Hatred As Resistance? The Politics Of Legitimate Emotion

-Analysis-

BARCELONA — This September sees the publication of the Catalan translation of the book Hate: The Uses of a Powerful Emotion by Şeyda Kurt. It is certainly a provocative notion: what if we review our conception of hatred and realize that what lies behind it is not exactly what we thought? Is it possible to think about hatred in terms that do not reject it outright? Are there groups in society who are allowed to hate, and others who are not?

Starting from the Aristotelian idea, Kurt defines hatred as something that, unlike anger, is not cured by time. If anger is the desire to inflict pain, hatred would be the desire to do evil. Anger is directed at specific individuals or entities, while hatred tends to be directed at much more general categories and, in this sense, is more vague.

Given this brief outline, it would be difficult for anyone to consider hatred desirable. Indeed, hatred would never be desirable. However, on certain occasions it may seem unavoidable or, even more so, inevitable.

Indeed, the rejection and condemnation of hatred turns out to not be as absolute and unambiguous as one might initially think. In general, hegemonic powers through their military power, the influence of their discourse, and the infinite capabilities at their disposal tend to have carte blanche not to hate, but to justify and legitimize their hatred (while masking it). After all, colonialism was once justified, as was slavery, and more recently, countless racial, sexual, and other prejudices have been legitimized and normalized, with a clear component of hatred at the core of their discourse.

This hatred is accompanied by the force to impose a certain criteria and establish the reality they desire.

Reaction of the marginalized

However, when certain minorities or groups of any kind grow tired of the marginalization, lack of protection and abuse to which they have been subjected, it is somehow expected that any form of response or protest will be calm and peaceful, and that they will not be carried away by hatred.

This expectation of serenity and common sense has been internalized very well through decades and decades of discourse telling us that at some point prudence must begin, and that we must not add fuel to the fire. 

Was it illegitimate for Jews to hate the Nazis and organize a Resistance?

The desire to end the constant feedback loop of hatred sounds very sensible. Or at least it does until we bring the concepts into the real world. One might ask, was it illegitimate for Jews to hate the Nazis and organize a Resistance? Was it also illegitimate for black people to hate white people during apartheid in South Africa? Or, to bring it to our harsh and sad reality, is Palestinian hatred toward Israel illegitimate?

Strategic hatred

Of course, in the face of aggression and abuse such as those mentioned above, hatred as a response can be understood in a different way. However, some aspects remain unclear. Is hatred primarily directed at Germans? Primarily at white South Africans? At Israeli Jews? Or rather, at the states that protect them? At governments? At complicit elites?

Kurt herself admits that she does not have a clear answer to this question, although she tends to be more sympathetic to institutional than personal hatred. In other words, it makes more sense to start from hatred towards the power structures that allow ignominy, rather than towards all the people or communities that form part of those structures.

Kurt presents a form of hatred that she defines as strategic, which is nothing more than a way of understanding it as a potential for resistance, as a stronghold from which to channel a response to social injustice, systemic grievances, or lack of opportunities due to prejudice. In short, it is an invitation to think about hatred without feeling immediate rejection, but rather by paying attention to its nuances.