Emotional Power : No racial or social group has monopoly over it

Kuir ë Garang*

"However, Europeans or men as a group are as emotionally vulnerable as any social group regardless of the influence men and Europeans have in society. No amount of economic and political power can make someone impervious to disrespect, insults, vulnerability (real or imagined)."

Most of us live in group settings. Some of us therefore tend to assume that most human actions are motivated and circumscribed by qualities that are shared by groups, especially dominant social groups: Europeans in the world, Men, Cis-gendered folks, the capitalist class, etc.

Some of us assume, inadvertently perhaps, that Europeans ("white" people) have more emotional power than others. I think this is not only wrong. It's also dangerous.

For instance, no social group, whether gender, racial, political or economic, possesses a collective emotional power. A social group, European say, may possess more economic and political power. This can allow them to influence how other social groups navigate society.

However, Europeans or men as a group are as emotionally vulnerable as any social group regardless of the influence men and Europeans have in society. No amount of economic and political power can make someone impervious to disrespect, insults, vulnerability (real or imagined).

This sounds like a commonsense reality. But think about it in real life. It's complicated.

With all his economic and political might, Donald Trump cannot pass any emotional test, however small. With all his economic might, Elon Musk becomes foul-mouthed when he is emotionally touched. When he realized his wife, Hilary Clinton, could lose to Obama, Clinton described Obama's campaign as a "fairly tale."

Now, imagine the average Jane and Deng in your office!

This is one of the issues, I believe, activists and advocates have overlooked. They expect the very racist, sexist and homophobe against whom they campaign to safeguard, or respect, the emotions of their victims. Racists, homophobes and misogynists are as emotionally vulnerable as the people they discriminate. This is an obstacle to systemic change.

This is why anti-racism faces such a strong push-back. Advocates expect non-racialized groups to treat an emotionally charged social reality logically while catering for the emotional needs of the racialized and the marginalized.

When Robin Di'Angelo talked about "White Fragility, and I don't think she's wrong, she also expects "white people" to have some sort of a super-human capacity to control emotions not as individuals (which is always possible) but as a collective "white people."

There are two lessons here. Any anti-racism program should understand that no collective group possesses a robotic capacity to control emotions. Being 'stoic" only means hiding emotions. It does not mean not feeling emotionally vulnerable.

The second lesson is the risk of putting the emotional well-being of the marginalized in the hands of the very people who discriminate against them.

____

*Kuir ë Garang is the editor of The Philosophical Refugee.

South Sudan needs statesmen, not succession seekers

 By Bil Riar*

Photo: Courtesy of the author's Facebook account

While President Salva Kiir is outside the country receiving medical treatment, South Sudan should be asking itself a much bigger question: Why does the absence of one man immediately create a race among others to position themselves for power?

Is leadership in South Sudan truly about serving the Republic, or has it become a competition over who will inherit the seat of power?

If every time the President leaves the country, individuals begin calculating how they can take over, then we must ask ourselves whether we have built a government based on institutions—or one based on personalities.

 President Kiir has spent decades at the center of South Sudan's political system. Whether one agrees with his leadership or not, the reality is that he has often had to manage competing political, military, and personal interests around him.

 But there is a lesson for everyone around him: A leader who constantly fears betrayal will never fully trust those who appear more interested in his position than in the survival of the Republic.

And that is where today's leaders must look at themselves.

 Instead of asking, “When can I take over?”, every responsible leader should be asking: “What can I do today to make South Sudan stronger when the current President is no longer in office?”

That is the difference between a politician and a statesman.

 South Sudan does not need men who become courageous only when the President is absent. It needs men and women who can think independently, govern responsibly, and defend the constitutional order regardless of who is sitting in J1 [Juba 1].

And this message should not be reduced to Warrap, to Jieeng leadership, or to any particular community.

This is a national question.

 No tribe should be blamed for the failures of individual politicians. No community should be treated as the property of one political faction. South Sudan belongs to all its citizens.

 If the current generation truly wants to leave a legacy, then it must stop thinking only about who will replace Kiir and start thinking about what kind of country will exist after Kiir.

Power is temporary.

The Republic is permanent.

The chair in J1 is not the destiny of South Sudan. South Sudan itself is the destiny.

So let every leader ask himself or herself honestly: If tomorrow I am given the highest office in the land, do I have the vision to unite the country, the courage to protect its people, and the humility to serve rather than rule?

If the answer is "no", then the ambition to take over should end today.

 South Sudan does not need another race for the chair. It needs a generation of statesmen capable of carrying the nation beyond the personalities of its current leaders.

___

*Comrade Bil Riar, Son of Warrap State.

Editorial Note: The views expressed in this article belong solely to the author and not TPR.