Darya Navidi is a clinical psychologist and psychotherapist in Tehran, where she also hosts a podcast on psychological life in Iran. She spoke to Barry and Mustafa in late July, a few days after a new escalation between Iran and the United States and a night of explosions in the city. Psychoanalysis reached Iran through literature and translation long before anyone practised it there, and Persian had no settled word for the unconscious. The institutes that exist now work in isolation, many of their teachers trained abroad and supervise from outside the country, and Darya notices the ways of the state reappearing inside them, in how teachers can treat their students. What the sanctions leave is a narrow set of open doors, and students take whichever one they can rather than the teacher or school that would suit their work.

Psychoanalysis came to Iran through literature and translation long before anyone practised it there, and it survives now in isolated institutes, under sanctions, taught largely from abroad. Darya asks what a practice built on the true self can do in a society that demands a false one. Her answer is the analyst as witness, and during the war the word stopped being a figure of speech, because she and her clients were sitting in the same danger. From the same ground comes her reading of Iran as a “short-term society” of interrupted lives and unfinished projects, the subject of the book she is now writing on unfinishedness in the Iranian unconscious.

The conversation also hears Rumi in Bion, takes in how Iran is imagined from Britain and from Turkey, and pauses on Parastoo Ahmadi’s concert without hijab and the generation that grew up with Woman, Life, Freedom. Darya ends with a request to listeners abroad: to see Iranians as political subjects, not only victims and not only heroes, and to keep Iran difficult to simplify.

What can psychoanalysis offer to public and political life, and what happens when a discipline built on the consulting room tries to step outside it? Tom DeRose is Research Manager at the Freud Museum, the house in Hampstead where Freud lived out his final year and where, uniquely in Britain, an institution has made it its mission to bring psychoanalytic ideas to a general audience. Barry and Mustafa talk with him about the museum in its fortieth year: its history and independence as a charity, and the resistances it meets; the sense that psychoanalysis is arcane, elitist, sex-obsessed and prohibitively expensive, even as its vocabulary seeps quietly into everyday life. Tom makes the case for the unconscious as Freud's most radical discovery, and for objects as a way of giving abstract ideas physical, resonant form; the museum as a site of memory and experience rather than mere knowledge transfer. The discussion turns, finally, to neutrality and politics: how an institution holds space for opposing views amid the field's own factions and the conflicts of the wider world, and why Tom is wary of psychoanalysis as a macro-political force even as he insists it should inform how we live and govern.

Farhad Dalal is a psychotherapist, group analyst, organisational consultant, and training group analyst and supervisor for the Institute of Group Analysis in London. He convenes a group analytic psychotherapy training programme in Bengaluru, India, and is a former Associate Fellow at the University of Hertfordshire’s Business School. Over the past quarter century, his four books have each challenged received wisdom in a different field: Taking the Group Seriously, a radical extension of Foulkesian group analytic theory; Race, Colour and the Processes of Racialization, which drew on Norbert Elias and power relations theory to rethink the psychodynamics of racism; Thought Paralysis: The Virtues of Discrimination, an early and prescient intervention into what we now call the culture wars; and CBT: The Cognitive Behavioural Tsunami, a forensic dismantling of the evidence base behind Britain’s dominant therapeutic model.

In this episode, Barry and Mustafa talk with Farhad about the single provocation running through all his work: that psychotherapy’s deepest assumption — the primacy of the individual — may itself be part of the problem. The conversation moves from his arrival in Britain at twelve and his own erased experiences of racism, through his turn from humanistic therapy to group analysis, to a sustained critique of psychoanalysis as individualistic and internalist — explaining the social through the psychological while leaving unasked how social conditions arise in the first place. Drawing on Foulkes and Elias, Farhad makes the case for a genuinely psychosocial way of thinking in which power relations sit at the centre of how human beings are formed. The discussion closes on the corruptions of evidence-based science, the neoliberal logic reshaping healthcare and education, and a defence of enlightenment rationality against its distortion into a paralysing hyper-rationality.

In this episode of the Metapolitics Podcast, we are joined by Bob Hinshelwood, Emeritus Professor of Psychoanalytic Studies at the University of Essex, Fellow of the British Psychoanalytical Society, former Clinical Director of the Cassel Hospital, and one of the most influential writers in contemporary psychoanalysis. Drawing on his latest book Unconscious Politics: Alienation, Social Science and Psychoanalysis, Bob walks us through the central insight that has shaped his work over five decades: a striking convergence between Marx's concept of alienation and Melanie Klein's concept of projective identification. Both describe a process of self-loss, one driven by social conditions, the other by internal psychic pressures and Bob argues that understanding how these two forces interact is essential to grasping what goes wrong in political life. The conversation ranges widely, from the irrationality of nuclear arms to the post-war origins of the welfare state, from the fall of Rome to the fragmentation within psychoanalysis itself. Throughout, Bob offers a rare combination of intellectual rigour and personal honesty about what psychoanalysis can and cannot do in the political arena.

How do we bridge the gap between individual psychology and collective political life? In Unconscious Politics: Alienation, Social Science and Psychoanalysis, R.D. Hinshelwood tackles one of the most enduring problems in social thought: the relationship between what happens in our minds and what happens in our societies.

Hinshelwood’s central insight is that Marx’s concept of alienation — the loss of self that workers experience under capitalism — and Klein’s concept of projective identification — the unconscious expulsion of parts of the self into others — describe the same fundamental human experience from different angles. Both capture how we can become estranged from our own faculties, “going to pieces” under social and psychological pressures that reinforce each other.

Drawing on clinical practice and theoretical reflection spanning five decades, Hinshelwood makes a case for what he calls “sociopsychoanalysis” — a discipline that can hold both individual unconscious processes and collective political forces in view without reducing one to the other.

In today’s episode, we speak with Alison Teal, a clinical psychologist and former Green Party councillor whose journey from celebrated environmental activist to political outcast reveals the fault lines tearing through progressive politics. Alison was arrested defending Sheffield's street trees, survived an attempt to imprison her, and became a Green Party hero, until she raised questions about gender self-identification. Within weeks of sharing a single blog post, she was suspended from the party she had served for nearly a decade. Drawing on her clinical experience working with patients with gender dysphoria, Alison offers a nuanced perspective on how diagnostic categories have shifted, why emotional appeals have overtaken critical discussion, and what this conflict reveals about class, victim culture, and the professionalisation of social movements. We also explore the commodification of healthcare, the disconnect between middle-class activism and working-class communities, and whether the current backlash against "woke" ideology offers any genuine path forward or simply replaces one authoritarianism with another.Takeaways:

* Alison’s suspension from the Green Party followed years of complaints about her gender-critical views, but her elected status had previously offered some protection

* The shift from “gender identity disorder” to “gender dysphoria” in diagnostic manuals reflected lobbying efforts to align trans rights with gay liberation, despite fundamental differences between the two

* Affirmation-only approaches in clinical settings represent a radical departure from traditional therapeutic practice, which emphasises open, non-judgmental exploration

* The Green Party’s trans-inclusive policies were partly driven by highly emotional conference presentations that discouraged critical scrutiny

* Corporate support for gender identity politics may reflect its compatibility with neoliberal individualism and its non-threatening stance toward capital

* Victim culture and claims to vulnerability have become powerful political tools, even when the claimed victimhood contradicts material reality

* The fracturing of the left along identity lines has made unified political struggle increasingly difficult

* Working-class communities have been alienated by middle-class parties and NGOs that claim to represent them without genuine engagement

* The current anti-woke backlash may be equally authoritarian, offering no space for nuanced discussion

* Mental health labels, including gender dysphoria, need not be permanent, yet society often treats psychological diagnoses as more fixed than physical ones

In today’s conversation, psychotherapist and psychoanalyst Susie Orbach discusses with us the relationships between psychoanalysis and politics. She points out the problem, in efforts to bring psychoanalytic insights into political discourse, of using technical terms which are esoteric. She stresses the need to transcend the doctrinal disputes and rivalries which can cloud the psychoanalytic world (where, as she notes, there is sometimes little tolerance of difference), but are of little interest to wider audiences. Orbach rejects the idea that psychoanalytic therapy must involve a ‘detachment’ of the therapist from real-world issues, and argues instead that clinical work has to be be based on engagement. Intrinsic to that, however, is a spirit of open-minded curiosity about all aspects of the client’s life.

The conversation moves on to consider the variety of ways in which analysts and therapists can also be political activists. Orbach, whose first book ‘Fat is a Feminist Issue’ was in 1978 an important early bridge between feminism and psychoanalytically-influenced psychotherapy, offers some interesting historical reflections on the influences each way between psychoanalysis and feminism generally. She suggests that it is useful to see the psychoanalytic contribution to politics as a whole being centred on emotions, and their relationship to ideas, and also reminds us that there are direct practical possibilities for intervention, as seen in some international examples of clinical work amongst disadvantaged communities. We end with some observations on how the socio-economic contexts within which psychoanalysis has developed, and its present base in cosmopolitan cultures, have shaped the political attitudes of psychoanalysts, though not always in the same way.

[Unfortunately, a technical issue had delayed the start of recording this conversation, and led to it being shorter than the average metapolitics episode. We hope to have the chance to continue discussion with Susie on these and other issues on a future occasion.]

In the second episode or our new season, Professor Michael Rustin shares insights from a career spent bridging the worlds of psychoanalysis and social theory, offering a unique perspective on how unconscious processes shape political and social life.

Rustin, who has spent years associated with the Tavistock Clinic while maintaining his sociology professorship, explains how British psychoanalysis developed its distinctive focus on early infant development and object relations. He traces how thinkers like Melanie Klein, Donald Winnicott, and Wilfred Bion created frameworks for understanding not just individual psychology but the emotional underpinnings of social institutions and political movements.

The conversation explores how psychoanalytic concepts illuminate political phenomena: from the welfare state as a “container” for societal anxieties to Brexit as an expression of splitting and projection. Rustin explains how Klein’s ideas about the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions help us understand political polarization, while Winnicott’s concept of the “good enough mother” offers insights into what makes societies capable of nurturing human development.

We discuss Rustin’s influential work on “the good society”—his attempt to envision social arrangements that support human flourishing by taking seriously our psychological needs for security, creativity, and genuine relationship. He argues that understanding unconscious dynamics isn’t just therapeutic but essential for creating more humane institutions and policies.

The episode addresses contemporary challenges through a psychoanalytic lens: why climate denial persists despite overwhelming evidence (our inability to bear painful realities), how neoliberalism damages our capacity for concern and mutual care, and why conspiracy theories flourish when containing institutions fail. Rustin offers his view of how psychoanalytic thinking can enrich political analysis without reducing everything to psychology.

In the first episode of our new season, sociologist Neil McLaughlin guides us through the life and ideas of Erich Fromm, the psychoanalyst and social theorist whose warnings about modern society’s psychological dangers seem more relevant than ever.

McLaughlin, who has spent decades studying Fromm’s work and its reception, explains how this member of the Frankfurt School became simultaneously one of the best-selling intellectuals of the mid-twentieth century and one of the most marginalised in academic discourse. Despite writing prescient analyses of authoritarianism, alienation, and the human tendency to “escape from freedom,” Fromm has been largely erased from both psychoanalytic and sociological canons.

The conversation explores Fromm’s core insight, that modern capitalism creates not just economic inequality but profound psychological damage. His concept of “social character,” how economic systems shape personality structures, offers a framework for understanding everything from Trump supporters to social media addiction. McLaughlin explains how Fromm saw both Western capitalism and Soviet communism as systems that alienate people from their authentic selves and creative potential.

We discuss why Fromm’s humanistic approach fell out of favor, caught between Marxists who found him insufficiently radical, psychoanalysts who resented his critiques of Freudian orthodoxy, and academics suspicious of anyone who wrote bestsellers. McLaughlin argues that Fromm’s marginalisation reflects broader problems in how knowledge is produced and validated in universities, where boundary-crossing thinkers are often punished rather than celebrated.

The episode delves into Fromm’s vision of “socialist humanism,” a democratic alternative to both corporate capitalism and authoritarian socialism that emphasised human creativity, genuine community, and what he called “the art of loving.” We explore his influence on the 1960s counterculture, his prescient warnings about consumer society’s psychological costs, and why his integrated approach to understanding humans as both psychological and social beings offers tools we desperately need today.

McLaughlin makes a compelling case that recovering Fromm’s legacy isn’t just about intellectual history—it’s about finding resources for understanding our current crisis of democracy, meaning, and mental health in an age of algorithmic manipulation and authoritarian temptation.

In this timely special episode, we examine the dramatic transformation underway in the Green Party of England and Wales through the eyes of Daniel Howard James, a member since the mid-1990s who offers an unvarnished insider’s perspective on a party experiencing profound ideological upheaval.

The conversation centres on newly elected leader Zach Polanski’s vision of “eco-populism”—an attempt to broaden the party’s appeal beyond its middle-class environmental base to capture both Reform UK voters and the politically disengaged. With 85% of the leadership vote but only 38% turnout, Polanski’s mandate reflects a party increasingly divided between its ecological roots and a new generation shaped by university identity politics.

James reveals how the party’s recent conference defeated a motion to reinstate climate and ecological emergencies as central policy planks—a stunning reversal for a party founded on environmental principles. Instead, the Greens are increasingly consumed by bitter conflicts over gender ideology, with feminists being expelled or resigning over trans rights issues, creating what critics call “Greens in Exile.” The party that once prided itself on being non-hierarchical and inclusive now enforces strict ideological boundaries, with Polanski declaring “transphobes are not welcome.”

The discussion explores fascinating contradictions: an influx of Muslim members drawn by the party’s Gaza stance sits uneasily with its strong LGBTQ+ advocacy; “bright Greens” argue for nuclear power and unlimited consumption while traditional members champion degrowth; young activists push authoritarian redistribution policies that would have horrified the party’s libertarian founders.

James explains how professionalisation has changed everything—from unpaid activists meeting in church halls to salaried politicians with staff and offices, the party has gained electoral viability but lost its grassroots character. Conference attendance has dropped to 1-2% of membership, allowing small organised factions to push through radical policies that may not reflect broader member views.

The episode raises profound questions about the future of environmental politics: Can a party be truly ecological while embracing postmodern theories that deny material reality? How does the convergence of libertarian traditions with authoritarian identity politics reshape progressive movements? And ultimately, can the Greens be everything to everyone, or must they choose between environmental urgency and social justice absolutism?

This conversation offers crucial insights not just into one party’s struggles, but into the broader tensions fracturing progressive politics across the Western world.

In this episode, we sit down with political scientist Lamprini Rori to unpack Greece's unexpected journey from the brink of collapse to becoming one of Europe's more stable democracies. Dr. Rori, who teaches at the University of Athens, offers an insider's perspective on how Greece defied all predictions of democratic breakdown despite facing conditions far worse than countries that did slide into authoritarianism.

Our conversation reveals the unique character of Greek universities, where every political party—from New Democracy to the Communist Party—maintains active student organizations that serve as training grounds for future political elites. With 70,000 students at Athens University alone (though many are "eternal students" who never graduate), these institutions reflect Greece's polarized but vibrantly pluralistic political culture. Unlike their Western counterparts dominated by left-liberal consensus, Greek universities host the full spectrum of political opinion, creating both ideological engagement and problematic clientelism.

We discuss Greece's dramatic shift on immigration, with Rori giving us advance notice of the government's then-imminent decision to refuse all asylum applications from those entering illegally—a move that would prove controversial but reflects broader European anxieties. The conversation explores how Prime Minister Mitsotakis's New Democracy party has maintained power for seven years not through charisma but through technocratic competence, offering Greeks something they hadn't experienced in decades: predictable, stable governance.

Dr. Rori helps us understand why Greece didn't follow Hungary or Turkey's path toward illiberal democracy despite having every reason to: economic devastation, national humiliation through troika-imposed austerity, youth unemployment near 20%, and the rise of Golden Dawn. Perhaps it was EU oversight that kept certain red lines from being crossed, or the bitter memory of Syriza's betrayal when they promised revolution but delivered even harsher austerity. Or maybe, as our conversation suggests, sometimes a boring technocrat is exactly what a traumatized democracy needs to heal.