The central idea of 'Embracing Alienation' is arresting and appealing: alienation is a fundamental element of our human condition so we should not just accept it, but welcome it as a fundament means towards our emancipation. While Todd McGowan goes to some lengths to explore this proposition - his range of reference is wide, including philosophy (Hegel, Marx, Heidgegger), literature (Shakespeare, Austen) and film (Total Recall, Dark City) - the problem is that's essentially that proposition repeated in various contexts. It can be funny e.g. "One of the most important questions in the history of cinema is why Speed (Jan de Bont, 1994) is so superior to its sequel, Speed 2: Cruise Control (Jan de Bont, 1997)", a question it's hard to deny, and thought-provoking e.g. the use of alienation to differentiate between Hegel and Marx, but its constant return to its central idea becomes limiting after a while . It's an article or two expanded to book length, although even there its relative brevity means that some figures are referenced quite briefly (and in the case of Brecht in the conclusion fairly superficially). It's not is a particularly difficult read, and you will learn things from it, but it's a little underwhelming on balance.

My biggest problem with this book isn’t even that I don’t disagree with the central argument that alienation has liberating properties to it. It’s the way this argument is presented and the evidence used to support it. The initial exploration that alienation is inherent in subjects I have no disagreement with. The book's flaw is the constant repetition of “a society that aims to transcend alienation will fail” and “we must embrace alienation as key to any political project.” These are paraphrases but are repeated endlessly. Its misstep is that it provides no way to actually cohere this vision or what this vision means for leftist political projects. It feels very vibes-based and easily co-opted. I’m sure the author expects pushback in their Hegel-Marx duel and I’m hardly read enough to do so, but the constant harp on that even though Marx doesn’t use alienation in his later work but the vibe of it is still there hardly feels like any analysis I want to get behind.

Even though they malign Marcuse for not going far enough I think One-Dimensional Man much better explores what happens to administrative systems that try to act as “one”. I think the book fails to acknowledge the struggle that embracing alienation has already produced since recognizing everyone’s alienation is inherent to class consciousness and thus organizing, movement building, etc. It fails to acknowledge or put forward a coherent argument about what we’re supposed to do when embrace alienation. It feels stuck in terms and arguments from 19th and 20th-century thought without incorporating a concrete set of politics.

3 stars because it does have some incisive moments and sentences.