Ron Desantis and the 'Sigma Male'

In this newsletter I investigate why in God's name Republican Presidential candidate Ron Desantis retweeted a video comparing himself to serial killer and 'sigma male' Patrick Bateman

The sigma male is perhaps the most ubiquitous image born of the online right wing ‘manosphere.’ And despite the fact that this online milieu appears to no longer have much control over how the meme is represented in popular culture, losing to a group of people who have distorted the phrase to parody the manosphere’s worst tendencies, this has paradoxically only led to it becoming an even more effective mechanism to recruit young men into their patriarchal right wing vision of masculinity. The original point of this meme is to invoke the phrase “he is just like me” in audiences, presenting them with various characters from popular culture meant to embody the sigma male archetype. Yet even memes parodying this format to the extreme of depicting chainsaw wielding serial killer Patrick Bateman as a sigma male have, to varying degrees of semi-irony and sincerity, been used by online right wing posters as a recruitment mechanism for their ideology. However much one points out the neurotic, narcissistic, and even sociopathic traits that these hyper-masculine subcultures condition, the only response they must amount in order to continue to amass adherents is some flippant, semi-ironic affirmation of these accusations akin in tone and seriousness to the ‘chad yes’ meme.

The phenomenon of those on the far right reveling in the neurotic, irrational, and contradictory nature of their politics is fairly old and well observed. Yet perhaps Marx, in his famous addendum to Hegel concerning the repetition of historical fact, failed to add that history need not only repeat itself farcically once. It seems that the contemporary cultural medium of social media, with its anonymity and profit based content distribution systems, has heightened this far right farce to a degree not even thought possible by snickering German dissidents in the 40s who would sarcastically refer to the many monotonous “blood and soil” (blut und boden) novels released by Nazi sympathizers as “blubo” literature. In the contemporary context, these sympathizers would themselves begin publishing books under the category of “blubo,” a revelation of the fact that while public mockery may successfully ‘unmask’ the ridiculous and irrational nature of certain political movements, no such unmasking may upset these movement’s claims to sheer, brute power over their enemies.

Nowhere does this phenomenon appear more plainly in the contemporary context than in the campaign of Republican presidential hopeful Ron Desantis, who, in July of 2023, released a propaganda video to the “Desantis War Room” Twitter (I’m sorry, X) account utilizing visual association to compare himself to Patrick Bateman and other fictional characters commonly associated with the ‘sigma male’ meme in popular culture such as Thomas Shelby from television series Peaky Blinders and Jordan Belfort from the film The Wolf of Wall Street. The video juxtaposes media headlines characterizing Desantis’ recent surge of anti-LGBT laws as “evil,” “draconian,” and “extreme” with clips of the Floridian governor laughing and making speeches as well as shots of previously mentioned ‘sigma males.’ Through psychological suggestion, the video attempts to initiate a transference of the introjection a viewer may exert towards these ‘sigma males’ onto Desantis.

The video’s explicit content, which is meant to glorify Desantis’ anti trans bills and even take sadistic joy in the anger they have inspired in left leaning media outlets, is inextricably tied to the meme format it references. Just as these ‘sigma males’ are condemned and reviled for the selfish pursuit of their narcissistic desires, as appears both within the content of their stories as well as how they are parodied in ironic ‘sigma male’ memes, so too is Desantis.

While comparisons between politicians and conventional movie stars are not particularly rare, Desantis’ team’s decision to compare him to a reviled character such as the psychotic, sociopathic narcissist Patrick Bateman, appears to have been them, in a sense, saying the ‘quiet part out loud’ in relation to their desire to condition a form of support based almost entirely upon sadistic cruelty, as the video was deleted off of his affiliated Twitter (I’m sorry, X) account “Desantis War Room” following media outrage. Other videos released by Desantis’ propaganda team are equally vulgar and bizarre and born out of the same far right hyper-masculine subculture that openly embraced figures like Bateman as a ‘sigma male.” Yet, of course, this subculture’s ability to propagandize by openly celebrating their narcissistic sadistic tendencies and cursing any social norms which stand in their way works better, in the current political climate at least, if it comes from an anonymous account. But while its fairly obvious that a mainstream politician invoking this meme format is a bad campaign decision, why has the sincere usage of this meme become prominent enough that any Desantis staffer would sincerely think the comparison between Desantis’ draconian transphobic laws and Patrick Bateman’s bloodlust would engender sympathy for him? While the obvious answer to this question is simply “incompetence,” I think that the social causes of this incompetence are structured enough to draw an analysis from.

The sigma male, as understood by the subculture that coined the term, is meant to embody a hyper-masculine image of success. He is an intelligent investor, self disciplined, physically attractive, charismatic and yet also a “lone wolf,” only preferring the company of a few close associates and being generally uninterested in participating in the social hierarchy he would, in theory, dominate. The sigma is a mutation of the “alpha male,” an archetype based upon a discredited study on social hierarchies among wolves whose acceptance by male chauvinists within the broader ‘manosphere’ has led them to believe that society is necessarily composed of a dominance hierarchy, with the strongest, most disciplined, aggressive men (the alpha males) able to attain the spoils and the remainder of men (the beta males) being left with the scraps. Essentially, the sigma could be an alpha and subsequently a dominant member of society, yet he decides not to. He is the Nietzschean overman, and above the alpha due to his rejection of societal hierarchy. Yet in reality, the sigma’s supposed rejection of this natural dominance hierarchy is meant to appeal to men aspiring to the alpha trope yet unable to attain it. The sigma is, essentially, akin to the Aesopian fox unable to reach for a bunch of grapes. It is a coping mechanism for men who are dealing with the continuous failure to satisfy their own ego demands on a competitive market that only has enough room for a few winners. The sigma archetype soothes these men with the suggestion that the most powerful spirit is contained in those who could dominate and yet decide not to.

And yet, confusingly, the pop cultural references that typically stand in as representations of “sigma males” are not of the sort described here at all. Think of Jordan Belfort’s depiction in The Wolf of Wall Street, for instance, who certainly relates far more directly to the notion of an alpha male than anyone who ‘refuses to participate in social hierarchy.’ And, even more confusingly, these pop cultural references are essential to what defines the sigma as he appears in the memes that have made the term popular. One is meant to live through these various characters and treat them as ideals for their own life. The sigma male’s real appeal, as can be inferred from the pop cultural references the meme depends upon, is that he is far more outwardly neurotic in a way that is generally deemed ‘unacceptable’ by conventional social norms than the alpha. The sigma male is typically narcissistic, only caring about his own interests, and generally must manage some tension between his sadistic, even sociopathic, urges and the moral or societal consequences of acting upon such urges. This change from the original meaning is, in part, a product of the archetype’s distortion by parody, as its popularity is inextricably linked with the widespread derision and mockery it inspired from those outside of the hyper-masculine online subculture that coined it. This is to the point that most, if not all, sigma male memes in some way depend upon this parodical distortion of the archetype into a neurotic, sadistic narcissist who forgoes all social convention for the sake of their (oftentimes farcical) business investments. And yet, those within the manosphere seem perfectly comfortable with these alterations. This reveals something about the purpose of the ‘sigma male’ archetype that corruption by parody was unable to destroy (and, in fact, likely emboldened). The sigma, unlike the alpha, serves as an ideal that a neurotic, narcissistic right wing patriarchal man may recognize some of their own qualities in (and thus may be much easier to identify with). To ‘not participate within society,’ a la the original articulation of the sigma male, translates in these memes to acting in such a way that selfishly violates social norms.

A crucial aspect of the sigma male meme concerns its dependence upon reference to characters within popular culture. And its dependence upon these references seems to be almost perfectly in line with Adorno’s analysis of television as “psychoanalysis in reverse” insofar as popular culture gains its sway over audiences by glorifying their neuroses as opposed to treating them. Such neuroses are generally the result of capitalist forms of domination that deprive one of their ability to survive and force them to attain their means of survival through competition with others on a market whose laws have enveloped almost all aspects of human social relations. ‘Popular culture’ as it currently manifests itself is only able to gain its appeal in this cultural environment. Its most effective (and therefore most profitable) iterations are contingent upon giving audiences a reflected image of their neurotic self, only presented in a flashy and idealized way that makes them feel as if the solution is not a treatment of their neuroses but instead their intensification. The more intense capitalist domination becomes, the more severe these neuroses will manifest, and thus, the more strongly audiences will demand a glorification of such neuroses within popular culture as treatment.

In the case of the ‘sigma male,’ he displays textbook symptoms of secondary narcissism. He has a poorly developed sense of self, overly aggressive (even sadistic) impulses, and severe anhedonia. These symptoms essentially unify all ‘sigma male’ figures within popular culture. Take Ryan Gosling’s role in Blade Runner 2049, for instance. While he hardly possesses the sociopathic, sadistic, or entrepreneurial tendencies of a Patrick Bateman, Gosling’s character is entirely anhedonic, unable to take pleasure in the world and completely disinterested in the pursuit of any form of fulfillment (upon meeting him, Mackenzie Davis’ character, for instance, says “oh you don’t even smile”). And the popularity of characters exhibiting these traits should be no surprise. Secondary narcissism is a rather emblematic condition of our time, arising from unrequited object cathexis (i.e., wanting something and failing to attain it).

One might write off the ‘sigma male’ trend and the sincere identification with characters such as Patrick Bateman as fairly obscure. Yet the desire that undergirds such identification (which seems to translate extremely well into fascist politics) is also present in how the average consumer relates to various pop cultural products. It is not only the disaffected right wing male chauvinist who struggles with narcissistic symptoms. One example of this phenomenon is the pop cultural prevalence of so-called ‘anti-heroes,’ who serve as deeply flawed and morally complicated protagonists that we are nevertheless instructed to root for. As Ryan Broderick notes within “Why is every character suddenly an ‘anti-hero’ now?”

Science fiction, fantasy, and genre entertainment of all kinds is suffering from serious anti-hero drift, a general flattening of heroes and villains into morally gray but also fairly interchangeable characters that don’t have clearly defined or consistent motivations.

Typically, such characters are charismatic, conventionally attractive, and, most importantly, are not afraid to challenge moral conventions in pursuit of their own ego aims. They are cookie cutter stereotypes meant to be easily reproduced to condition a similar affect in audiences, being the perfect object of identification for those wishing to satiate their narcissistic neuroses. And corporate executives and producers at the helm of popular culture have very explicitly gravitated towards the curation of media centred on ‘anti-heroes’ in recent years. In superhero media, for instance, Erik Voss of the “New Rockstars” YouTube notes of the “Loki effect,” (Broderick) where large media firms are more likely to invest resources towards spinoff television series, movies, and merchandising on characters that fit within the ‘anti-hero’ archetype. The producers and executives at such media firms are not necessarily acutely aware of the psychological mechanisms that make anti-heroes so appealing. Instead, they merely react to what resonates most positively with audiences (through focus groups, opinion polls, and an eye on which properties generate the most profit).

One example of how connected the ‘anti-hero’ archetype in popular culture is with people’s desires to satiate their narcissistic neuroses concerns audience reception of the character Homelander from the satirical television series The Boys (as analyzed by Broderick). Homelander is meant to serve as a dark parody of Superman, having an almost identical set of powers and garnering a similar level of admiration from the general public. Yet he is also a narcissistic sociopath, killing whomever he pleases for personal gain (so long as he is able to do so without jeopardizing the adoration he receives from the public, which he, as a narcissist, neurotically depends upon). Homelander is, of course, not an ‘anti-hero.’ He is explicitly villainous and meant to be despised. And yet, as Broderick notes, many fans of the series on social media websites like Reddit come to the defence of the character, “push[ing] back against the idea that Homelander is a true villain, instead, countering that he’s an anti-hero.” This reveals that for some consumers of popular culture, the function of the ‘anti-hero’ is to serve as an object of identification who is condemned for selfish actions deemed by others to be morally wrong. Like the ‘sigma male’ archetype, the logic behind the invocation of the term ‘anti-hero’ can only be rendered consistent if the underlying psychological motivations behind its appeal are understood.

The tension between the obvious intention of showrunners to villainize Homelander and many fans’ attempts to sympathize with the character seems to have come to a head following the third season of the series, where Homelander functions as an analogy for Donald Trump. While this comparison was meant to serve as a critique or satire of Trump and a warning for the rising dangers of right wing authoritarianism within contemporary American politics, as explicitly stated by showrunner Eric Kripke, some of the more right wing consumers of the series did not take it as such, instead viewing Homelander’s depiction as generally sympathetic. In a style almost identical to the experiences of many genuine participants in a fascist movement, show watchers sympathetic to Homelander supported his political bid up until the revolutionary crescendo of indiscriminate violence, wherein they wrote off the narrative decision as unexpected and a result of the left leaning political position of the writers (presumably tainting an overall enjoyable product). As Broderick notes, such an interpretation was common enough to embroil the subreddit dedicated to the show in “chaos,” where “fans who thought Homelander was cool [were] in a meltdown.”

This discordance appears to result from tension between the shows multiple, contradictory meanings. While the explicit narrative arrives at a conclusion centered around revulsion for Homelander and his intentions, his flashy depiction as a conventionally attractive, charismatic, all powerful superhero commands audiences to like him. As concerns the intentions of the show’s writers, this tension is meant to resolve itself in a critique of the superhero genre. The explicit narrative is meant to win out among audiences, where they instead are instructed to root for the protagonists of the series who are, of course, ‘anti-heroes’ themselves. Yet some portion of audiences were not satisfied with the moral failings of the provided protagonists and reinterpreted the explicit meaning of the series to justify their emotional attachment to its villain. Given that some of Homelander’s admirers discounted his later interpretation as being a product of ‘liberal biases’ among writers of The Boys, instead desiring the depiction of a villainous character who is not as explicitly fascistic and authoritarian, how can we imagine the collection of producers and executives that operate the culture industry will satiate the desires of such a market?

Some might reject this interpretation of popular culture as overly pessimistic, and while certain theorists are correct to assert that audiences are able to recontextualize pop cultural products and derive different meanings from than those directly intended by producers, few have cared to think about the growing list of examples of when audiences have decided to do so for the worse. While one may point to pop cultural products as potential sites of resistance and recontextualization, wherein the appreciative energies directed towards such products are repurposed towards opposition to power, one must be duly aware of the many instances (of a likely more significant number) wherein such energies are instead repurposed towards obedience.

Sigma male memes, more broadly, are an obvious example of a medium that is built upon recontextualizing cultural products for the worse, even allowing such products to be retooled to help right wing politicians justify their cruel and sadistic political programs. They are able to do so as a result of being based upon the psychological language of removing ‘repressive’ social and moral conventions that prevent certain aggressive, sadistic instincts from being satiated. They frame narcissistic anhedonia as a problem that is caused by moral condemnation and shame which prevents one from acting on their self interests (and satiating their sadistic urges). This may help explain why the widespread mockery of sigma male memes only intensified their sincere usage. The attempt at leveraging shame against this form of politic, appealing to some idea of ‘social justice,’ only shows this group that they are ‘offending’ the exact sensibility they see as preventing them from satiating their urges. This form of politics channels the gratification one receives from identifying with these ‘anti-heroes,’ who tell the individual they should love their symptoms and intensify them, towards the destruction of any societal forces that prevent them from satiating their narcissistic sadistic urges.

The basis of what makes sincere sigma male memes effective seems to also structure the general form of ‘anti-woke’ politics currently popular among far right American’ populists.’ And Desantis seems to be the most obsessed with invoking “wokism” of any American politician. A Biden zinger used against Giulani and his reliance on his role in 9/11 during the 2008 presidential race could be reformulated for Desantis, that there are only three things he needs to make a sentence: a noun, a verb and ‘woke.’ Desantis’ obsessional crusade against the ill-defined amorphous phenomenon of ‘wokeism’ is presented as an attempt to ‘liberate’ society from censorship and indoctrination, to cure people of the ‘woke mind virus’ which stifles rational thought and freedom. Yet the term’s amorphous nature can be more precisely defined so long as its subconscious psychological meaning is understood. To reject ‘wokeism’ is, essentially, to reject the social remnants of liberal enlightenment values as they have been internalized into one’s conscience. The demand to ‘reject wokeism’ equates to an intensification of aggressive self preservation instincts through the removal of repressions against such instincts made by the superego (or conscience). Yet this ironically results in an even more repressive state of affairs, where one’s narcissism becomes worse, and a higher share of object libido is redirected towards the ego, causing one to be even further prevented from attaining the gratification they are so desperately chasing after. This manifests itself through increasingly intense and neurotic adoration of whatever ‘ideal image’ one has constructed, whether it be the ‘sigma male’ of popular culture or a political leader, such as Desantis, who uses this psychic energy for the pursuit of his own ends. This is a ‘vicious cycle’ of repression which lies at the heart of every fascistic movement, and it appears to be similar enough to an attitude conditioned in consumers of pop culture for this connection to be explicitly referenced by fascist demagogues.

Thank you to a dead milkman, Badonasm, CAr Gard, Claire Hofbauer, Claudeline aka ArD, E, Ebbtides, Jennifer Coats, Kelly LeMaire, Megan Graves, NoMoonMama, Odin Linga, Sierra, solarbody, and Wish Dragon for supporting me on Patreon!