Skip to main content

Emotions Matter


I'm always a bit suspicious of those people who have SOMETHING WISE to say right in the midst of a historical event. Despite my job being, at times, to say something wise I don't always feel up to it, and I want to hide away in my bed and just be a person rather than one of those WISE PEOPLE who have clever opinions. 

Nevertheless I've been reflecting this week on the Trump victory in the States and what it means. What it means for the future, I cannot say, but it is obviously terrifying for the world. My heart goes out especially to trans people in the States as well as the Palestinian people. But I've been thinking about those campaigns and how they landed. Kamala Harris' campaign, and particularly the National Convention which had this message of JOY, seemed at the time to me deeply inappropriate against the backdrop of a genocide. I was listening to a This American Life episode following a Palestinian American at that convention, and how the leadership was trying to shut down any voice they had. The leadership wanted to keep the happy message up. In the cold light of this day it seems to me even more clear that the whole “happy” campaign was just serious gaslighting, not only for Palestinians, but for many Americans in general. 

What Trump tapped into was this sense that SOMETHING IS WRONG. Something is wrong in our late capitalist society, it's making us suffer, and the economically bottom half of even the “richest” countries are financially struggling. Now Trump's solutions are wrong. But his message of “something is wrong, I'm going to fix it” worked. He won't. He's a liar and a con man and a fascist. But he's right that SOMETHING is wrong. 

While the Harris campaign felt like more “Everything's fine. Happy happy happy!” Which was just gaslighting. We know everything's not fine. And people are more likely to vote for someone saying everything's not fine than someone saying everything is fine. 

And this week I see memes saying, “We must get back on the horse, and keep fighting!” and I'm thinking this is kind of problematic too. It's not wrong as such, but it's been a matter of hours – can't we let people have an emotion for one damn minute before we have to rush to action? 

I'm only talking as a fairly casual observer from another country observing American politics (so take my observations with whatever pinch of salt you want) but here's my broader point: emotions matter. Grief matters. And it's the denial of our feelings that gets us into trouble. The Harris campaign, in retrospect, was about people denying their feelings that something is wrong. It wasn't based on any authentically rooted sense of joy, but an artificial suppressing of bad feelings, a suppressing of feelings or grief and fear. Trump's campaign took those feelings and transmuted them to hate and anger, which of course isn't healthy, but at least he was taking them somewhere. The Harris campaign was emotional denialism. 

I'm more and more convinced that our work for justice has to be rooted in emotional truth. Tell the truth. Something is wrong. And we're damn angry about it. And grieving. And depressed. And sad. We don't win through fake optimism. Walter Bruggemann is clear that the prophetic work is first telling the truth, then grieving for it, and only then getting to hope. You can't get to hope without doing the first two stages first. There's no shortcut to hope that doesn't run through grief. A grief that we allow to fully enter into us, right into the bones. 

And so no, don't get back into the fight today. Don't strategise. Don't work harder. Just be f***ing sad. For one day at least, just be f***ing sad. There's no way to do this work without starting with our emotions and our bodies. Be sad and angry and however else you feel. And let's be sad together. 

Comments

jim said…
Some excellent points ... thank you

Popular posts from this blog

Swords into Ploughshares

  "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:4 Palestine Action are doing just this: beating swords into ploughshares i.e. putting weapons out of use. In doing so they are fulfilling this biblical mandate. They are expressing God's peace as expressed in the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition. God desires that our swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, that we should unlearn war. That the government wants to make this action illegal has to be confronted in the strongest terms. To rush to condemn attacks on weapons but not attacks on children is perverse. To call attacks on weapons terrorism but not attacks on children is perverse. When government comes to such an extreme position - legislating that peace is war, that weapons need more protection than children - then they have fundamentally gone wrong. This is the definitio...

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...

Clergy-wear during protests

OK, I'm wandering into the territory of Beauty Tips for Ministers here, but a couple of recent conversations have brought up the issue of what clergy should wear for protests. I know a number of Ministers who only wear clerical collars for protests. The logic is that it's important to identify as a Minister when you're supporting something society doesn't expect clergy to. So Ministers will wear a collar at gay prides or pro-choice rallies to make this point. Now I could understand this if it you wore a collar going about your general business, and also did during a protest, but I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of wearing clerical wear ONLY for protests. The seems to be something worth exploring. I have said before that I'm not in favour of special titles or clothing for religious leadership, mainly because Jesus explicitly said this was a lot of nonsense. Religious leaders should not need these articial crutches. I have no problem with certain liturgical c...