Ahmed argues that emotions are not simply generated from within, but that they gain power from the interaction and connectedness of people. She even deems this circulation of emotions a functioning economy where emotions are not just experienced, but that they are constantly being exchanged between people. Ahmed heavily builds her argument on how emotions affect people by blurring the lines between hate and love. People do not form ideas like prejudices and extreme political opinions simply from an irrational hatred toward foreign people or concepts but instead because people love, and fear losing, what they personally have. To use her example of the white working man who “hates” the Mexican immigrant, he only appears to hate because he loves his home, his family, his well-being and sees the immigrant as a threat to the very foundation of all of this- his job. It is this love for his life, and the fear of losing what he loves, from which the negative behavior spawns.
Much of emotion is based on theoretical, or perceived, circumstances. The white man feels a connection with being white. He associates certain things with being white and he loves these things as they are a part of him; thus white becomes his imagined community. “The passion of these negative attachments to others is redefined simultaneously as a positive attachment to the imagined subjects brought together through the repetition of the signifier, ‘white.’ It is the shared ‘communal’ visceral response of hate. Together we hate, and this hate is what makes us together (pg. 118).” This community is, as she states, a fantasy; it is merely imagined. But the imagination can be powerful, especially when it concerns one’s personal well-being, and certainly powerful enough to generate hatred. People are connected with their fantastical communities as well as their fellow human beings. Thus it is only logical that if a person feels a threat to one of his/her communities that he/she will find another being or community to blame. Ahmed sums this up with “The bodies of others are transformed into the ‘hated’ through a discourse of pain. They are assumed to ‘cause’ injury to the ordinary white subject, such that their proximity is read as the origin of bad feeling: indeed, the implication here is that the white subject’s good feelings (love, care, loyalty) are being ‘taken’ away by the abuse of such feelings by others.” She suggests that emotions are an economy because they do not just affect individuals, they actually bind people and drive interactions.
Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, people can easily be manipulated by playing on their idea of love. If someone can make you believe you can lose what you love, they can make you believe that you hate. The very nature of her “economic” argument suggest that people are innately susceptible to forming opinions or taking action based on how others affect them, even if the affect is only just perceived.
A relevant example of this power is the modern war on terrorism. I do not aim to impose any personal opinions on the matter but, instead, apply Ahmed’s perspective. With this I consider how much of the average American’s alliance with this “war” comes simply from inflamed hatred caused by the perceived fear of losing things they love. As I see it, this idea can be applied on two important levels. One: average Americans align themselves with being American. If terrorists can be made into a threat to American ideals (freedom, liberty, happiness) they can become hated. Two: average Americans love their own life as well as the lives of those close to them. If terrorists can be seen as having the potential to end any of these lives, they can be hated. These two concepts allow for the “war on terror” to exist with support. Whether or not these terrorists will actually do real damage to either of these associations is irrelevant, the perceived threat is enough to cause hate and war.
The war on terror also ties into Ahmed’s idea of community. In order for there to be war, sides must be established. These sides become theoretical communities. In order to make them an enemy, terrorists must be definable, sharing common traits and ideas. Likewise, in order to be the “good guys”, Americans must define themselves as well. What is poignant about this real-life application of Ahmed’s ideas is that since community and fear is mostly perceived, people will extend their hate to anyone who carries any of the defining characteristics of this terrorist community. Being simply Muslim or middle-eastern can quickly make you categorize you as the perceived enemy. Questioning the war or America’s actions, can also label you as the enemy. Though Ahmed articulates that forming communities and exchanging emotions with others is inevitable, I believe the potential to manipulate love into hatred can turn into a slippery slope of over-generalization, irrelevant communities, and an abundance of hate.
No comments:
Post a Comment