The Allure of Far-Right Desire and Identity

Be aware of the consistency and confirmation bias

The magnetic pull of group identity, entwined with the far-right’s ideological signifiers, can be read as an articulation of the subject’s desire to fill an impossible lack—a void and in doing so has become a phenomenon hard to ignore. Millions of individuals, many reeling under conditions of disadvantage, find themselves drawn to right-wing causes that at first glance appear antithetical to their own well-being. This enigmatic alignment is not merely a rational calculation; it is an enactment of a deep-seated drive—a jouissance that disrupts any semblance of a stable, unified self. One does not need the insight of a psychoanalyst or the expertise of a behavioural communications specialist to perceive the layers of deception, hypocrisy, and sheer falsehoods woven into the rhetoric and actions of figures like Trump and Farage. To discern the operation of the Symbolic order at play here: the deceptive rhetoric and performative hypocrisy serve as signifiers that the subject adores, despite an inherent recognition of the fundamental split within their identities. Their condescending tone and pretentious manner, underscored by a stark contrast in wealth and privilege when compared to the very people they claim to champion, are displayed with an unashamed boldness. Even when these traits are hidden behind a façade of policies and carefully crafted speeches, their true nature remains unmistakable. So, why is it that so many continue to rally behind movements such as MAGA and Brexit, precisely when the structural benefits of these alliances work so clearly against their interests?

To begin with, it is crucial to recognize that both MAGA and Brexit have managed to forge potent brand identities—an achievement their opponents have notably failed to replicate. Against the backdrop of socio-political disarray, these populist slogans—“Make America Great Again” or the call for Brexit—function as a return to an imagined, unblemished past where the subject once believed it had attained completeness. Invoking a nostalgic yearning for an idealized past—a past where prosperity and privilege were supposedly within grasp, tapping into the quintessential American dream of recapturing lost glory. This nostalgic yearning is not a mere evocation of historical prosperity, but a desperate attempt to reclaim the lost objet petit a, the object-cause of desire that continually slips away. It is through such symbolic reclamations that both movements forge potent brand identities—bindings that resonate where the oppositional left has faltered, unable to evoke the same primordial fantasies that animate the collective Other.

In America, the left has long struggled to shape a brand that resonates with the masses, while in the United Kingdom, the Remain campaign lacked the spark necessary to ignite public passion. The slogans associated with MAGA and Brexit operate as effective rallying cries: “Make America Great Again” invokes a nostalgic yearning for an idealized past—a past where prosperity and privilege were supposedly within grasp, tapping into the quintessential American dream. Similarly, Brexit conjures an image of Britain's former magnificence, distilled into a simple message about extricating the nation from the European Union—a union many blamed for national woes, even as it delivered tangible benefits. The Brexit campaign further harnessed the power of initiatives like Vote Leave and influential figures such as Cummings, all of which produced succinct, memorable slogans. Both political movements also deployed sophisticated tools like data science, behavioral economics, and advanced persuasion strategies—a topic that we will explore in greater detail later.

A compelling brand identity on its own does not suffice to explain the almost fervent loyalty observed among the supporters of these ideologies. The passion seen among these advocates surpasses standard brand loyalty. Yet, the fervor with which these signifiers are embraced surpasses simple logical reason. In a Lacanian frame, this is the moment where the unconscious identification with the big Other is at its most palpable; public avowals of loyalty, even to those who flagrantly flout societal norms or moral codes, serve to solidify and reify the fragmented ego. Trump’s notorious assertions—brash examples of acting with impunity—are met with an almost compulsive affirmation by his adherents. Their identification with a figure who epitomizes a defiant negation of the mainstream symbolizes an unconscious attempt to reconfigure their own fractured subjectivity, despite the inherent contradictions that this alignment entails. Typically, brands that blatantly breach widely-accepted moral standards must invest heavily in repairing reputations and managing damage control to survive as they themselves become subjects tackling the Big Other. In contrast, Trump seems to sidestep these challenges altogether. His infamous claim—that he could perform an outrageous act, such as shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, without facing any consequences—was met with an almost unthinking acceptance by his followers. The intense fervor he stokes among his base, which includes right-wing Christians (a term that might seem absurdly misplaced in a rational society), the grassroots MAGA community, and even fringe groups like QAnon, defies conventional understandings of brand loyalty.

This phenomenon prompts a deeper inquiry: what is its foundation? Is there a darker, more insidious force at work—a presence that suggests the world, and its people, might harbor more hatred and bigotry than the left had originally envisaged? And if that is so, what strategies could we possibly adopt to counteract it? Does this even hint at a future where hope is nearly beyond recovery? This raises a crucial question: what latent structure fuels such unwavering allegiance? Might there be this underlying séance of hatred and division, a specter of the Real that haunts the social fabric more profoundly than previously supposed? And if so, what avenues remain for dismantling such deeply entrenched fantasies of identity? Could it be that hope itself is consigned to the margins, rendered almost inaccessible by the relentless repetition of these ideological enactments?

A significant element to consider is the modern capability to profile, target, and segment audiences with remarkable precision that speaks to the ultimate determination of where desire lies. Today's technologies allow messages to be delivered directly to the most receptive audience exactly when they are most likely to listen, through methods like programmatic advertising and real-time bidding. This capability should not be underestimated. However, simply bombarding people with a message is not enough. The message must strike a chord, embed itself in the psyche, in an act of symptomatology: they diagnose and intervene at the precise moment when the subject’s unconscious desire is most vulnerable to rearticulation. and ultimately drive individuals to act or intentionally not act—achieving very specific outcomes. However, the deployment of such refined techniques is insufficient unless the message deeply resonates with the hidden desires and neurotic structures inherent within its audience. Even with these refined and subtle tactics, one still wonders why individuals from minority groups—many of whom have suffered verbal or even physical assaults from such ideologies—would turn around and support a figure like Trump with such unwavering loyalty.

In the realm of customer experience marketing, a key ingredient for success lies in the ability to create a social identity intertwined with a brand. The intertwining of a brand with the self mirrors the Lacanian process of identification that commences in the mirror stage. It goes far beyond merely sporting a logo or driving a particular car to signal a status; it is an all-encompassing process of melding a brand into one’s self-conception. For instance, people don’t simply choose Starbucks for its coffee or inviting ambience; instead, the concept of Starbucks becomes an integral part of their identity, elevating everyday routines to sources of deeper, personal meaning. The experience is not dictated solely by immediate sensory pleasure but by the symbolic investment that integrates the brand into one’s own fragmented narrative. Political movements, in their concerted efforts, similarly mold such collective identities. Beyond superficial slogans, they invite their adherents to inhabit an ultimate fantasy—a semblance of wholeness that is meticulously manufactured, even if it stands in stark contradiction to objective interests.

Both behavioural economics and the science of persuasion reveal that when we construct social identities around our allegiances, the emotional impact can be overwhelming—often eclipsing rational thought. Even someone who starts with liberal viewpoints can unexpectedly find themselves gravitating towards ideologies or groups that defy their own best interests, often before they even become consciously aware of the shift.

Behavioural economics and the science of persuasion, when viewed through a Lacanian lens, reveal that the construction of identity is draped in layers of fantasy that often obscure rational critique. The superego of the ideological subject compels a consistency in belief—a commitment that solidifies over time, turning individual proclivities into seemingly inviolable doctrines. Just as Cialdini’s observations on prisoners of war imply a betrayal of one’s initial loyalties, so too does the subject’s clinging to public declarations of belief become a desperate, unconscious commemoration of the lost Other.

In the 1980s, Dr. Robert B. Cialdini published a seminal book titled Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, which delved into the perplexing behavior of soldiers taken as prisoners of war. In his observations, these soldiers not only aligned themselves with their captors, but in some cases, even enthusiastically proclaimed their loyalty to them. Were these individuals treacherous, or were they simply the victims of systematic brainwashing? And why is it that some of these soldiers, even upon their return home, continued to extol the virtues of the system they were once held captive by—so much so that it seemed to overshadow their original allegiance?

This behaviour can be understood through the lens of commitment bias, also known as consistency bias—the powerful psychological need to remain true to the public commitments we have made. Research has consistently demonstrated that once we declare our loyalty to a particular cause, that commitment becomes an inseparable part of our identity. As a result, our minds are wired to filter out any evidence that conflicts with our chosen narrative, focusing solely on information that reinforces our beliefs. This is why, even when confronted with overwhelming counter-evidence, many individuals continue to deny well-established facts. In many ways, this bias can be exceedingly beneficial when applied to personal goals such as losing weight or getting fit—public declarations often fortify one’s determination. However, it is equally effective in converting individuals to a particular ideology, cause, or even an isolating cult. Numerous small commitments, made over time, can aggregate to form such a fundamental aspect of a person’s identity that they seem almost unrecognizable to those who once knew them.

This dynamic, understood as a manifestation of commitment bias or consistency bias, is the epitome of the symbolic castration that ultimately defines the subject’s position in the world—even when confronted with overwhelming disconfirming evidence. Every small, incremental affirmation of loyalty to a political cause contributes to a layered sense of identity, one that becomes impervious to counter-arguments and incapable of recognizing the dissonance between the fantasy and the Real.

Understanding these underpinnings is essential—not merely to shield ourselves from manipulative persuasion techniques, but also to comprehend how so many individuals find themselves ensnared within their ideological echo chambers. This understanding beckons us to introspect: which facets of our lives and worldviews are vulnerable to these traps of consistency, and how might we reexamine them to maintain a balanced and truthful perspective?

To truly comprehend the labyrinthine mechanisms by which individuals become ensnared in ideological echo chambers, we must acknowledge how our most vulnerable aspects are exploited by the persuasive power of such symbols. This understanding is imperative not only to defend against manipulative persuasion strategies but also to deconstruct the very signifiers that dictate our social existence—leading us back, perhaps, to a recognition of truth that dares to challenge the omnipresent influence of the Big Other.

For those of us dedicated to crafting positive social and behavioural change, it becomes imperative to keep these persuasion techniques in constant consideration. Not only does this awareness protect us against cognitive biases and the distortions of misinformation, but it also equips us to assist others in breaking free from the grip of entrenched beliefs—guiding them back to a foundation built upon verifiable facts and truth.

To become architects of behavioural change and to cultivate positive social transformation, attentiveness to these mechanisms of desire and identification is crucial. An awareness that extends beyond mere cognitive defense—it is an invitation to re-examine the structures of our own identities, to recognize the subtle ways in which our own desires are interwoven with the deceptive narratives that surround us. Through such introspection, we might yet hope to traverse the turbulent terrain between fantasy and reality, reaching toward a space defined not by the rigid dictates of ideology, but by an authentic confrontation with the fragmented self.