The Spook of Leadership

An Egoist Psychoanalysis of Why We Want Leaders and Why Someone Wants to Fill that Role

Watch the video here:

Leadership. It is commonly defined as the ability to guide, influence, or inspire individuals or groups to achieve a common goal. It involves making decisions, providing direction, and fostering an environment where people can collaborate effectively. So, basically…leadership isn't just about authority or power; it's about motivating others, creating vision, and cultivating trust.

Different types of leadership exist, ranging from autocratic (where leaders make decisions without input from others) to more democratic or servant-based models, where collaboration and serving the needs of the group take precedence.

But, from a psychoanalytic perspective, leadership can also be seen as a way people project their ideals, desires, or fears onto figures who embody authority. Looking at it from this perspective strengthens the egoist argument that leadership is a spook. So let’s look into that. 

The First Leader

Imagine a prehistoric tribe, huddled together around a campfire, discussing their survival in a world filled with dangers — predators, harsh weather, and the need to find food. For a long time, decisions were likely made instinctively or through basic group consensus, with everyone acting on immediate needs. But now, the group faces a more complex challenge: crossing a dangerous river to reach fertile hunting grounds on the other side.

As the tribe gathers, they realize the need for more than just acting on impulse — they need coordination. So…a few individuals step forward and begin offering suggestions on how to navigate the challenge. This should bring up the first two questions. Why do we need to coordinate and who steps forward and why? But most likely that was never a concern. It was probably more like one person saying, “follow me across the river” and then maybe another person disagreeing and suggesting a raft and then from there it’s probably just people picking sides. Either way, the need to survive made it difficult for them to make informed decisions and they likely had to just kind of go with the best option. 

But let’s talk about what philosophers have said about this. 

Philosophical views on leadership often revolve around several key tensions. Some emphasize moral virtue in leadership, as seen in the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, while others focus on pragmatic power dynamics, such as Machiavelli’s realism and Nietzsche’s will to power. Leadership is frequently analyzed through the lens of authority and power, whether as an expression of social contracts (Hobbes, Locke) or charismatic authority (Weber). Modern theories like servant leadership advocate for leaders as servants to the group, whereas postmodern critiques see leadership as a mechanism of control, reinforcing societal norms. 

It is the perspective of someone like Max Stirner and psychoanalysis though which adds another layer to the philosophical discussion of leadership. And this is one which doesn’t just call leadership a spook and leaves it at that, but also one which teaches us about our own minds, in a way that helps us identify these spooks and take control of our own lives. In this perspective, individual autonomy and leadership are not mutually exclusive. They are interrelational. And anything outside of that is power, authority and manipulation..

UNDERSTANDING THE SPOOK

So…what is the spook of leadership?

First, let’s define 'spook.' For anyone who is new here…The 19th century philosopher Max Stirner introduced this term to describe internalized ideals that influence our thoughts and actions. In the context of leadership, spooks often manifest as the veneration of leaders—figures we look to for guidance and validation of our beliefs. 

FREUD & THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED FOR LEADERSHIP

So what is most important to understand in order to grasp the spook of leadership is why we desire leaders in the first place and why some people desire to be leaders? 

Let’s start with the first one. According to some psychoanalytic theories, the need for leadership can be traced back to our need for direction, security, and identity. In a world filled with uncertainties, leaders can provide clarity and a sense of purpose. But is this taught or is it inherent? 

Freud's psychoanalytic theory suggests that humans have some kind of an innate need for authority figures. In his model, the Superego represents internalized societal norms and moral standards. Leaders often embody these ideals and tend to offer followers a sense of moral clarity and a framework for navigating complex social landscapes.

So…according to this theory, the desire for leadership can create a psychological bond where followers project their hopes and fears onto their leaders. They become figures of security, mediating anxiety and uncertainty while fulfilling a need for belonging.

LACANIAN ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP

But let’s delve deeper into the psychological dynamics at play by turning to Jacques Lacan’s framework. Lacan distinguishes between three registers: the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real.

In the Imaginary register, leaders often become idealized figures who represent the aspirations of their followers. This idealization creates a sense of unity and belonging and allows individuals to project their desires onto the leader.

However, this idealization can lead to disillusionment. The Symbolic register encompasses the language and societal structures that leaders utilize to assert authority. They speak in terms that resonate with established norms, which reinforces their power while often silencing dissent.

But beneath this surface lies the Real—the unrepresentable aspects of our experience that evoke anxiety. Leaders often exploit this tension by positioning themselves as saviors who can shield followers from the chaos of the Real, thus creating a dependency on the leader to mediate uncomfortable truths.

Now let’s ask the second question: Why do some people want to lead? 

A Freudian and Lacanian analysis of why some people desire to be leaders delves into the psychological dynamics of desire, power, and identity formation.

From a Freudian perspective, the desire to be a leader is likely rooted in unresolved conflicts from childhood, particularly linked to the Oedipus complex. 

In adulthood, the desire to lead can be a manifestation of these early conflicts. Becoming a leader allows the individual to symbolically assume the role of the father figure — gaining power, control, and social dominance. Leadership offers a way to fulfill unconscious desires for validation, recognition, and authority, compensating for feelings of inadequacy or unresolved competition with authority figures. Freud also suggests that some individuals may seek leadership to assert dominance over others and fulfill repressed aggressive impulses, channeling the id's drive for power and superiority.

Moreover, the superego, as the internalized voice of societal norms and parental authority, pushes individuals to seek leadership as a form of moral or societal approval. The desire to lead could, therefore, also be driven by the need to conform to societal ideals of success, accomplishment, or moral righteousness, which the superego imposes.

Lacan’s approach, while grounded in Freud, shifts the focus from early childhood conflict to the dynamics of desire and the symbolic order. According to Lacan, desire is not based on biological instincts alone but on the individual’s relationship to the symbolic world — the realm of language, culture, and social norms. Leadership, in this sense, is tied to an individual’s pursuit of the "objet petit a" (object-cause of desire), which is an unattainable object that represents the fulfillment of their deepest desires.

In the Lacanian framework, leadership can be understood as a response to the individual's experience of lack — the fundamental sense of incompleteness or emptiness that drives human behavior. By assuming a leadership role, individuals may attempt to fill this void, positioning themselves as the one who has or controls what others desire. Leadership thus becomes a symbolic position where the leader is seen as the “master” in the Lacanian sense, a figure who embodies societal ideals and channels the desires of the group.

Moreover, Lacan’s concept of the "Big Other" plays a significant role in the desire for leadership. The Big Other is the abstract figure of authority, the symbolic register that people look to for guidance, recognition, and validation. When individuals desire to be leaders, they may seek to position themselves as the Big Other — the one who holds the power of recognition and can impose social norms, rules, or values on others. This desire is linked to the leader’s attempt to embody the Law and gain a place within the symbolic order where they feel seen and validated.

I just started a new channel where I psychoanalyze the f**k out of people to offer some thoughts on their cultural relevance so please feel free to head over there and watch my very first video where I demolish Donald Trump and Kamala Harris’s credibility for leadership. 

THE DANGER OF IDEALIZATION

Okay so what does this mean for us…Well…this is where Stirner has the best advice. 

The need for leadership can lead to a dangerous idealization and a loss of agency driven by the unconscious. Followers may become enamored with the leader’s image, and lose sight of the reality behind the facade. This can result in blind allegiance, where followers act not out of personal conviction but as extensions of the leader’s desires.

Freud also warns of the 'oedipal complex'—the idea that individuals may seek leaders to fulfill unmet desires for parental authority. This can create a regressive attachment, where the follower looks to the leader as a parental figure, further entrenching their dependence.

If you are interested in the neurosis involved in political allegiance, please have a look at my video on political polarization. 

THE LEADER-FOLLOWER DYNAMIC

Understanding the leader-follower dynamic reveals why we seek leadership. The appeal of a leader can often be traced to our longing for connection, guidance, and the promise of belonging. In turbulent times, this desire can amplify, as leaders emerge to fill the void of uncertainty.

This dynamic creates a fertile ground for the spook of leadership to thrive. Followers may unconsciously align their beliefs and desires with those of their chosen leader and form a collective identity that can overshadow individuality. 

STIRNER’S THOUGHTS 

"Man, your head is haunted; you have wheels in your head. You imagine great things, and depict to yourself a whole world of gods that has an existence for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself to be called, an ideal that beckons to you."

Stirner’s analysis of leadership cuts to the heart of this dynamic, exposing the ways in which individuals become trapped by their own idealizations and social conditioning. 

Stirner critiques the way hierarchical leadership structures manipulate this very egoistic drive, turning personal will into a vehicle for control. 

Leadership, whether seen through the lenses of Nietzsche’s will to power or Weber’s charismatic authority, becomes dangerous when the individual subsumes their own desires under the banner of someone else’s authority. The leader, elevated as a figure of moral clarity or pragmatic authority (Machiavelli’s or Hobbes’ models), fosters dependence and submission, which Stirner sees as a self-inflicted prison. The followers, in their yearning for security or validation, create the conditions for their own subjugation, allowing the leader’s “spook” to dictate their actions.

The real danger of leadership, in Stirner’s terms, is that it perpetuates the illusion that individuals need to be led, that autonomy must be sacrificed for the sake of the collective or some greater good. When filtered through Freud’s psychoanalysis or Lacan’s idea of the “Big Other,” this dynamic reveals that the need for leadership is often about the desire to escape the anxiety of freedom and responsibility. Stirner warns that when we let the spook of leadership dominate us, we surrender our own egoist power, and become mere instruments of authority. This creates a system where power is maintained not through overt force but through the psychological manipulation of desire and fear.

Therefore, the spook of leadership lies in the dangerous illusion that we need leaders to provide direction, purpose, or validation. Agency is what it is all about. And this can only be achieved by rejecting these spooks, allowing and owning our own desires, and internally dismantling the hierarchical structures that bind us. So in this way, this critique challenges the assumptions of philosophers like Plato with his virtuous leadership and even the pragmatic realism of Machiavelli, because it reveals that all forms of leadership risk becoming just another form of control.