It is a horse that has been beaten to death a million times. Few statements are more grilled into us from our childhood than the simple statement "Hating others is bad." We should all just get along, right? Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple. Hatred and Enmity are basic human emotions that exist in any society. Naturally then, they become factors in Rhetoric. Without a doubt to actively stir up hatred for others is what we call "Bad Rhetoric" and in general simply a foul way to do things. Yet an understanding of what hatred is is an essential tool in both avoiding becoming a "Bad Rhetor" yourself and in understanding much of the strife before us.
Where anger is born of offenses against us, hatred can be born of simply what we perceive their character to be (II.5.1382a.4). That hatred can be born from perception rather than a slight or any actual offenses makes hatred by nature a far more dangerous beast than anger. Hatred functions from our interpretations of an out group rather than what may necessarily be the realities, making it fundamentally an irrational animal. It has no need for fact or reality, and instead feeds upon itself. Hatred can paint a broad swathe. Rather than just individuals, hatred can be "directed also against classes(II.5.1382a.6)." In this it can then feast upon one of the most plentiful sources of irrational characterization: stereotypes. Stereotypes by their nature exist for virtually any group, and it takes no particular finesse to draw them forth from even those who consider themselves unbiased, so deeply are they rooted into our culture and environment (although obviously we have no desire to speak of them).
Beyond that, where anger will fade with time, hatred will not (II.5.1382a.7). It can simply simmer under the surface, possibly for generations, embedding itself deeper and deeper into those it inhabits, becoming simply a fact of life for them that they hate X. Once firmly affixed, this enmity becomes even more difficult to remove. Negotiation becomes nigh impossible, as the ultimate goal of those carrying the hatred shifts and becomes that the other party should "cease to exist (II.5.1382a.16)." It is only through long terms of careful tending that this irrational creature can be pried free of whatever is in its clutches.
The rhetoric of Hatred is a low hanging fruit, as it is no difficult task to release the wild beast that is people's own fears of others. Understanding the nature of the creature is an important step in making sure that you do not accidentally release it yourself or allow it to get its claws into you.
Love your title and the post! I think its interesting the way that you discuss anger and hate within a more temporal and macro scope. The way that hatred can "simmer under the surface, possible for generations, embedding itself deeper and deeper into those it inhabits, becoming simply a fact of life" What do think allows an emotion such as hatred to become so ingrained? And do you think that it, being an extreme, has more potential than others to seem second nature rather than something rationally discussed? Are there certain states which are more irrational than others?
ReplyDeleteWhat are the ways as well that certain understandings of teh world that are affectively influenced predetermine our ability to know, to feel, to think or act differently than typical? What emotions are able to move people to break out of their established patterns, habits, and ways of thinking?
You make an excellent point that "careful tending" is needed to avoid hatred-- what starts out as a simple irritation can quickly escalate to the point that the irritator can't do anything right. What was once a small disagreement turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy that ends in hatred.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that people often comment that the word "love" is thrown around so much in our culture, but I would say that "hate" is just as ill-used. In the course of a single day, I might say that I hate spiders, or grape juice, or a song or a commercial, or cancer. Truthfully, my feelings toward most of those could be better described with other words.
"Hate" as a word has almost lost its meaning, but as an emotion it is extremely strong, and the rhetor who tries to stir it up runs the risk of taking the audience further than intended, and that sort of thing tends to end badly.
I really like the way you describe hate as an Irrational Beast because 1) hate is not based on facts but beliefs 2) and the emotion has terrible consequences. You are right in the fact that we all need to be more careful using this word. The Holocaust is a tragic example of how powerful and deadly this emotion is. While many use the emotion of hate freely in their speech and writing, they should take the time to analyze what they think they hate. Much of the time we confuse hate with other emotions such as anger or fear. If this is the case in a writer's rhetoric, it is extremely important that they figure out their emotions. There is a big difference between expressing "I want to get back at you" versus "I wish you never existed."
ReplyDeleteI like the way you address Aristotle's discussion of enmity. Particularly, I like your statement that "an understanding of what hatred is is an essential tool in both avoiding becoming a "Bad Rhetor" yourself and in understanding much of the strife before us." When the modern student studies Aristotle, the temptation is to discredit much of his advice as obsolete. Perhaps it IS obsolete, but as you've touched on, Aristotle's "how-to guide" for producing emotions may have more utility when not used for the purpose of PRODUCING emotions, but for understanding them. It helps me none to know that I can encourage enmity by setting "potter against potter" (Book 2, Ch 4, Para 1), but it's an excellent source for uncovering the roots of enmity, and perhaps developing strategies to combat it.
ReplyDeleteYour discussion of hatred and becoming a "Bad Rhetor" made me think of Adolf Hitler. Clearly his rhetoric was effective in inspiring hatred towards Jews. He fed off the fear and racism towards Jews that already existed in many Germans leading to one of the most horrifying acts of genocide of the 20th century. It is both scary and fascinating to have such a real example of how effective the "Bad Rhetor" can be when he provokes hate among his audience.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, have you considered whether or not there is such a thing as just hatred? For instance, hating serial killers? And I don't mean being angry or wanting justice for them, but actually wishing they never existed.
I think "just hatred" translates to evolutionary imperative. Is it even possible to hate a serial killer? It implies you're against all they stand for in addition to wanting them to die in a fire. Can you be "against" a crazy person, which serial killers usually are? Is there anything there to be against?
ReplyDeleteThen again, I have this friend, Laz, who feels more righteous indignation than I think is possible for me. Laz hates serial killers. Laz hates crime. If Laz could, he would Batman out in order to bring more justice. He's just that kind of dude. So does Laz hate crime? To me, his obsession with it looks pretty irrational, based on the need to be a hero combined with disillusionment with the real world. To Aristotle it might just look like devotion to justice. It doesn't look like hatred from an Aristotleian point of view, but it still makes perfect sense to me to say "Laz hates crime." It also makes perfect sense to me to say "Charlotte hates cargo pants."
I wonder when hatred made the jump, even just colloquially, from righteous dislike to extreme dislike. Even though Aristotle talks about how hatred can apply to entire classes of people, it still has a feeling of righteousness to the hater; ex., Plato hated the gays because Socrates slept with his students. It even feels a little righteous to hate cargo pants, because they're ugly and pointless. But it's not righteous the way hating your enemy is righteous -- or even hating a serial killer.
Can an emotion be called the same emotion when it's directed at non-human subjects? Is it a modern thing that we subjectify objects in order to have emotions about them? How many rhetorical questions can I get into this comment?
I love the last paragraph. To me it brings to mind the current political environment. The talking heads on both sides (rep and dem) have taken the "low lying fruit". They have played upon old hatred battle lines like rich/poor and black/white to rouse "the beast", which has sunk its claws into the politics of the time.
ReplyDeleteI love the way you describe prejudices. You do a good job of showing how powerful they are, and how simple it is to evoke them.
This is soooo interesting. I tell people all of the time that I, myself, am prejudice, but not racist. When I make that statement, people always ask me what is the difference? My response is that I would never hurt anyone based upon my stereotypes and beliefs. I think Aristotle talking about how hatred doesn't have to be directed specifically at a person is interesting because most times hatred is aimed towards some idea. For example, people hate certain types of food. If you ask them why, they'll normally begin their response by saying, "it tastes like". Therefore they are associating a taste with a negative idea.
ReplyDeleteI just think how you stated hatred being possible without a true perception or experience of something is so true.