Affective Politics, Politics of Affect

In “In the Name of Love, Ahmed reminds us of the ways that some speak of love by making hateful objects of those who “threaten” their way of life. She wants to move further, however, by arguing that it is not just in the discourses of those whom we might call “hate groups” that this happens. It also happens even in what she terms “places [the use of love] has been seen as more beneolent, such as in discourses of multiculturalism” (122). She seems to argue that although the purposes of the use of love in arguments for multiculturalism seem to be vastly different from the purposes of arguments of white supremacists, some of the same mechanisms are at work, namely that there MUST be something created by love discourse that becomes an ideal love object and that the boding of groups in love for this ideal requires that something or someone(s) fail to meet the ideal.

Ahmed starts with Freudian notions of love to build her way to this ultimate argument by addressing identification and idealization. She categorizes identification as “love as being” and idealization as “love as having” (123). Though she acknowledges Freud's idea that the ego ideal is contructed in connection with the process of identification, Ahmed does not make this process as neat and tidy as Freud who claims that the ideal love object is produced by the process of idealization. Instead Ahmed gets there by claiming that the ideal object is produced, not in the process of idealization as separate from the process of identification, but as intimately tied to identification in a way that cannot be neatly separated. If I want to be like you, then I must have what you have. In order to be the ego ideal that I have created—the lovable version of myself—then I mus have that which supports that image of myself. I desire that which is appropriate to the image of myself I would like to see. So, the ideal love object, in a sense, is still the reflection of the ego ideal.

The love object becomes lovable not in a vacuum, but within a matrix of judgments not just by the subject, but by others who help to define the ego ideal, by what is considered appropriate. Ahmed points out that one of these means of judgment is rooted in the idea that love should be able to reproduce (through both physical reproduction and through the creation of more affect). This, Ahmed aligns with the understanding that much previous discourse on love presupposes a hetero vision of love as that which reproduces the subject, object and the love itself and projects it all into/onto the future generations, “Within this economy, the imperative to love becomes the imperative to extend the 'ideal' that I seek to have onto others who 'can' return the ideal to me” (125).

In her understanding of nation as ideal object of love, Ahmed purports that individuals are drawn together around a “likeness” that they share and from that, create a collective ideal. In multiculturalism, the ideal is not openly that 'we' are protecting our nation which we love from 'they' who are trying to destroy it. It is instead that 'we' who make up this nation are inclusive of others who do not look like us and that makes us the nation we have come to be. Ahmed argues that while this sounds much more benign, there are investments made in order to maintain it that do some of the same work that the white supremacist narratives do. Love, after all, does involve a desire for a return on an investment. In many cases, that return is never received. Part of the requirement that love be reproductive is so that the possibility of return is present for future generations even if not for the self. The narratives about why the return does not happen in a timely matter are often wrapped in a narrative of threat , injury or hindrance (apparent in the white supremacist writings and rantings).

Ahmed argues that these same rationales for the non-return of the investments are present in the discourses of multiculturalism in the UK. Though the narrative of the UK in its vision of itself as a multicultural nation is that “we” embrace difference completely, the naturalization process for asylum seekers often requires that some parts of that difference be shed in favor a process of “becoming” British. Also those who are already in the UK must participate in the “we” by living peacefully with one another and not 'segregating' themselves, but instead being part of the great multicultural 'we.' The problem is that the segregation mentioned in the larger narrative was never the personal choice of the segregated, but the result of centuries of racism and ghettoization. Unrest between racial minorities and poor whites are referred to in the larger discourse as the result of people failing to be part of the 'we' as defined by the discourse without reference to the deep seated racial and economic issues that existed between these groups in the first place—before the great multicultural 'we.' came into existence. The national ideal—functioning on some level as both ego ideal and ideal love object—has not returned the love investment in the form of the promise of peace and harmony. It cannot be acknowledged as the failure of the nation or of the multicultural bent of the nation, so it must be constructed as the failure of some others to assimilate. These others are stripped of their uniqueness as they are lumped together as those who will not cooperate. For the ideal of the embrace of difference to survive, the uniqueness of the situations that cause threats must be overlain with a narrative of failure.

Ok so what does ANY of this have to do with reproductive rights in America???? Well let's see.Marina asked, “Why all of a sudden are all these old white guys obsessed with talking about rape?” Wellll PLEASE watch to at least 6:00 into this and the read as I agree with Rachel Madow :-)

I would contend that it began with the traditional discourses of love of nation and a woman's

role in nation-building (which is itself highly invested in the process of identification with the Judeo-Christian patriarchs) that some have deployed in their narratives. In this narrative, the U. S. is the city on a hill—the beacon of light for all the world to follow toward salvation (of course this salvation is not religious but ultimately to be had through democracy and capitalism). The promise of the nation is the good life filled with freedom and prosperity. The hetero-love-logic Ahmed challenges in Freud is at work in the promise and its prescriptions for behavior. In order to call the promise into existence, everyone should seek to reproduce the greatness of this nation both through the intensification of love AND actual reproduction.

For some segment of the population, the imperative to reproduce means that no one who can reproduce—create a future—should make a choice that does anything else. Personal freedom—one of the promises that we are in constant anticipation and defense of—must be suspended for those who would choose to live in a way that is not reproductive. Therefore, it is a disruption (in the minds of the proponents of these ideas) of the ability of the nation as idealized object of love, to return on our investment for anyone to choose a non-productive activity. In this way, women who choose abortions, doctors who perform abortions, lawmakers who support a woman's right to an abortion (and don't forget the queers who just choose an 'unproductive' life) are all threats to the nation or at the very least, failing to meet the ideal vision of the nation as strong and growing. If the woman's role in the nation is to see after the children as the future of the nation, these women who seek to reproduce only when and how it is convenient for them are hindrances to the nation becoming the ideal love object.

Many of those who speak out against abortion do so on what they call religious grounds. I would posit that even this is about an ego ideal/ideal object moment. Those who speak out against abortion on religious grounds would like to see themselves in the places of those who were offered a nation of offspring blessed and favored by God in the bible. If what we have invests who we are, then these men—in order to move closer to their ego ideals—must 'have' women who are willing and ready to produce as many children as they can as the women in the bible who prayed for children did. If the men who are having these conversations about abortion from religious perspectives are to be the ancient patriarchs, their ideal love objects must be women who see barrenness as disgrace. The women who speak up and out for abortions are a threat to the ego ideal by threatening to influence the ideal love objects these men have created to bolster their images of themselves. The women who sought abortions for a time were able to comfortably fill the role of failure/threat in the narrative of love for nation constructed as both political and religious imperative.

But something...somewhere....changed....

(This is my last post so pardon the preachy moment)

I would posit that the investments in love for nation as ideal began to return, but not with the boundaries that some expected. All this talk of freedom, liberty, equality began to return in a way that gave voice to the same sentiments but different speakers. Slowly, but surely, with its referent still in place, the image of the ideal began to change. The hailing of others into participation and maintenance of the ideal allowed others to make impressions on the ideal until “freedom and justice for all {white men of a certain class}” started to move toward a more encompassing vision. The vision, for some, changed, but the discourse survived. It survived, but with the re-interpreting of religious texts and re-voicing of visions of freedom and democracy, it was forever altered. It survived, but was sung no longer in the voices of a single group and those who challenged the change found themselves in a different space.

A narrative of love often blooms in spaces of perceived loss, as we have seen in several of our readings, and this situation is no different. As the “love of nation” discourse was claimed by other voices, some of those initial voices began to hold more tightly to their claim on “authentic” love of nation. As the return that they had expected came back looking very different, as Ahmed suggests happens (131), their investment increased. Affect increased. The imperative to reproduce their vision of the nation as ideal increased and suddenly, as one part of this increased investment, nation building rhetoric (both political and religious) including abortion-as-evil, was alive and well again....but STILL, I hear Marina asking, “why the obsession with rape???”

Again, my contention can be found in Ahmed's theory. As the national ideal reshaped itself through the participation of different voices, that original discourse eventually came to be openly challenged on a regular basis. As the original discourse continued to demand that women give birth without concern for themselves because it was, “the right thing” for the nation, the reshaping voices began to more insistently ask why? Because, despite its reshaping, the core of he original discourse—especially that part of it which found its origin in religious identification—was still alive and well, the questions about the argument began to be moral. If this is truly a moral issue then what happens when the moral dilemma is not clear cut? What if it is muddy? What if a woman is raped? Must she STILL bear the child for the good of the nation? Out of loyalty to God? Opponents of the anti-abortion movement asked a question and the anti-abortion movement began to attempt answers.

This is where (at some risk) the content of “Queer Feelings” becomes helpful. I will not lay out Ahmed's entire argument, but will pay close attention to her observations of comfort/norms and how they have operated within queer culture. Ahmed views heteronormativity as the result of the labor of repetition. It is the repetition of hetero messaging and placement in the world that creates norms and therefore a space of comfort for those who fit the norm and discomfort for those who do not. The space that is created barely ruffles the body that fits into it comfortably—in fact extends this body—but makes noticeable impressions on the body that does not.

This uncomfortable body, however, is not completely helpless because as the uncomfortable place impresses upon it, it also impresses upon the space. The uncomfortable body is capable of affecing the comfortable (for others) space, but is often called upon to labor in the interest of mainting the space of comfort for those who fit the norm (i.e. public displays of affection frowned upon when the lovers are queer). Ahmed argues, the negotaitions that queer people have to make in the ways that they approach the discomfort created by heteronormativity are complex and should not be always viewed in terms of assimilation vs. transgression with one being good and another evil.

While I do not mean to co-opt queer theory in defense of anti-abortion speech, there is one point that might be interesting from which to consider this conversation. If these men in the videos above are truly operating within a narrative of loss in which they are having their nation stolen from them and are fighting to take it back (pretty much the party line of the tea party), then they likely understand themselves as being pushed into a corner—marginalized—because of their refusal to assimilate to the 'new regime' of norms. They are being threatened by a new “norm” that requires tolerance as inherent in the new ideal. In the space created by this new norm, these men are uncomfortable. In a space where the buzz words on which they have always been able to depend—'life' and 'family' (with very firm definitions) as imperative to love of nation—have been redefined and are no longer sufficient justifications for certain ideas in and of themselves, these men find themselves scrambling. And just like those who find themselves uncomfortable with heteronormative claims on ideal love, these men had to negotiate these spaces. In the space of the new norms, these men—having been asked a difficult question and facing the expectation of an answer—might have been doing their best to maintain their right to be in this uncomfortable space. I AM NOT arguing that they actually inhabit the space as uncomfortable in the same way that queer people do—that they are truly caught up in a space where norms have rendered them almost non-beings—but that they FEEL like they have and therefore are reacting in a way similar to the ways that some queer people do in spaces of discomfort. They are refusing to assimilate—refusing to do the work of maintaining the comfort of those who fit the 'norm' (tolerance)—as a way of demanding space to be.

What I wonder—since we are talking about affect within which (if we really follow Ahmed's work throughout the semester) is sometimes propelled by mimetic slides—is how the one I just exercised would function to make a steeped and dyed queer activist angry that I even compared these guys to them at all (I mean I'm kind of pissed about it myself :-).

Looking at the arguments made in “Queer Feelings” about the ways in which heteronormativity is perceived to have produced the queer as a non-being or as having and un-livable life, can these concepts be translatable to any other groups with regard to relationships to norms? Why or why not?
If the work of maintaining the ideal love object (in the form of the nation) relies on a group who does not meet the ideal to explain the failure of the ideal to present as a return on the investment in love, how does, (as I posit is the case with the anti-abortion comments) the voice of the failed other sometimes transform the ideal itself? (this could be a whole paper, but what are some contributing factors?)

(I didn't see a recent post, but I want to chime in my two cents this week before 5:00...)

I'll admit, I have gone back and forth in my appreciation of Sara Ahmed's writing during our semester together. We have read many of her works, and to me sometimes her prose felt frustrating to read, like she kept repeating herself. (These instances are too numerous to be worth mentioning).

Second, I sometimes thought she picked easy targets, patting herself on the back for tossing bricks at the white supremacists and violent fascists, etc. My inner "white man" wanted to cry, "You just don't understand, it's more complicated than that, witness here the decay of a cultural type, the implosion of a European once-baroque." European culture is no more, and the depth of that intensity, of the pathos, was the soil in which Freud took his root. Psycho-analysis is the ripened tale of "our" decay. There will never be another Charlemagne, just as there will never be another Jesus. It catches up to European-Americans last of all...

But these two chapters for this week -- I must call them a love poem or a love song. Freud was a belated Romantic, as Harold Bloom demonstrated in his 1977 book on Wallace Stevens. The Romantic pathos of "loss" reaches an apex with Freud's "Melancholia and Mourning." Ahmed not only stirringly translates, but interprets Freud with a disturbing accuracy for gender relations in the West. Speaking of men and women in Freud's scheme:

Whilst love is seen as in the first instance narcissistic - the child's own body is the source of love - for men love is assumed to mature into object love, whilst women are assumed to remain narcissistic. The economy for this differentiation is heterosexual: women's narcissism involves a desire to be loved (to love the love that is directed towards them), while for men, they love to love women who love themselves. ... But what is the relation between the boy's identification with the father and his anaclitic love, his love of women as his ideal objects? His secondary love is for the mother, for what is "not him": such love works as a form of idealisation, and is based on a relation of having rather than being. ... In other words, identification with the father requires dis-identification with the mother (I must not be her), and desire for the mother (I must have her, or one who can stand in for her). The heterosexual logic of this separation of being from having is clear. (125-26)

This brief and intense summary conjoins with the hetero-normative saga, and reaction to this Romantic tale might serve as an index of one's relation to that narrative.

Surrounded by queer tales of "discomfort," Freud's narrative allows Ahmed to credit "the exposure of the failure of the ideal [marriage, etc.]" to the work of "queer families" (153). So what do "queer feelings" substitute for the heterosexual nightmare of "being" vs. "having"?

Queer feelings may embrace a sense of discomfort, a lack of ease with the available scripts for living and loving, along with an excitement in the face of the uncertainty of where the discomfort may take us. (155)

She borrows the terms "difficult and exciting" from Kath Weston (154). Both writers seem to stress the "excitement" part over the "difficulty," although Ahmed certainly does not make it look easy. I imagine different people could place the emphasis differently based on their situations, but I wonder if the "difficulty" becomes more pre-dominant with age. I guess the point is to not surmise, and that's just the difficulty.

Ahmed frequently warns against transcendence and attempts to distance herself from that goal or stance. But I wonder if this queer "exposure of the failure of the ideal" does return the investment to a primary narcissism. If it is prior to the economy of sexual differentiation (if that is possible, which the theory of narcissism seems to assume). After so many chapters and articles and essays by Ahmed that we have read for the past 2 1/2 months, with all the impersonal "slidings" and "circulatings" of Ahmed's discourse, her disavowals of psychology, her subtly equalizing usage of the potent plural noun "bodies," her constant negations and evasions, modifications, to hear her finally express what might be called a "voice"! She permits herself, at last, after all the fear and hate and shame, and pain, to avow her "own" feelings.

Ahmed works through her love song to evolve an impressionism. She claims a discomfort can be "generative" (155), even though it results from a "misfit" between body and space, like an uncomfortable chair. The impressions can bring exquisite pleasure, in a mode not unlike the nineteenth century British Epicurean aesthete, Walter Pater. Like the younger sister stretching at the end of Kafka's macabre tale "Metamorphosis," Ahmed permits herself to utter what has now become universal, a triumph of the queer:

[T]he enjoyment of the other's touch opens my body up, opens me up. (164)

Affective Politics, Politics of Affect

Friday, December 7, 2012

Entitlement

Monday, December 3, 2012

Screw You Jerry Maguire!

Sunday, December 2, 2012

NYTimes: Defining the Emotional Cause of 'Affect'

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Does My Weird Unproductive Love for my Motherland Make Me Queer???

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Sara Ahmed's Love Song

Monday, November 12, 2012

Identity Crisis a la Lacan

More Self-Immolation