Unveiling the Mask: A Lacanian Exploration of Incel Ideology and the 'Manosphere'
with Slavoj Zizek, Tim Pool, and 'Fresh&Fit'
Why I’m venturing into the ‘manosphere’: a personal prelude…
Alright, let's venture into the labyrinthine world of incel ideology, or what I’m going to routinely call in this post: the incel alpha bro; it’s really just your run-of-the-mill member of the manosphere. Normally, I steer clear of dissecting this particular cultural phenomenon—it often feels like picking the low-hanging fruit for those of you who consume my content. I mean, let's be real, most of you probably hear rants from these guys and think, "Wow, these guys are living in a fucked up fantasy land.” They are. More on that later.
An example of a rant in question:
This is from Tim Pool’s podcast, where he suggests "high-quality dudes" should start "shaming women" based on their body count so they change their behavior.
I’m sorry to put you through this…but I want you to have context. And these people are getting millions of views while holding these belief structures:
Fresh&Fit
Hmm…
This one struck a nerve in me. So, for reasons even I can’t fully articulate, I’m compelled to delve deeper into this cesspool of an enigma. So brace yourselves; you’re about to get a full dose of my overthinking on the matter.
I’m using these fools as a placeholder for the “manosphere” as a whole. Imagine the inner workings of their mind while reading this…
Let’s get into it.
Insta ‘hoe’ stereotype and a ‘high-value’ construct: a mask that consumes its wearer
For the sake of this post, I find it necessary to begin by addressing the more straightforward counterarguments to these fools and their way of thinking before diving into the complexities that lurk beneath the surface of their ideology.
One straightforward yet deeply flawed concept is that of "high-value" men and women. This notion is not only a social construct but is also deeply ingrained in societal norms and expectations. It frequently relies on superficial criteria such as physical attractiveness, wealth, or social standing, all of which are highly subjective. The major issue here is the reduction of complex human interactions into a list of supposedly quantifiable traits, which, in reality, are anything but quantifiable.
This reductionism is not accidental; it's systemic. As a society, we generate social pressures based on a system that aims to commodify our relationships. By doing so, these relationships, by extension, become mere transactions.
On a side note, while I'm open to discussing what constitutes a high-quality man, I can assure you it's not the insecure individuals found in the clips above, as they are likely still emotionally consumed with hate from a woman in their past (or the lack of women in their past…). Moreover, they probably haven't faced the uncomfortable reality that they're just—to put it kindly: very bad people that most women find repulsive.
Moving on, another stereotype that demands scrutiny is that of the Instagram "hoe," a concept some people seem to have concocted entirely in their minds. The irony here is palpable: these individuals hold strong opinions while doing little to scrutinize their own belief systems. It's as if there's a lack of genuine thought behind their eyes; I’m knocking, and nobody is home; they've donned a mask, and that mask has consumed them.
One glaring example of this "Insta hoe” stereotype is the societal concept of "body count," a term that serves as a testament to the misogyny that persists in certain social circles, particularly the manosphere. In this space, men are often celebrated for high body counts, while women are stigmatized for the same. This double standard is not an isolated phenomenon; it's rooted in long-standing patriarchal norms that have historically sought to control female sexuality.
Having addressed the more overt arguments, it's time to delve into the complexities that lie beneath the surface. One such complexity arises from Jacques Lacan's theory of schizophrenia.
Lacanian Theory: schizophrenia and the unconscious
From: Schizophrenia as a psychosomatic illness: An interdisciplinary approach between Lacanian psychoanalysis and the neurosciences
"According to Lacan's theory of schizophrenia (as well as other delirious forms of psychosis), under certain conditions the signifying function breaks down, thus turning the schizophrenic individual's world into one in which a number of events become enigmatic and signal him or her. The schizophrenic individual tries to deal with these signs that besiege him or her either by means of an interpretative attitude (a stable delusional mood) or by apathy. These two types of responses correspond with the stereotypical (and mood) processes by which the schizophrenic individual attempts to avoid the distress provoked by the enigmatic desire of the Other, while simultaneously corresponding with psychosomatic processes of the brain organ."
Keep this quote/summary in mind.
However, before we proceed, it's crucial to understand Lacan's concept of the "Other," which is deeply rooted in the symbolic order. According to Lacan, the symbolic order is one of the three realms that structure human existence, alongside the imaginary and the real. The "Other" serves as a realm of radical alterity, a realm that mediates intersubjective relationships. It functions as the ultimate point of reference, embodying the laws and structures that govern language, culture, and even our deepest desires, as regulated by the Oedipus complex. In essence, the unconscious is the discourse of this "Other," making it a fundamental part of the symbolic order.
To put it more succinctly, the symbolic is essentially a linguistic dimension that extends from culture. This dimension differs significantly from, say, the natural order—at least in my view. The "Other" has profound implications for a hidden aspect of our psyche—the unconscious—which is itself shaped by external cultural norms.
To borrow the words of Mark Fisher, "There's no 'inside' except as a folding of the 'outside'; the mirror cracks, I am an 'other,' and I always was."
While I digressed a bit, my point isn't to say that incels, 'red-pill' adherents, or members of the 'manosphere' are clinically schizophrenic. Rather, I'm suggesting that, in a Lacanian sense, some of these individuals experience a form of psychosis characterized by a breakdown in the signifying function—the way language and symbols construct meaning for us. This meaning is often derived from what Lacan calls the "Other." When this signifying function collapses, the individual's world turns into a bewildering array of signs and events. These signs seem to indicate something, but the exact message becomes unclear to the individual.
To cope with this disarray, the individual (an incel in this context) constructs a delusional framework or narrative to make sense of these perplexing signs. While this built narrative may be harmful, it offers a semblance of stability and understanding, even if it's detached from external reality.
Additionally, the individual may emotionally and cognitively disengage, essentially retreating from the distressing enigma their world has become. They don the mask because it's familiar, yet they fail to recognize that this mask is causing them harm—by burning them in the fucking face.
Essentially, these behaviors serve as coping mechanisms to alleviate the distress caused by what Lacan describes as the enigmatic desire of the "Other." In the case of incels and the manosphere, this enigmatic desire manifests as the confusing and often contradictory societal norms surrounding masculinity and sexual success. These norms become an unsolvable puzzle, leading many to construct delusional frameworks for understanding.
Rather than grappling with complexity, they opt for an "interpretative attitude," crafting elaborate ideologies like the "Red Pill" to make sense of their experiences. They find themselves ensnared in a web of societal expectations that are both distressing and difficult to meet.
Going Deepest of Deep: Lacan, Zizek, and Harvey Weinstein
Lacan: “Man’s very desire is constituted, he [Hegel] tells us, under the sign of mediation: it is the desire to have one’s desire recognised. Its object is a desire, that of other people, in the sense that man has no object that is constituted for his desire without some mediation. This is clear from his earliest needs, in that, for example, his very food must be prepared; and we find this anew in the whole development of his satisfaction, beginning with the conflict between master and slave, through the entire dialectic of labour” (Ecrits, 182).
I previously discussed how many of these so-called "alpha bro incels" are confounded by the intricate nature of human relationships, leading them to operate within delusional frameworks.
But what drives this disillusionment and delusion?
At the core, their mindset is fueled by a sense of inadequacy, or "lack," which is propelled by an idealized vision of sexual conquest. They find themselves in a perpetual chase for an elusive object they believe will fill their existential void.
How does this manifest in their behavior?
First, they strongly identify with what Lacan refers to as the Symbolic law of the father or the Oedipus complex. Alternatively, this can be contextualized within the framework of late capitalism, which promotes individualism and sexual conquest as ultimate life goals. (This point could use an entire post on its own but I hope this is enough for now.)
At the core, the ‘alpha bro incel’ muddles Lacan's imaginary and symbolic orders. This conflation happens when imaginary relationships and identifications are mistaken for, or absorbed into, symbolic structures. For instance, someone might idealize a romantic partner (which falls under the imaginary order) but overlook the social and linguistic contracts that actually sustain the relationship (which belong to the symbolic order). Similarly, one might cling to a national or cultural identity (imaginary) without acknowledging the laws and social structures that give that identity its meaning (symbolic).
So, these men are products of a society that perpetuates toxic masculinity, commodifies relationships, and reduces human worth to sexual market value. They become fully engulfed in their self-created ideology, yet find themselves unable to partake in the pleasures it promises. As a result, they resort to purchasing products, consuming content, and entering a downward spiral of groupthink by surrounding themselves with other frustrated and lonely individuals.
Basically, to oversimplify, and even move away from the tone of this piece: women do not want to fuck them; they are not fucking women; they blame women for not fucking them; they act like it’s easy to fuck women, but fail to do so; they are bad at fucking women.
Okay, that should summarize what I’ve covered thus far.
To take this point further, consider what Slavoj Zizek once said: "Cinema is the ultimate pervert art. It doesn't give you what you desire—it tells you how to desire." He also noted, "The problem for us is not whether our desires are satisfied or not. The problem is how do we know what we desire." In this context, cinema serves as a metaphor for the imaginary realm that consumes the incel.
Incels aspire to occupy the role of the master, a patriarchal ideal that many men problematically desire. They wish to be the arbiters of sexual capital but find themselves unable to attain or wield such power. This creates a paradox: the very idea of a sexual encounter becomes the "master" of their desire. They are both the slave and the aspirational master, a duality that fuels their frustration and traps them in a self-perpetuating loop.
And they could realize they’re in a loop, but the duality they face has them caught in a cycle, a cycle that has them staring into the void of their own ass.
It's crucial to note that their obsession isn't actually with the act of sex itself—hence why the men of the manosphere are notoriously bad in bed. Rather, their fixation lies in the symbolic aspects of sex, the language surrounding it, and the perceived capital it offers. They are more enamored with the narrative of sexual conquest than with the act of sex itself.
They find comfort in the mask they wear, a performance that keeps them ensnared in a loop. Our society has commodified sex to the extent that dating apps, algorithms, and social norms assign value to one's sexual prowess, turning it into a form of capital. This drives people to view sex as conquest and individuals as objects of desire, stripping away our humanity.
This is where we can draw parallels between figures like Harvey Weinstein and the manosphere. Both are products of an ideology that commodifies sexual relations to the point where they become a form of capital, an expression of perceived power. Individuals like Weinstein are essentially "incels with power," acting as conduits for the violence of this imagined order of sexual capital. The difference is that they have the means to enforce this imagined order, making their actions not just personal pathologies but systemic issues.
The incel phenomenon is not an aberration but a hyper-concentration of societal norms and ideologies. Incels and figures like Weinstein are two sides of the same coin, both symptomatic of a deeper, systemic issue: the commodification of human relations and the intertwining of capital and power in our most intimate spheres. To truly address this, we must confront and dismantle the ideologies that perpetuate such distortions in the first place.
Final deepness: traversing the fantasy and finding sexual non-relation
Zizek: “[T]he final moment of the analysis is defined as 'going through the fantasy [la traversée du fantasme]': not its symbolic interpretation but the experience of the fact that the fantasy-object, by it's fascinating presence, is merely filling out a lack, a void in the Other. There is nothing behind the fantasy; the fantasy is a construction whose function is to hide this void, this 'nothing' - that is, the lack in the Other.” (The Sublime Object of Ideology, 148)
To fully grasp the psyche of the "alpha bro incel," we must explore the concept of "traversing the fantasy." This means acknowledging that their intense focus on sexual and emotional capital serves as a smokescreen, concealing a deeper void or lack. This fantasy—of achieving sexual conquests and being a "high-value" man—is a construct that obscures the existential lack they experience, which is likely influenced by the complex web of societal norms: their experience with women, their experience with men, and their own self-perception.
The ‘alpha bro’ must understand that his identity as a "man" is not solely dependent on these superficial markers of "manhood."
They must also recognize that they're filling this existential void with a simplified and unnuanced understanding of sex and human relationships. The goal should be to move toward a "sexual non-relation," acknowledging that human existence is inherently fraught with lack. This lack shouldn't be viewed as a void to be filled with fantasies and illusions; rather, it's a fundamental aspect of human life that we must collectively learn to navigate.
So, what should be the main takeaway from this exploration?
The issue extends beyond societal norms and capitalist ideologies, although they certainly play a role. The crux of the problem also lies in the fantasy structures that red-pill men create, which obscure the existential lack they feel. To break free from these ideological snares, they must deconstruct these fantasies and confront the existential void they mask. Doing so could pave the way for a more nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between gender, desire, and society.
Stay curious.
Let me know what you think of these ideas in the comments on my substack.
Thank you for your time.
Great article! Quick question-
A writer I follow wrote this:
"I have a couple of friends and acquaintances who are (or were) really into Lacan. They’re all exactly the same: highly-driven highly-charismatic people, alternating between eerily brilliant and totally incomprehensible, and always deeply misanthropic throughout. Teach fits this same mold. Does the personality type attract you to the theory? Does the theory produce the personality type? It’s a weird enough coincidence that it makes me want to learn more.
And: I have a running argument with one of these people. The argument is: I accuse him of becoming a cult leader, he denies it. During a recent spat, he said something like - “okay, I agree that lots of people are fascinated by me / attracted to me / tend to do whatever I want, in a way that doesn’t make sense under the normal rules, and that you couldn’t replicate even if you wanted to. You can judge me for it, or you can admit there’s a hole in your map, something that I understand and you don’t. If you want to understand it too, read Lacan.”"
What do you think might be going on here?
The problem with this article is the problem with all academia; the dude who wrote it is simply uninformed, about both zizek philosophy and red pill stuff. The problem is the lack of information.