I read this books because emotions figure strongly in my qualitative data. Initially, I so wanted to disregard the finding. I felt I had to come uncomfortably close to my interview partners, especially that I had to be critical of their emotions. This joins my naive and former understanding of emotions as having a sacred status that intellectual analysis can defile. According to Berger (1981), this is the “Romantic assumption (‘to dissect is to kill,’ said Wordsworth) that the value of an esthetic (or emotional) experience is in the mystery of its immediate impact, and that it therefore needs to be protected against analytic understanding” (236). Simultaneously, I hadn’t the ghost of a notion what the literature on emotions say. Then I started looking for an intro and had the good fortune to run into this wonderful book. First, the writing is quite different from all the sociological stuff I read. But after some patience I eventually warmed to it. If I have to say something about the writing style, I'd say that the words subjects and objects are ubiquitous in the book and at times are dizzying and confusing. That's because Ahmed gets a lot of ideas and inspiration from the likes of Freud and Christieva and psychoanalysis in general. On the other hand, I felt quite at home whenever she cited psychologists or sociologists. But to give her credit, her book deals with a very sophisticated matter and the fact that she keeps it simple to the likes of me is quite an achievement.
The book starts with saying that emotions are cultural and social. Ahmed gives an impressive tour d'horizon before asserting that. Psychologists, sociologists, and critical theory and cultural studies folks will find in this tour a lot of interesting ideas on love, hate, shame, pain, among others.
The book then tackles the main point: The affective economies of emotions. This is not a theory rather than a new perspective. Ahmed explains that emotions work through language. Words circulate through repetition, sticking, resticking, and sliding through metonymy and resistance to literalisation. This circulation is discursive and done in relation to bodies. For instance, circulation serves the function of getting bodies together by labelling and excluding others (e.g., we the pure folks of this country against the refugees dirtying our purity; our hatred is just a way to love our country), and excluding others to get (our) bodies together. This circulation is not always exact, hence the importance of the sliding of sings and meanings. Ahmed's at length in the topic:
“Importantly, the word ‘terrorist’ sticks to some bodies as it reopens histories of naming, just as the word ‘terrorist’ slides into other words in the accounts of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (such as fundamentalism, Islam, Arab, repressive, primitive and so on). Indeed, the slide of metonymy can function as an implicit argument about the causal relations between terms (such as Islam and terrorism), but in such a way that it does not require an explicit statement. The work done by metonymy means that it can remake links – it can stick words like ‘terrorist’ and ‘Islam’ together – even when arguments are made that seem to unmake those links. Utterances like ‘this is not a war against Islam’ coexist with descriptions such as ‘Islamic terrorists’, which work to restick the words together and constitute their coincidence as more than simply temporal. The sliding between signs also involves ‘sticking’ signs to bodies: the bodies who ‘could be terrorists’ are the ones who might ‘look Muslim’. Such associations stick precisely insofar as they resist literalisation.”
Circulation, as far as it sticks, it is essential to all kinds of group-related emotions, and these define a lot of our existence. Commenting on existence, she writes, for instance, that "histories... remain alive insofar as they have already left their impressions" on the body. The body, on the other hand, is a vehicle for emotions and is not what it is without them. (Remember, Ahmed is not for a biological or psychological perspective on emotions).
I find her talk on the skin as the point of contact with the world and our understanding of it fascinating. History, in Ahmed's terms, is what is under the skin.
This is a meagre comment on a great book. I'm also in a hurry I don't know why. (Perhaps because I already talked about it enough in my thesis?) But I recommend the book. Give it patience if you find the language unaccessible. One cannot always afford reading in their niche only.
Refs:
Berger, B. M. (1981). The Survival of a Counterculture. University of California Press.