Working ThroughVs Expressing Feelings

Which feelings should one “work through” and which feelings should one express? I am conflict-averse by nature so received wisdom holds that I should get better at asserting my boundaries. But in at least two instances in recent weeks, I swallowed my feelings and decided to digest them instead of expressing them, and thanked myself later for it. My feelings have been so volatile lately that I can’t trust them to stay in place long enough for me to act on them and not regret it. So what is to be done? Firstly, I might be using the terms feelings wrongly, at least according to some people. Emotions are mental states (sadness, jealousy, etc) while thoughts are interpretations of these mental states, and feelings are physical manifestations of those mental states. There is a lot of work out there urging people to pay attention to their “physical” feelings instead of getting swept up in emotions and thoughts. I read a book not that long ago titled Radical Acceptance, which has a central message of accepting every feeling without resistance and observing it instead of judging it. To pay attention to the parts of the body that feelings manifest as physical sensations. My problem is all my feelings seem to emanate from the  right lower abdomen. And, I am not sure how that knowledge helps.

Resisting Fascism

I had ambitious plans of working yesterday but then I checked the news and those plans went out the window. An ICE thug shot a protester dead in Minneapolis. She was a white female US citizen, widely considered the least threatening demographic and most deserving of protection from violence. Yes, this is not the first person ICE has killed and ICE has been brutalizing immigrants for months. But, if ICE can shoot a white woman in public, with a clear recording of the incident, with impunity, who knows what they can get away with. I have written before about how fascism is unfolding differently in the US and in India. In India, the fascist regime has slowly suffocated democratic institutions, taking them apart brick by brick. No need for shock-and-awe if you have a right-wing population that is broadly supportive of your agenda. And, fascism has to be resisted in the streets because given enough time, fascists neutralize the courts and make sure they don’t lose elections. When fascists control the state, resisting fascism becomes an extraordinarily risky business. But people have always done extraordinarily risky things for love and faith (not necessarily the religious kind). In India, not many days go by without reports of so-called “honour” killings, which is when members of an upper-caste family kill their daughter and her low-caste husband/lover as they believe their romance sullies their family’s “honour”. I read a statistic somewhere that, around the world, women are most at risk of being killed by intimate partners. But, I don’t imagine there are many places where they are at risk of being killed by their fathers and brothers. Honour killings are not a widespread phenomena in India but the very fact that they still happen is an abomination. However, news reports of honour killings fill me with both revulsion and hope and admiration. Hope and admiration for the young lovers who know that they could pay with their lives for loving the wrong person but still do. Humans have always done things that any rational risk assessment would rule out.

On Sad Boys

 I recently read a provocative piece that claimed that distressed boys were at the root of most of what is wrong with the world, and have always been. Disgruntled maladjusted boys are uniquely vulnerable to so-called extremist ideologies of the left and the right, which, the piece claims are two poles of the same magnet. One sought a perfect utopia, while the other sought to cleanse society of pollution. It cited a quote that I agree with: ’A faith is not acquired by reasoning. One does not fall in love with a woman, or enter the womb of a church, as a result of logical persuasion. Reason may defend an act of faith — but only after the act has been committed, and the man committed to the act. Persuasion may play a part in a man's conversion; but only the part of bringing to it full and conscious climax a process that has been maturing in regions where no persuasion can penetrate.’ I have lived in proximity to activists long enough to know that political ideologies are grounded more in faith than in reason. The moral fervour that animates political activists is fuelled by faith. How else do people persist with fringe groups for years, if not decades? I would even grant that such zeal makes one susceptible to conspiracy theories that support one’s cause. But, I was not comfortable with the article’s claim that extreme left and extreme right causes are equally intolerant and prone to authoritarianism. Firstly, I am sure there are different shades among the far-right, but all of them support outright violence against marginalized peoples. I am not sure that is the case on the left. The article gives some examples of their run-ins with people of the far-left and far-right. Comparing privileged participants of Occupy Wall Street with the Sandy Hook shooter, as the article does, is laughably disingenuous. Secondly, of the far-left and far-right, only one is compatible with capitalism. In a world where capital is seemingly all-powerful and mobile, how an ideology positions itself in relation to capital matters in terms of its capacity to do damage. As recent events have shown, centrists who claim to be equally repelled by the far-left and the far-right are far more tolerant of right-wing governments if they don’t gum up the wheels of capitalism too much.