For one of my graduate courses I wrote my final paper on emotions history--one of my fields--and discussed how historians can incorporate political studies into our methodologies. I described how scholars such as Raymond Williams argued that there exists a "structure of feelings," in which specific feelings "characterize a whole society or group of societies during a period of history." An emotion, such as paranoia, would manifest itself in all facets of society--and an entire group could share an emotion. The comments my professor left were dubious, and he questioned the extent to which emotions could spread like a lightning rod amongst mainstream political groups. Surely Americans as individuals couldn't be characterized by a single emotional feeling?
Then the 2016 election happened. Journalists and political strategists on both sides were audibly shocked as more (outwardly) level-headed Republican candidates were defeated by a candidate who gave his opponents disparaging nicknames like "Little Marco." Enthusiastic Bernie Sanders supporters challenged what they called the establishment, represented by candidate Hillary Clinton. Implied rules about civility flew out the window. Across the political spectrum I can find one thing in common: a feeling of collective outrage.
I look back at my paper comments every once in a while. In this case, it really, really sucks to be right.
As a scholar of women and emotions, I often write on the defensive, especially when I tell people that I examine South Carolina's secession in 1860. How can I talk about women as political creatures, they ask, when women could not vote, nor did these women want to? I also have to fight against a stereotype, as women are often dismissed as emotional creatures and therefore not "strong" or "rational."
This is, of course, incredibly ironic, when we consider that one of the most-discussed events leading up to secession is the caning of Charles Sumner, during which Preston Brooks almost beat the Congressman to death ON THE FLOOR, and was celebrated in the South.
Sure, yeah, totally no emotions happening there. (What a great moment to plug Joanne Freeman's new book about congressional violence!!!)
I argue that these women were emotional creatures, incredibly so. But it's through their emotions that we can trace their political opinions on the election of Lincoln and secession--just because they didn't vote doesn't mean they didn't think politically. Nor did they experience these emotions individually: elite South Carolina women, though supportive of their state, viewed the events of 1860 with extreme anxiety and predicted the war and devastation to come. In doing so, they were making political judgments about the possible results about secession long before Fort Sumter was besieged.
Through letters, diaries, and visits with their friends, these women shared their thoughts with others, effectively forming an emotional network and emotional community. In my dissertation, I hope to continue to examine these emotional frameworks concerning political events, and show the ways in which women in 1860 were Gendering Secession. (It's in caps because it's my current dissertation title, geddit?)
This is where political theorists come in handy. James Jasper discusses at length the differences between a fleeting emotional reaction, and a long-lasting "abiding affect." I won't bore you with the theory of affect versus emotions, but just know that both Jasper and myself are examining long-term, enduring and organized feelings, rather than knee-jerk emotional responses. This isn't "my husband didn't take the trash out, I'm mad but it'll fade." This is "the fact that my husband didn't take the trash out contributes to my abiding and constant feeling of annoyance and frustration and will not fade, but rather contribute to future events and structure the way I think about this event."*
Make sense? No? Well, I tried. At the very least, it's good to have another scholar to rely on so it doesn't look like I'm making this stuff up.
Jasper explains how enduring feelings of anxiety can provide the motivational basis for political action. These affects can belong to a particular social group, and then become widespread based on that group's social outreach. Enduring anxiety, not just a fleeting feeling of nervousness, for instance, encourages concerned groups to vote and pay extra attention to political issues discussed. (I would say that today's anxieties have caused normally politically-apathetic people to learn a ton about individuals in DC. Everyone knows who Betsy DeVos is. Can as many people name Obama's Secretary of Ed?)
According to Jasper, anxiety in moderation is great for voter turnout. It's only when anxiety spreads to quickly, or can no longer be "responsibly harnessed" by a group of the state, that this emotion gets out of control and causes a panic. INSERT NERVOUS LAUGHTER HERE.
Political theorists have also borrowed from literary critic Raymond Williams to argue that entire societies can be structured based on feelings. This "structure of feeling theory" can apply to social interactions, the media, arts, and even architecture. The best example of this is the Cold War. Popular culture and politics (McCarthyism!) were all infused with the paranoia and mistrust invoked by the fear of Communism and nuclear war. In many ways, the 1950s housewife and emphasis on women at home in advertising, television, and presidential speeches was in opposition to the atheism of Soviet Russia, which saw significant numbers of women pursuing careers of their own.
Also, everyone is familiar with the architecture associated with the Cold War. If you haven't heard of Brutalism, you've seen it--these concrete slabs just scream bomb shelter!
In sum: political theorists have shown the importance of feelings both in building coalitions and in manifesting themselves through all aspects of society. They are super, super helpful as I continue to investigate women and emotions in my own work. No longer can someone look at my research and say "okay, a lady was scared, so what?" It's so much more than that.
So where are we now? No longer can we pretend that our political representatives are calm, cool individuals who use pure reason bereft of emotional consideration to make decisions for the Republic. (I know, we never really believed this, but at least we projected this facade.)
Politicians across the spectrum are getting emotional themselves. Regardless of your opinions on President Obama, it would be almost impossible to imagine him typing in all caps (the typed version of yelling, or at least heightened emotion) against his political opponents on twitter the way that President Trump does. But here's the thing--people love it. I believe that for all Americans, Trump represents a catharsis--outrage. You're either for him, and glad that his emotional tweets and speeches are reflecting the built-up anger you've had for years, or you're outraged against his presidency.
This has happened before. In the Early Republic, men dueled to the death over political opinions. Jacksonian democracy was all in favor of a hard-drinking brawl. The Cold War was a period of paranoia and mistrust. The 1960s and 70s full of angry protests, either for or anti Vietnam, Civil Rights, Feminism. There are books about white supremacist Dixiecrats called The Politics of Rage, for God's sake. So perhaps it's my own hubris to think that we've never seen politics quite like this in American history. But maybe it is different this time.
My silver lining of this very depressing blog post? At least when people with no understanding of emotions history read my grant proposals, they'll think "emotions and politics go hand in hand? Of course they do!" and maybe be more likely to give me money and think my work is relevant!!!!!
I'm no contemporary political theorist--these thoughts on "outrage" are just my own musings. But I'd love to hear your thoughts re: emotions in politics versus structured, clinical poly-sci approaches, or on emotional communities and politics in the nineteenth century!
*My husband is a very neat boy who often takes out the trash and does the dishes and even cleans out the fridge and I love him very much. This example was just For Science and rhetorical. UNLESS we're talking about leaving the toilet seat up let me tell you.....
Wanna read more? I've got you!!!
Paul Hoggett and Simon Thompson: Politics and the Emotions: The Affective Turn in Contemporary Political Studies.
Barbara Rosenwein: Emotional Communities in the Early Middle Ages
Joanne Freeman: The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to Civil War
Literally anything James Jasper has written recently. A starting point is here: Passionate Politics: Emotions and Social Movements. He recently wrote a book called The Emotions of Protest that I need to check out.
Comments