond to their drive for enjoyment in two ways: either they enjoy their own non-belonging or they enjoy that of others. Respectively, these responses create the left and the right. Rightist enjoyment is unhealthy, because the right-winger fools himself into believing he wants to belong and DOES belong. But really, the fun part of being on the right is seeing other people (minorities, political enemies, etc.) not fitting into the structure. Conservatism needs an enemy in order to have fun. Leftist emancipation, on the other hand, relies on the recognition that nobody fully fits in. The leftist enjoys her own non-belonging, rather than someone else’s.
Lots of interesting political ramifications from this. McGowan’s love of jokes and movies produces quirky insights. The leftist leader, for instance, should look something like the bumbling dad in the 80s Christmas movie. There’s also plenty of historical analysis, from the French Revolution to the New Deal to Trump vs. Biden. Both informative and entertaining.
I don’t know that McGowan’s theory holds together, though, because I don’t think his concept of enjoyment is persuasive enough. The term “enjoyment” translates the French “jouissance” as used by Lacan. But in colloquial English, it basically means the same as “pleasure,” which, in psychoanalytic parlance, is supposed to be its opposite. I don’t think McGowan really maintains this distinction, and it leads to some weak analysis. Constantly in off-hand ways he compares political enjoyment to activities that are clearly not “jouissance” but mere pleasure. Eating an ice cream cone, laughing at a joke, etc. Those aren’t thrilling deferrals, they’re fulfillments. At one point, McGowan says the medieval Catholic Church taught a deferral of enjoyment in this life for the sake of enjoyment in the afterlife. How can that be if enjoyment is already a deferral? If he means pleasure, wouldn’t that mean the strictures of Catholicism are in fact enjoyable in this life?
As a result, it often feels like he shoe-horns enjoyment in. When discussing the Swedes’ policy of harboring Jews during WWII, he repeatedly refers to their “enjoyment,” but it’s not clear how it applies. I’m left feeling as if an interesting coherent theory is in play, but its tether to historical reality is less strong than the author thinks.
Overall, then, an enjoyable read, but not altogether gratifying.
I like the clarity and simplicity of McGowan’s style. He’s a follower of notoriously difficult writers like Hegel and Lacan, but he isn’t into jargon. Instead, he’s clearly aiming to popularize and make abstract ideas politically actionable. He never loses his thread or indulges in showy digressions. He uses abundant concrete examples and illustrations. It’s a concise, practical, almost breezy read—not a way you’d describe a lot of works based on continental philosophy and critical theory. So that was good.
If I understand him, McGowan’s fundamental point is that all people desire the thrill and fun of not fitting into social structures. That “non-belonging” adds spice to life. It’s not “pleasurable” to not belong. Actually the opposite. But (as Freud noted) we don’t just desire pleasure. A life of pure pleasure would be numbing and bland. “Enjoyment” as McGowan uses it is in fact the deferral of pleasure that makes ultimate gratification more intense. Social non-belonging, he says, is the supreme source of this thrilling deferral we long for. People respond to their drive for enjoyment in two ways: either they enjoy their own non-belonging or they enjoy that of others. Respectively, these responses create the left and the right. Rightist enjoyment is unhealthy, because the right-winger fools himself into believing he wants to belong and DOES belong. But really, the fun part of being on the right is seeing other people (minorities, political enemies, etc.) not fitting into the structure. Conservatism needs an enemy in order to have fun. Leftist emancipation, on the other hand, relies on the recognition that nobody fully fits in. The leftist enjoys her own non-belonging, rather than someone else’s.
Lots of interesting political ramifications from this. McGowan’s love of jokes and movies produces quirky insights. The leftist leader, for instance, should look something like the bumbling dad in the 80s Christmas movie. There’s also plenty of historical analysis, from the French Revolution to the New Deal to Trump vs. Biden. Both informative and entertaining.
I don’t know that McGowan’s theory holds together, though, because I don’t think his concept of enjoyment is persuasive enough. The term “enjoyment” translates the French “jouissance” as used by Lacan. But in colloquial English, it basically means the same as “pleasure,” which, in psychoanalytic parlance, is supposed to be its opposite. I don’t think McGowan really maintains this distinction, and it leads to some weak analysis. Constantly in off-hand ways he compares political enjoyment to activities that are clearly not “jouissance” but mere pleasure. Eating an ice cream cone, laughing at a joke, etc. Those aren’t thrilling deferrals, they’re fulfillments. At one point, McGowan says the medieval Catholic Church taught a deferral of enjoyment in this life for the sake of enjoyment in the afterlife. How can that be if enjoyment is already a deferral? If he means pleasure, wouldn’t that mean the strictures of Catholicism are in fact enjoyable in this life?
As a result, it often feels like he shoe-horns enjoyment in. When discussing the Swedes’ policy of harboring Jews during WWII, he repeatedly refers to their “enjoyment,” but it’s not clear how it applies. I’m left feeling as if an interesting coherent theory is in play, but its tether to historical reality is less strong than the author thinks.
Overall, then, an enjoyable read, but not altogether gratifying.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 29, 2022
Este libro trata sobre el goce (termino del psicoanálisis) como un factor político, el cual se diferencia del placer. El goce es el problema que nos damos a nosotros mismos, implica un tipo de sacrificio, la búsqueda de un objeto ausente y se construye en el inconsciente. A diferencia del placer, que es inmediata la satisfacción, el goce se puede decir que son los problemas que nos generamos para lograr el placer.
En el libro se explica como el goce es movilizado por tanto por la derecha como por la izquierda de distintas maneras. La derecha o conservador promueve la movilización del goce alrededor de un enemigo, mientras el goce de izquierda busca que sea emancipatorio y universalista, al movilizar la no-pertenencia. Del mismo modo señala que la derecha contemporánea ha sabido cómo movilizar de mejor manera el goce, mientras la izquierda ha fallado una y otra vez. Incluso, ante las fallas y el triunfo de la derecha en movilizar el goce, la izquerda se ve orillada a tomar la figura del padre, de la policía, por lo que se entra en el juego de lo políticamente correcto o de la "cultura de la cancelación".
Por ello, propone una nueva manera de construir proyectos de Izquierda basada en la no-pertenencia. La explicación a detalle se desenvuelve a lo largo de ocho capítulos, escritos de manera accesible, y el cada uno de ellos va tocando distintos ejemplos políticos de distinta índole para explicar el goce: Trump, Black Lives Matter, la revolución de Hatí, la revolución francesa, Trotsky, el amor, los deportes y hasta las películas navideñas.
Al respecto en la presentación que realiza Žižek del mismo libro, es bastante ilustrativa sobre la relevancia de este libro:
"El análisis discursivo de la ideología no logra captar el modo de disfrute que moviliza una ideología. En su nuevo libro innovador, Todd McGowan elabora la estructura formal del goce que distingue a la izquierda de la derecha. El goce movilizado por la izquierda no se sustenta en la envidia y el rencor, deja atrás los motivos del robo del goce que impregna al racismo y al sexismo. Enjoyment Right & Left merece convertirse en un clásico instantáneo: llega al corazón mismo de lo que está mal en el fundamentalismo actual y su aparente opuesto, el liberalismo permisivo."
El autor, McGowan, puede considerarse como un filósofo de las mismas ideas de Slavoj Žižek, por lo que varios de sus argumentos lo recuperan, pero con una escritura más enfocada a la difusión y el entendimiento general. A diferencia de Žižek que suele tener un tipo de escritura y argumentación mucho más técnica.
Altamente recomendable para los intereses en el análisis del discurso ideológico, en la filosofía y en la construcción de políticas de izquierda.
En el libro se explica como el goce es movilizado por tanto por la derecha como por la izquierda de distintas maneras. La derecha o conservador promueve la movilización del goce alrededor de un enemigo, mientras el goce de izquierda busca que sea emancipatorio y universalista, al movilizar la no-pertenencia. Del mismo modo señala que la derecha contemporánea ha sabido cómo movilizar de mejor manera el goce, mientras la izquierda ha fallado una y otra vez. Incluso, ante las fallas y el triunfo de la derecha en movilizar el goce, la izquerda se ve orillada a tomar la figura del padre, de la policía, por lo que se entra en el juego de lo políticamente correcto o de la "cultura de la cancelación".
Por ello, propone una nueva manera de construir proyectos de Izquierda basada en la no-pertenencia. La explicación a detalle se desenvuelve a lo largo de ocho capítulos, escritos de manera accesible, y el cada uno de ellos va tocando distintos ejemplos políticos de distinta índole para explicar el goce: Trump, Black Lives Matter, la revolución de Hatí, la revolución francesa, Trotsky, el amor, los deportes y hasta las películas navideñas.
Al respecto en la presentación que realiza Žižek del mismo libro, es bastante ilustrativa sobre la relevancia de este libro:
"El análisis discursivo de la ideología no logra captar el modo de disfrute que moviliza una ideología. En su nuevo libro innovador, Todd McGowan elabora la estructura formal del goce que distingue a la izquierda de la derecha. El goce movilizado por la izquierda no se sustenta en la envidia y el rencor, deja atrás los motivos del robo del goce que impregna al racismo y al sexismo. Enjoyment Right & Left merece convertirse en un clásico instantáneo: llega al corazón mismo de lo que está mal en el fundamentalismo actual y su aparente opuesto, el liberalismo permisivo."
El autor, McGowan, puede considerarse como un filósofo de las mismas ideas de Slavoj Žižek, por lo que varios de sus argumentos lo recuperan, pero con una escritura más enfocada a la difusión y el entendimiento general. A diferencia de Žižek que suele tener un tipo de escritura y argumentación mucho más técnica.
Altamente recomendable para los intereses en el análisis del discurso ideológico, en la filosofía y en la construcción de políticas de izquierda.
June 19, 2023
I'm uncertain about certain aspects of the metaphysics of enjoyment & pleasure posited in this book, but overall, I think it offers a novel look at politics, and I believe that I generally accept its conclusion. Instead of merely analyzing distinctions in enjoyment along typical right-left lines, it establishes a definition of what it means to be left or right irrespective of nominal commitments—this is a feature, not a bug.
April 26, 2024
Clear, concise and dense. Feels like a distillation of many of McGowan's ideas espoused on his YouTube channel and in conversation with Ryan Engely on their podcast (Why Theory). McGowan proves himself on the side of emancipation in writing a book on Lacanian concepts that everyone would be capable of understanding.
August 27, 2025
Excellent read. McGowan, as always, does a great job of explaining the concepts - focusing on the differences between belonging and nonbelonging and their relationship to enjoyment. McGowan offers lots of great examples to explain how the right and left organize enjoyment and the important role of contradiction. I love the chapter on Christmas movies and the last chapter on Heathers.
May 15, 2023
The idea for this book is extremely compelling and brilliant. I was hoping it would get developed a bit further. Another stupid quibble -- I don't like the cover art. Four stars.
January 6, 2024
This book was very dense yet somewhat repetitive at the same. However the topic was very interesting and a completely unique take on how politics is perceived in modern society, at least to me.
October 1, 2025
It's impossible to understand American politics today or ever with a grasp of the sheer power of enjoyment to organize society.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews