In The Promise of
Happiness Sara Ahmed examines the connection between our conception of
happiness and what constitutes the “good life.” She argues that certain ideas
and objects, for instance, marriage, family, and heterosexual intimacy, are
perceived as “happy objects” that contain the promise of future happiness.
These objects, Ahmed reveals, exist even in “the absence of happiness by
filling a certain gap; we anticipate that the object will cause happiness, such
that it becomes a prop that sustains the fantasy that happiness is what would
follow if only we could have ‘it’” (32). For her, these happy objects embody
the good life; they demarcate the kind of life we should strive for, such that
happiness becomes tied to acquiring the right or proper objects and unhappiness
to anything that deviates from this norm. Ahmed’s research deals precisely with
those individuals and groups that are figured as deviant because they are
already perceived as unhappy and/or attempt to seek happiness in unexpected
objects; by concentrating her study around figures such as the “feminist
killjoy, unhappy queer, and melancholic migrant,” she conveys the necessity of
dissociating our conception of happiness from what is unquestionably “good” and
examines the “‘unhappy archives’” each figure embodies as a way of illuminating
alternative modes of living (17).
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Theory Review: Ahmed's The Promise of Happiness (2010)
Ahmed, Sara. The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke
UP, 2010.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Theory Review: Berlant's Cruel Optimism (2011)
Berlant, Lauren. Cruel Optimism. Durham: Duke UP, 2011.
In Cruel Optimism Lauren Berlant reveals that
despite deteriorating social, economic, and environmental conditions, people
still remain attached to fantasies of the "good life"; her research examines
how such fantasies have survived even when conditions for survival are
increasingly compromised under postwar neoliberal restructuring. She
posits “cruel optimism” as a relational dynamic whereby individuals remain
attached to “compromised conditions of possibility” or “clusters of promises”
embedded in desired object-ideas even when they inhibit the conditions for
flourishing and fulfilling such promises (24, 23). For Berlant, optimism is a
formal or structural feeling, such that an “optimistic attachment is invested
in one’s own or the world’s continuity, but might feel any number of ways,” including not optimistic at all (13).
In other words, maintaining attachments that sustain the good life fantasy, no
matter how injurious or cruel these attachments may be, allows people to make
it through day-to-day life when the day-to-day has become unlivable. Berlant is
essentially concerned with conditions of living or the state of the “present,”
which she describes as structured through “crisis ordinariness,” and turns to
affect and aesthetics as a way of apprehending these crises; by tracking the
various impasses we face today, she suggests that it becomes possible to
recognize that certain “genres” are no longer sustainable in the present and
that new emergent aesthetic forms are taking hold, alternative genres that
allow us to recognize modes of living not rooted in normative good life
fantasies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)