¿Por qué creemos en líderes políticos, incluso cuando no nos cuidan? ¿Y si esa tendencia fuera el síntoma de una época? Tradicionalmente, el líder representaba la ley, los “nombres del padre” en el inconsciente social. Hoy, más que representarla, muchos políticos pretenden encarnar la ley. Ya no median: se ofrecen como excepción. No limitan: prometen satisfacción permanente.
Si la vida cotidiana está saturada de frustración y demandas insatisfechas, el líder que hace “lo que quiere” fascina. Si yo no puedo, que él pueda. Si yo no gozo, que él goce por mí. Delego la trasgresión. O, por el contrario, si yo no gozo, odio a quien está autorizado a todo. El líder que encarna el exceso se vuelve insoportable.
Por un lado, está el goce en la crueldad y el sadismo, donde emergen modalidades de liderazgo que recuerdan a la perversión e incluso la psicosis. En el corto plazo, ofrecen una vía potente de descarga: una autorización a gozar sin culpa, obediencia y la ilusión de una identidad estable. Por otro lado, está el goce en la neurosis. Menos rimbombante, el líder neurótico aparece hoy como una figura frágil, gris, pero el único que permite cierta estabilidad.
En la perversión hay reconocimiento de la ley, pero se la objeta para colocarse en posición de excepción. En la psicosis, en cambio, no se trata de trasgredir el límite: allí pueden aparecer fenómenos de desorganización que intentan suturar la angustia.
Aunque se trata de lógicas diferentes, ambas modalidades, perversión y psicosis, tienden a erosionar las instituciones. En su progresión, destruyen el lazo social.
Si el sadismo quedara sólo del lado del líder, la masa aparecería como víctima fascinada. Sin embargo, el goce no está solo en el líder que transgrede, también en quien mira, condena, se horroriza, denuncia o idolatra.
La política ocupa hoy buena parte del espacio simbólico que detentaban las religiones. No tanto por su doctrina, sino por la estructura de creencia que moviliza.
El goce de transgredir, de someter, de excluir, de gritar se ha convertido en un operador político central. Pero en esta lógica se produce una trampa. Sigmund Freud explicó cómo el ser humano intenta recuperar la primera vivencia de satisfacción. Jacques Lacan formalizó este hallazgo con el concepto de “Das Ding”, la cosa, un objeto primordial perdido y prohibido que estructura el deseo.
Ante la caída de las referencias tradicionales, las nociones de patria, seguridad, libertad y el nosotros primero irrumpen como búsquedas identitarias voraces con líderes convertidos en “ley”. Pero en su aproximación sin límite al “bien supremo” que pregonan, acaban produciendo el “mal” que dicen combatir. En psicoanálisis, “acting out” es la puesta en acto de aquello que no logra decirse. Se actúa en lugar de simbolizar. Creer en líderes que no cuidan podría ser leído como un “acting out político” de época.
La guerra no es un hecho accidental. Brota de la constitución pulsional del ser humano. La ley no la elimina; apenas puede encauzarla. Pero si los liderazgos que encarnan modalidades de goce que recuerdan la lógica perversa o psicótica dominan, alimentados por sujetos angustiados que gozan de lo político en un bucle infinito, el equilibrio se vuelve frágil y la violencia retorna.
Das Ding, la cosa, es el agujero imposible de colmar que pone en marcha el deseo. Intentar llenarlo lleva a la ilusión de pureza, a la pasión de la ignorancia, y la pureza es la desgracia de todos los absolutismos, allí donde la razón acaba en tragedia. Al final, para ganar, hay que saber perder.
Sobre la firma
Newsletter Clarín
Recibí en tu mail todas las noticias, historias y análisis de los periodistas de Clarín
QUIERO RECIBIRLO
Facts Only
Political leaders traditionally represented the law and social order.
Contemporary leaders often position themselves as exceptions to the law rather than its mediators.
Leaders who act without constraints fascinate publics frustrated by unmet desires.
Two dominant leadership modalities are described: perverse (transgressive, sadistic) and psychotic (disorganized, attempting to suture angustia).
Both perverse and psychotic leadership styles undermine institutions and social cohesion.
Neurotic leaders, though less charismatic, may offer stability.
The public experiences enjoyment not only through leaders' transgressions but also through condemnation or idolization.
Politics has absorbed symbolic space previously occupied by religion, particularly in structuring belief.
Freud's concept of recovering primordial satisfaction and Lacan's "Das Ding" are cited to explain political desire.
The pursuit of absolute ideals (e.g., purity, security) often leads to the opposite outcome.
"Acting out" in politics replaces symbolic processing of conflicts.
Violence is framed as an inherent risk when leadership is driven by unmediated desire.
The text references historical patterns of absolutism and tragedy resulting from unchecked ideological pursuits.
Executive Summary
The analysis explores the psychological dynamics behind political leadership in contemporary society, particularly the shift from leaders as representatives of law to those who embody it as exceptions. It examines how frustration and unmet desires in daily life drive fascination with leaders who act without constraints, either through transgressive behavior or perceived stability. The text contrasts perverse and psychotic leadership styles—both of which erode institutions and social bonds—with the more fragile but stabilizing presence of neurotic leaders. It also draws on Freudian and Lacanian concepts, such as "Das Ding," to explain the cyclical pursuit of unattainable satisfaction in politics, where leaders promise purity but often produce the very "evil" they claim to oppose. The piece frames political violence as an inherent risk when leadership is driven by unchecked desire rather than symbolic mediation, warning that the collapse of traditional references fuels extremist identities and institutional decay.
The narrative suggests that modern politics has absorbed some functions of religion, not through doctrine but through the mobilization of belief structures. It highlights the dual role of the public: both fascinated by and complicit in the transgressive enjoyment of leaders, whether through idolization or condemnation. The analysis concludes that the tension between desire and law is fundamental, and that the failure to symbolically process this tension—through "acting out" rather than reflection—perpetuates cycles of violence and disillusionment.
Full Take
This analysis presents a compelling steelman of the psychological underpinnings of modern political leadership, particularly the shift from symbolic representation to embodied exceptionality. It effectively integrates psychoanalytic theory—Freud’s primordial satisfaction, Lacan’s *Das Ding*—to explain why publics delegate authority to leaders who promise to transcend frustration, even when those leaders fail to deliver care or stability. The strongest aspect of the narrative is its nuanced distinction between perverse and psychotic leadership modalities, both of which erode institutions but in different ways: the former through calculated transgression, the latter through systemic disintegration. The piece also astutely observes the public’s dual role as both victim and accomplice in this dynamic, deriving enjoyment from either the leader’s excesses or the moral outrage they provoke.
However, the analysis risks overgeneralizing complex political phenomena through a psychoanalytic lens, potentially reducing systemic issues to individual or collective psychopathology. The framing of politics as a replacement for religion, while insightful, could benefit from acknowledging how other social structures (e.g., media, economics) also shape these dynamics. The warning about "acting out" as a failure of symbolic processing is valid, but it leaves unexamined whether contemporary institutions are capable of providing the symbolic mediation it prescribes.
**Patterns detected: ARC-0024 Ambiguity (use of psychoanalytic jargon as a smokescreen for broader systemic critique), ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey (retreat to "this is just a psychological pattern" when broader political implications are challenged).**
The root cause appears to be a crisis of mediation: traditional institutions (religion, law, community) no longer provide stable frameworks for processing desire and conflict, leaving a void filled by leaders who offer either transgressive release or illusory purity. The implications for human agency are stark—if politics becomes a theater of unmediated desire, the public’s role shrinks to either passive fascination or performative outrage, both of which undermine collective problem-solving. The beneficiaries are leaders who exploit this dynamic, while the costs are borne by social cohesion and democratic resilience.
**Bridge questions:**
1. How might this psychoanalytic framework account for leaders who *do* provide stability without resorting to exceptionality? Are there contemporary examples that challenge this binary?
2. If institutions are failing to mediate desire, what alternative structures (beyond traditional ones) could perform this role?
3. Does the focus on individual psychology obscure the material conditions (e.g., inequality, media ecosystems) that enable these leadership dynamics?
**Counterstrike scan:** A coordinated influence campaign exploiting this narrative would likely amplify the idea that all political leadership is inherently pathological, fostering cynicism and withdrawal from civic engagement. It might also weaponize the "acting out" frame to dismiss legitimate grievances as mere psychological projection. However, the actual content does not align with this pattern; it critiques specific leadership styles without dismissing politics wholesale and invites reflection rather than resignation. The analysis remains within the bounds of intellectual inquiry, not manipulation.