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.