Sarah Ahmed: The Affective Politics of Fear
By Molly Rathbone
Sarah Ahmed explores the rhetoric that maintains the politics of fear towards the Other.
Fear is maintained to produce a sense of vulnerability in the public, in order for governments to promise safety. Ahmed believes it is the threatening unknown that creates fear in a future sense.
​
She states: one sweats, one’s heart races, one’s whole body becomes a space of unpleasant intensity, an impression that overwhelms us and pushes us back with the force of its negation, which may sometimes involve taking flight, and other times may involve paralysis.
So the object that we fear is not simply before us, or in front of us but impresses upon us in the present, as an anticipated pain in the future.’ (Ahmed n.d.: 65).
This sense of anticipation defines fear, it is the potential of threat or injury that creates the, ‘turning towards the object of love, who becomes a defence against the death that is apparently threatened by the object of fear. In this way, we can see that fear is that which keeps alive the fantasy of love as the preservation of life, but paradoxically only by
announcing the possibility of death.’ (Ahmed n.d.: 68)
The events of 9/11 have sparked fear against the Other. Rhetoric used in campaigns by the likes of Trump, ‘Make America Great Again’ suggests a yearning for control, power and wealth that America once had before 9/11, before the Other could be anybody. This sense of ambiguity heightens the sense of fear, ‘the bodies who ‘could be terrorists’ are the ones who might ‘look Muslim’.’ (Ahmed n.d.: 76).
​
As a consequence, Ahmed suggests ‘we are living in a ‘culture of fear’’ (Ahmed n.d.: 71). This fear ‘restricts the body’s mobility’ (Ahmed
date: 69), forcing civilians to stay indoors: ‘they suggest women must always be on guard when outside the home. They not only
construct ‘the outside’ as inherently dangerous, but they also posit home as being safe. So women, if they are to have access to feminine respectability, must either stay at home (femininity as domestication), or be careful in hoe they move and appear in public (femininity as a constrained mobility.)’ (Ahmed n.d.: 70)
A woman’s sense of fear has throughout time been as a result of male dominance whether that is a physical and sexual fear, a financial fear, etc. ‘Vulnerability is not an inherent characteristic of women’s bodies; rather it is an effect that works to secure femininity as a delimitation of movement in the public’ (Ahmed n.d.: 70).
This is represented in Funny Girls video The Walk Home Song. Although this a comedic sketch, it also rings truth around women in a social space, suggesting women often walk home with keys between their fingers, headphones on with no music or pretend to be taking a phone call in order to be aware and protect themselves against the threatening Other. Hanmer and Saunders suggest
a ‘women’s sense of security in public places is profoundly shaped by our inability to secure an undisputed right to occupy that space. The curtailing of movement is a not infrequent response to violent and threatening encounters in public.’ (Ahmed n.d.: 70).
​
Governments can manipulate this fear for example, George Bush’s response to the 9/11 attacks was: ‘this country will define our times, not be defined by them’ (Ahmed n.d.: 81).
People were urged to ‘’go about your daily business’, ‘to travel’, ‘to spend or consume’’ as a way of refusing to be a victim of terror. People were instructed to allow their bodies to occupy more space. It is interesting how the government encourages people to continue to spend, it really shows how appropriate liquid modernity and capitalism is in today’s
economy.
Sadly, the acts of a few people become stuck to people who are considered similarly, encouraging racial profiling. Leti Volpp suggests that the response to 9/11 facilitated ‘a new identity category that groups together persons who appear “Middle Eastern, Arab or Muslim”’ (Ahmed n.d.: 75). It is the idea that someone could be a terrorist. It is the idea of
potential future danger that produces fear.
Importantly, the word ‘terrorist; sticks to some bodies as it reopens histories of naming, just as the word ‘terrorist’ slides into other words in the accounts of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (such as fundamentalism, Islam, Arab, repressive, primitive and so on). (Ahmed n.d.: 76)
Our event contrasts this, we want to celebrate the other and what they offer our own culture. They bring vibrancy, knowledge, experiences, etc. We want to dissolve the idea of the Other due to its ability to separate two people.
We want to bring all cultures into one room to share music, to show cultural history and to create a friendship between people.
This can also be contrasted through the bigger picture of Brexit, wanting to repel the Other and take back our borders.
Reference:
Ahmed, S. (n.d.) ‘The Affective Politics of Fear’ The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press