What do you think?
Politically Unconscious: The Psychic Aftermath of the Sudanese Revolution
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
Read
July 2, 2026I had been waiting for this book to be released by Iskra books and started it almost right after it was released. I also listened to an interview with the author via one of my favorite podcasts, Rev Left Radio, who frequently interview many writers published by Iskra.
The book is split into four parts, first giving an overview of Sudan, with an emphasis on the left. Before this I was largely ignorant of Sudanese history, so I thought this was really informative. It is a history of Sudan yes, but more specifically, it is a history of how Sudan continually failed to create a revolutionary moment capable of reproducing itself. I can’t really summarize the entirety of this chapter (it’s honestly quite dense considering it’s my first time interacting with this history). I can only really give my best shot to provide broad strokes, skipping a lot of the early history in the beginning of the chapter. Khougali critiques the Sudanese Communist Party for rejecting religion as a component of revolutionary politics, when Islam was fundamental to the everyday life of many Sudanese people. This would alienate any potential broad momentum to build a greater revolutionary moment (eventually the SCP would also lose its ideological discipline and communist values in the long run). The Muslim Brotherhood was kind of the opposite, it could mobilize and organize people, but without the same ideological commitments as the SCP. Reading about the 1971 coup was really a devastating moment for the leftist movement of Sudan. Khougali would argue that the coup led to revolutionary possibility, but that it was not able to reproduce itself, relying instead on the idea that control of state power would lead to sustained revolutionary change on its own. He will also compare nimeiry and turabi, who were ideologically divided, but would ultimately both reproduce the same liberal economic relations in the end. He lists some political actions he believes should be taken towards the end of the chapter, including moving the capital to west Sudan, a historically under represented and neglected region of Sudan. Like I said, not the best overview on my part, but there is just a lot of other stuff that are interesting and are more so the main theses of the book than the history itself.
He then goes into defining what he called praxis psychotherapy. He doesn’t reject psychology outright, rather, he sees a potential in it that has yet to be explored in depth. Psychotherapy shouldn’t merely reduce clients to symptoms, but encourage people to break existing patterns instead of reproducing them (“entrenchment”) and create new possibilities for themselves (“emergence”)
Kahgouli has real clinical experience, and he gives real examples of clients he has dealt with in order to establish not only a practice of political psychotherapy, but also to springboard into various aspects of the Sudanese ennui and polity. By unpacking the history of these people, the history and trauma of Sudanese social relations can also be revealed in full force.
Some of the examples are absolutely shocking and are hard to read at times, but his method of therapy was very interesting to read, because he never reduces to convenient symptoms, always tying everything back to historical and social relations, ideology, religion, etc to better understand the conditions that created the crises in the patient.
He has one section called the style of language or something, and he shows a bunch of drawings that were actually pretty cool, acting as metaphors for the various clients to visualize and understand how they have come to reproduce themselves in their situation rather than through just explaining in terminology and dialogue.
The next chapter goes over why Sudan politics evolved in the way it did, and why were all leftist attempts usurped every time by capitalism. He even talks about his involvement in the Sudanese Revolution of 2018-19, and argues that, although there was revolutionary fervor to overthrow governmental institutions, people largely believed that a new society would create itself simply because the revolution occurred and the institutions that were oppressing them were overthrown. Because the movement never had a clear ideological backing, there was nothing to sustain a new mode of society, and instead, the movement was also usurped by old capitalist social relations.
In the final chapter, I think I finally begin to synthesize his ideas and why he structured the book the way he did. Up until this part, I actually wasn’t too sure if this book was going to land for me. It was going all over the place. Even now I still think the structure is messy.
But anyway, to begin, Khougali is taking on a broader idea of labor, labor not as just wage labor or productive labor in the traditional sense, but as a form through which relations are reproduced, and therefore society reproduces itself. Society is the accumulation of the reproduction of relations that are mediated/transformed through labor, ie human activity. Labor in the way that he uses it is human activities (social labor) that reproduce social relations. Therefore, labor is the bridge between ideas and matter.
The praxis psychotherapy chapter was a way to show this emergence through the mediation of labor on the individual level. His analysis of history was a way of showing how emergence may have occurred in Sudanese history at certain points through various methods, but this emergence of new social relations never consolidated into the dominant mode of social reproduction (to displace capitalist social relations) because they still reproduced the society that came before reform/revolution by focusing on ideas or matter but not the mediation between the two, therefore overemphasizing either policy or institutional abolishment, and in both approaches the previous social relations were still largely reproduced. The idea and the material were still mediated (they always are), but eventually just to reproduce the same relations, relations that ultimately were capitalist in nature, usurping socialist sustainability rather than consolidating it. Emergence is not a state of existing to be achieved, nor is it something that is sustained by a one-time event; it is a constant process — the continual reproduction of new social relations through labor. Once it is no longer sustained, we get the reproduction of society in its current form. Revolution therefore, is not necessarily the transformation to a new state of society, it is the historical rupture through which a new mode of social reproduction is possible.
In a previous Iskra book I read, The Sword and the Neck, by Yanis Iqbal, he argues that by changing the material, through, let’s say anti-colonial action, we open doors to new ideological possibilities. But Khougali would say that yes, these ideas are now available, but possibility alone does not guarantee an actual change in social relations. These new ideas must be continually embodied and reproduced through social labor, or else people will reproduce the same social relations as the previous society. The revolution creates the possibility for emergence, but it is only the mediation of ideas and material reality through social labor that new social relations (and eventually a new society) can emerge and sustain themselves.
Now, he then defines two modes of labor (which is not the same as redefining economic classes, eg bourgeois and proletariat). He defines social and proprietary labor, and the distinctions are made not on grounds of class, but on grounds of how these forms of labor reproduce society. Social labor reproduces the social itself. It is not defined on if or how it is paid, but on the fact that it reproduces and expands social life. Proprietary labor reproduces ownership, not only through capitalist ownership, but any activity that encloses the social into private control for that matter.
Perhaps one of the better interventions in my opinion towards the end is his critique of trade unions. Trade unions unconsciously accept capitalism’s definition of labor, bargaining in terms of the hours of labor you sell and the wage you get in return. Khougali argues that labor includes much much more than what capitalism typically defines as labor, it includes housing, childcare, education, transportation, domestic labor— anything that reproduces the worker, and therefore labor itself. Trade unions must engage will all aspects of a worker’s life, as all aspects of a worker’s life contain an opportunity for emergence to occur, and determine what is reproduced. This challenges the way that many Marxists think of politics, that is, primarily through economic relations. Khougali argues that politics occurs through all aspects of everyday life, even the mundane and habitual. I would perhaps intervene my own clarification, and say that it is not politics, but class struggle that is fought primarily through economic relations. Politics is fought through the everyday. That is a way in my brain to still emphasize class struggle while recognizing the political argument Khougali is making about labor. Remember, class and labor are distinctly different to him.
Understanding that labour is expansive and essential for the reproduction of society implies that every interaction between labour and reproduction represents a potential point of emergence.
Revolution is not a moment but hidden behind the monotony of the everyday.
Wow, so he really did just go everywhere just to synthesize it at the end. He kind of had to tho. I mean he had to give a rundown of the political history of Sudan. He had to do the therapy section to emphasize reproduction on the individual level. He then went back to do a historical reflection now with the context of the language of reproduction and emergence defined. And then tied it together. Because the revolution is all of these things. It is never just about labor in how we typically think of it as, as solely through economic relations. It is never so simple as a revolutionary event. Reproduction and emergence can happen anywhere. The revolution is a practice, a constant one, not a single event.
Also very surprised he focused so much on reproduction without ever really mentioning Althusser.
Good read!
The book is split into four parts, first giving an overview of Sudan, with an emphasis on the left. Before this I was largely ignorant of Sudanese history, so I thought this was really informative. It is a history of Sudan yes, but more specifically, it is a history of how Sudan continually failed to create a revolutionary moment capable of reproducing itself. I can’t really summarize the entirety of this chapter (it’s honestly quite dense considering it’s my first time interacting with this history). I can only really give my best shot to provide broad strokes, skipping a lot of the early history in the beginning of the chapter. Khougali critiques the Sudanese Communist Party for rejecting religion as a component of revolutionary politics, when Islam was fundamental to the everyday life of many Sudanese people. This would alienate any potential broad momentum to build a greater revolutionary moment (eventually the SCP would also lose its ideological discipline and communist values in the long run). The Muslim Brotherhood was kind of the opposite, it could mobilize and organize people, but without the same ideological commitments as the SCP. Reading about the 1971 coup was really a devastating moment for the leftist movement of Sudan. Khougali would argue that the coup led to revolutionary possibility, but that it was not able to reproduce itself, relying instead on the idea that control of state power would lead to sustained revolutionary change on its own. He will also compare nimeiry and turabi, who were ideologically divided, but would ultimately both reproduce the same liberal economic relations in the end. He lists some political actions he believes should be taken towards the end of the chapter, including moving the capital to west Sudan, a historically under represented and neglected region of Sudan. Like I said, not the best overview on my part, but there is just a lot of other stuff that are interesting and are more so the main theses of the book than the history itself.
He then goes into defining what he called praxis psychotherapy. He doesn’t reject psychology outright, rather, he sees a potential in it that has yet to be explored in depth. Psychotherapy shouldn’t merely reduce clients to symptoms, but encourage people to break existing patterns instead of reproducing them (“entrenchment”) and create new possibilities for themselves (“emergence”)
Kahgouli has real clinical experience, and he gives real examples of clients he has dealt with in order to establish not only a practice of political psychotherapy, but also to springboard into various aspects of the Sudanese ennui and polity. By unpacking the history of these people, the history and trauma of Sudanese social relations can also be revealed in full force.
Some of the examples are absolutely shocking and are hard to read at times, but his method of therapy was very interesting to read, because he never reduces to convenient symptoms, always tying everything back to historical and social relations, ideology, religion, etc to better understand the conditions that created the crises in the patient.
He has one section called the style of language or something, and he shows a bunch of drawings that were actually pretty cool, acting as metaphors for the various clients to visualize and understand how they have come to reproduce themselves in their situation rather than through just explaining in terminology and dialogue.
The next chapter goes over why Sudan politics evolved in the way it did, and why were all leftist attempts usurped every time by capitalism. He even talks about his involvement in the Sudanese Revolution of 2018-19, and argues that, although there was revolutionary fervor to overthrow governmental institutions, people largely believed that a new society would create itself simply because the revolution occurred and the institutions that were oppressing them were overthrown. Because the movement never had a clear ideological backing, there was nothing to sustain a new mode of society, and instead, the movement was also usurped by old capitalist social relations.
In the final chapter, I think I finally begin to synthesize his ideas and why he structured the book the way he did. Up until this part, I actually wasn’t too sure if this book was going to land for me. It was going all over the place. Even now I still think the structure is messy.
But anyway, to begin, Khougali is taking on a broader idea of labor, labor not as just wage labor or productive labor in the traditional sense, but as a form through which relations are reproduced, and therefore society reproduces itself. Society is the accumulation of the reproduction of relations that are mediated/transformed through labor, ie human activity. Labor in the way that he uses it is human activities (social labor) that reproduce social relations. Therefore, labor is the bridge between ideas and matter.
The praxis psychotherapy chapter was a way to show this emergence through the mediation of labor on the individual level. His analysis of history was a way of showing how emergence may have occurred in Sudanese history at certain points through various methods, but this emergence of new social relations never consolidated into the dominant mode of social reproduction (to displace capitalist social relations) because they still reproduced the society that came before reform/revolution by focusing on ideas or matter but not the mediation between the two, therefore overemphasizing either policy or institutional abolishment, and in both approaches the previous social relations were still largely reproduced. The idea and the material were still mediated (they always are), but eventually just to reproduce the same relations, relations that ultimately were capitalist in nature, usurping socialist sustainability rather than consolidating it. Emergence is not a state of existing to be achieved, nor is it something that is sustained by a one-time event; it is a constant process — the continual reproduction of new social relations through labor. Once it is no longer sustained, we get the reproduction of society in its current form. Revolution therefore, is not necessarily the transformation to a new state of society, it is the historical rupture through which a new mode of social reproduction is possible.
In a previous Iskra book I read, The Sword and the Neck, by Yanis Iqbal, he argues that by changing the material, through, let’s say anti-colonial action, we open doors to new ideological possibilities. But Khougali would say that yes, these ideas are now available, but possibility alone does not guarantee an actual change in social relations. These new ideas must be continually embodied and reproduced through social labor, or else people will reproduce the same social relations as the previous society. The revolution creates the possibility for emergence, but it is only the mediation of ideas and material reality through social labor that new social relations (and eventually a new society) can emerge and sustain themselves.
Now, he then defines two modes of labor (which is not the same as redefining economic classes, eg bourgeois and proletariat). He defines social and proprietary labor, and the distinctions are made not on grounds of class, but on grounds of how these forms of labor reproduce society. Social labor reproduces the social itself. It is not defined on if or how it is paid, but on the fact that it reproduces and expands social life. Proprietary labor reproduces ownership, not only through capitalist ownership, but any activity that encloses the social into private control for that matter.
Perhaps one of the better interventions in my opinion towards the end is his critique of trade unions. Trade unions unconsciously accept capitalism’s definition of labor, bargaining in terms of the hours of labor you sell and the wage you get in return. Khougali argues that labor includes much much more than what capitalism typically defines as labor, it includes housing, childcare, education, transportation, domestic labor— anything that reproduces the worker, and therefore labor itself. Trade unions must engage will all aspects of a worker’s life, as all aspects of a worker’s life contain an opportunity for emergence to occur, and determine what is reproduced. This challenges the way that many Marxists think of politics, that is, primarily through economic relations. Khougali argues that politics occurs through all aspects of everyday life, even the mundane and habitual. I would perhaps intervene my own clarification, and say that it is not politics, but class struggle that is fought primarily through economic relations. Politics is fought through the everyday. That is a way in my brain to still emphasize class struggle while recognizing the political argument Khougali is making about labor. Remember, class and labor are distinctly different to him.
Understanding that labour is expansive and essential for the reproduction of society implies that every interaction between labour and reproduction represents a potential point of emergence.
Revolution is not a moment but hidden behind the monotony of the everyday.
Wow, so he really did just go everywhere just to synthesize it at the end. He kind of had to tho. I mean he had to give a rundown of the political history of Sudan. He had to do the therapy section to emphasize reproduction on the individual level. He then went back to do a historical reflection now with the context of the language of reproduction and emergence defined. And then tied it together. Because the revolution is all of these things. It is never just about labor in how we typically think of it as, as solely through economic relations. It is never so simple as a revolutionary event. Reproduction and emergence can happen anywhere. The revolution is a practice, a constant one, not a single event.
Also very surprised he focused so much on reproduction without ever really mentioning Althusser.
Good read!
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review