What do you think?
Rate this book
The Promise of Happiness
The Promise of Happiness is a provocative cultural critique of the imperative to be happy. It asks what follows when we make our desires and even our own happiness conditional on the happiness of others: “I just want you to be happy”; “I’m happy if you’re happy.” Combining philosophy and feminist cultural studies, Sara Ahmed reveals the affective and moral work performed by the “happiness duty,” the expectation that we will be made happy by taking part in that which is deemed good, and that by being happy ourselves, we will make others happy. Ahmed maintains that happiness is a promise that directs us toward certain life choices and away from others. Happiness is promised to those willing to live their lives in the right way.
Ahmed draws on the intellectual history of happiness, from classical accounts of ethics as the good life, through seventeenth-century writings on affect and the passions, eighteenth-century debates on virtue and education, and nineteenth-century utilitarianism. She engages with feminist, antiracist, and queer critics who have shown how happiness is used to justify social oppression, and how challenging oppression causes unhappiness. Reading novels and films including Mrs. Dalloway, The Well of Loneliness, Bend It Like Beckham, and Children of Men, Ahmed considers the plight of the figures who challenge and are challenged by the attribution of happiness to particular objects or social ideals: the feminist killjoy, the unhappy queer, the angry black woman, and the melancholic migrant. Through her readings she raises critical questions about the moral order imposed by the injunction to be happy.
Ahmed draws on the intellectual history of happiness, from classical accounts of ethics as the good life, through seventeenth-century writings on affect and the passions, eighteenth-century debates on virtue and education, and nineteenth-century utilitarianism. She engages with feminist, antiracist, and queer critics who have shown how happiness is used to justify social oppression, and how challenging oppression causes unhappiness. Reading novels and films including Mrs. Dalloway, The Well of Loneliness, Bend It Like Beckham, and Children of Men, Ahmed considers the plight of the figures who challenge and are challenged by the attribution of happiness to particular objects or social ideals: the feminist killjoy, the unhappy queer, the angry black woman, and the melancholic migrant. Through her readings she raises critical questions about the moral order imposed by the injunction to be happy.
328 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
About the author
Sara Ahmed
33 books1,358 followersSara Ahmed is a British-Australian scholar whose area of study includes the intersection of feminist theory, lesbian feminism, queer theory, critical race theory and postcolonialism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews
April 24, 2013
the chapters on the various "happiness demands" made of women, queers, and migrants -- how happiness can be both a demand of and a justification of an oppressive status quo -- were good and worthwhile, especially when they got specific.
However, I found Ahmed's conclusions incredibly frustrating. I feel that she misrepresents the context and nature of the affirmative turn in feminism. It's presented as if it's just a continuation of Utilitarian and Aristotelian and commonsense arguments for happiness that boil down to "uh, it's happiness, like der". I think it's more accurate to say that it's a response to specific ways loss, pain, and anger have been prioritised (indeed, mandated) in feminist and queer theory. Ahmed doesn't really engage with this history and it's annoying, especially when she gets into queer theory and queer negativity. It's like hanging out at the university food co-op with a bunch of first years and having a converstion about "have you heard of this thing called queer? It's like, you don't have to be normal to be equal, maybe you should fuck with what's normal". If I have a critique of that, it's not necessarily because I'm a gay conservative, or someone who's never thought about it like that before. There's no acknowledgement that you might already be familiar with these discourses and be reacting to them, perhaps even moving beyond them.
Specifically: she doesn't problematise the ways pessimism and despair have been framed as more authentic, as uncovering some essential baserock reality the fluffy-minded can't grasp. Indeed, she engages in this framing, regularly describing happiness as limiting our capacity to understand "reality". I just think it's sloppy as fuck. She also doesn't seriously engage with the deadening and demobilising capacities of negative affect. I don't understand how you can write a whole book about how happiness can be used to stymy radical change without once talking about how despair can do the same thing. It's not that people are too happy to see how fucked their situation is. It's that they despair of their capacity to change it.
However, I found Ahmed's conclusions incredibly frustrating. I feel that she misrepresents the context and nature of the affirmative turn in feminism. It's presented as if it's just a continuation of Utilitarian and Aristotelian and commonsense arguments for happiness that boil down to "uh, it's happiness, like der". I think it's more accurate to say that it's a response to specific ways loss, pain, and anger have been prioritised (indeed, mandated) in feminist and queer theory. Ahmed doesn't really engage with this history and it's annoying, especially when she gets into queer theory and queer negativity. It's like hanging out at the university food co-op with a bunch of first years and having a converstion about "have you heard of this thing called queer? It's like, you don't have to be normal to be equal, maybe you should fuck with what's normal". If I have a critique of that, it's not necessarily because I'm a gay conservative, or someone who's never thought about it like that before. There's no acknowledgement that you might already be familiar with these discourses and be reacting to them, perhaps even moving beyond them.
Specifically: she doesn't problematise the ways pessimism and despair have been framed as more authentic, as uncovering some essential baserock reality the fluffy-minded can't grasp. Indeed, she engages in this framing, regularly describing happiness as limiting our capacity to understand "reality". I just think it's sloppy as fuck. She also doesn't seriously engage with the deadening and demobilising capacities of negative affect. I don't understand how you can write a whole book about how happiness can be used to stymy radical change without once talking about how despair can do the same thing. It's not that people are too happy to see how fucked their situation is. It's that they despair of their capacity to change it.
June 9, 2016
This book unintentionally saved my life. I've always suspected that being miserable is okay but I never analyzed my depression as useful until reading Ahmed's point of view. This book is touching, easy to read, and hella wise. Her analyses of books/movies became a little tedious but they're worth reading. That's the only "issue" I had with the book.
November 17, 2020
Mutlulukla ilgili bu kadar çok şeyin söylendiği başka bir eser yoktur diye düşünüyorum. Mutlulukla ilgili böylesine derli toplu bir eserle de ilk defa karşılaşıyorum. Mutluluk vaadi, mutluluk fantezisi, mutluluk profili, mutluluk endüstrisi, mutluluk görevi, mutluluk iddiası, mutlu olma özgürlüğü... Kısacası mutluluğun hiçbir yansıması gözden kaçmamış. Sara Ahmed de çoğunlukla söz konusu durumları betimlemiş. Resmi tüm detaylarıyla ortaya koyduktan sonra da gardını alır. Kendi tabiriyle bir oyunbozan olur o vakit. Judith Butler'ın "bela"sı, Bell Hooks'un öfkeli yoksul siyah kadını Sara Ahmed'te "oyunbozan" olacaktır. Feminist bir duruş var ama diğer tahakküm biçimlerinden soyutlanmış bir duruş değil bu. Aynı zamanda meseleye queer cephesinden bakılmış. Bir bölümü queer bakışıyla verilen esere yayıncı da "queer" kitaplığı kategorisine dahil etmiş. Ahmed feminist kimliğini queer kimliğinin yanı sıra siyah ve göçmen kimlikleri ile pekleştirmiş. Oyunbozanlığını da bu toplam bakış açısı üzerine kuruyor.
Pragmatist (faydacı) filozof Jeremy Bentham insan mutluluğu için şöyle basit bir tez ortaya atmıştır: Hazdan ıstırabı düştüğünüzde aradaki fark insanın mutluluğudur. Bentham, ekonomik yaşam ile tezini doğrulatmaya çalışır. Ne kadar çok kar ya da maddi fayda elde ederseniz, ne kadar çok tüketim malına sahip olursanız o derece mutlusunuz. Satış fiyatı ile üretim maliyeti, yatırım ve getirisi arasındaki fark da mutluluktur bu durumda... Ne var ki, Bentham yaklaşımının toplumsal faydadan çok küçük bir azınlığın faydasına olduğu sonucunu görmezden gelmiştir. İnsanlık iki yüz yıl önce dile getirilmiş yaklaşımdan kendini kurtarabilmiş değil... Sadece bu değil, evlilik ve aile de mutluluk için doğru tercihlerdir. Oyunbozan kimliği ortaya çıkmadan Ahmed bir süreliğine, adeta nötr bir anlatıcı kimliğiyle, mutlulukla ilgili genel geçer kanılara onay verir gibi davranır:
"Mutluluğun vaat dolu dünyasından bir şey öğreneceksek, o da mutluluğun, bazı şeylerin biz onlara rastlamadan iyi kılınmasıyla ilgili olduğudur. Böyle iyi şeylere yönelmek, doğru yola yönelmektir. Bu yolu diğerleriyle paylaşmamız önemlidir. Hayran kulüpleri ve hobi grupları toplumsal hayatta saklı olan bazı şeyleri açığa çıkarır; Sevdiğimiz şeyleri sevenleri sevme eğilimimiz vardır. Bu yüzden sosyal bağlar hep hissedilir. Bizi aynı nesneler mutlu ediyorsa veya bizi mutlu ediyormuşçasına aynı nesnelere yatırım yaparsak aynı yola doğru yönelmiş veya dönmüş oluruz. İyi olarak değerlendirilmiş nesnelerin iyi anlamda tesiri altında olmak, tesirsel bir topluluğa ait olmanın iyi bir yoludur. Mutluluk nedeni olarak aynı nesnelere yatırım yapan başka kişilerle birlikte oluruz."
Resim üç aşağı beş yukarı bu. Bundan dolayı da mutluluğun "son nokta," "yol," "nihai amaç," "telos" olma durumları tarışılıyor. Ahlakın, iyiliğin, melankolinin, bilincin, geleceğin, kaybın mutluluğa tesiri söz konusu ediliyor her daim. Mutluluğun mutsuzlukla imtihanı konuyu daha da berraklaştırıyor. Mutlu olma özgürlüğü ancak mutsuz olma özgürlüğü sayesinde var olabiliyor. Mutluluk mutlaklaştırılmıyor. Eleştirisi de yapılıyor. Bir miktar mutsuzluğun her daim olması mutluluğun devamlılığı için elzemdir.
Eserin kolay okunması, üstelik epistemolojinin dışlanmadan bunun yapılması ateşi tanrılardan çalan Prometheus misali biz ölümlüler için yerinde bir hizmet. Kuramla ve felsefeyle ilgili referanslarıyla birlikte bir çok roman ve film de tezlerin desteklenmesi için aracılık yapmış. Benim pek de hazzetmediğim Hayatımın Çalımı Beckham adlı filmin queer, göçmen ve ırkçılık karşıtı duruşa hizmet ettiği aklımın ucundan geçmemişti hiç. Daha önce başka eleştirmenlerin de söz konusu ettiği Alfonso Cuaron'un Son Umut'unu izlemek zorunlu hale geldi. Birçok queer roman eserin dolayımına sokulurken, sözlerimi yazarın Toni Morrison'un En Mavi Göz'ünden alıntıladığı ve eserde sıkça sözü edilen yanlış bilinçle ilgili pasajla bitiriyorum: "Mutlular mavi gözlüdür, mavi gözlüler güzeldir, güzeller iyidir, iyiler mutludur."
"
Pragmatist (faydacı) filozof Jeremy Bentham insan mutluluğu için şöyle basit bir tez ortaya atmıştır: Hazdan ıstırabı düştüğünüzde aradaki fark insanın mutluluğudur. Bentham, ekonomik yaşam ile tezini doğrulatmaya çalışır. Ne kadar çok kar ya da maddi fayda elde ederseniz, ne kadar çok tüketim malına sahip olursanız o derece mutlusunuz. Satış fiyatı ile üretim maliyeti, yatırım ve getirisi arasındaki fark da mutluluktur bu durumda... Ne var ki, Bentham yaklaşımının toplumsal faydadan çok küçük bir azınlığın faydasına olduğu sonucunu görmezden gelmiştir. İnsanlık iki yüz yıl önce dile getirilmiş yaklaşımdan kendini kurtarabilmiş değil... Sadece bu değil, evlilik ve aile de mutluluk için doğru tercihlerdir. Oyunbozan kimliği ortaya çıkmadan Ahmed bir süreliğine, adeta nötr bir anlatıcı kimliğiyle, mutlulukla ilgili genel geçer kanılara onay verir gibi davranır:
"Mutluluğun vaat dolu dünyasından bir şey öğreneceksek, o da mutluluğun, bazı şeylerin biz onlara rastlamadan iyi kılınmasıyla ilgili olduğudur. Böyle iyi şeylere yönelmek, doğru yola yönelmektir. Bu yolu diğerleriyle paylaşmamız önemlidir. Hayran kulüpleri ve hobi grupları toplumsal hayatta saklı olan bazı şeyleri açığa çıkarır; Sevdiğimiz şeyleri sevenleri sevme eğilimimiz vardır. Bu yüzden sosyal bağlar hep hissedilir. Bizi aynı nesneler mutlu ediyorsa veya bizi mutlu ediyormuşçasına aynı nesnelere yatırım yaparsak aynı yola doğru yönelmiş veya dönmüş oluruz. İyi olarak değerlendirilmiş nesnelerin iyi anlamda tesiri altında olmak, tesirsel bir topluluğa ait olmanın iyi bir yoludur. Mutluluk nedeni olarak aynı nesnelere yatırım yapan başka kişilerle birlikte oluruz."
Resim üç aşağı beş yukarı bu. Bundan dolayı da mutluluğun "son nokta," "yol," "nihai amaç," "telos" olma durumları tarışılıyor. Ahlakın, iyiliğin, melankolinin, bilincin, geleceğin, kaybın mutluluğa tesiri söz konusu ediliyor her daim. Mutluluğun mutsuzlukla imtihanı konuyu daha da berraklaştırıyor. Mutlu olma özgürlüğü ancak mutsuz olma özgürlüğü sayesinde var olabiliyor. Mutluluk mutlaklaştırılmıyor. Eleştirisi de yapılıyor. Bir miktar mutsuzluğun her daim olması mutluluğun devamlılığı için elzemdir.
Eserin kolay okunması, üstelik epistemolojinin dışlanmadan bunun yapılması ateşi tanrılardan çalan Prometheus misali biz ölümlüler için yerinde bir hizmet. Kuramla ve felsefeyle ilgili referanslarıyla birlikte bir çok roman ve film de tezlerin desteklenmesi için aracılık yapmış. Benim pek de hazzetmediğim Hayatımın Çalımı Beckham adlı filmin queer, göçmen ve ırkçılık karşıtı duruşa hizmet ettiği aklımın ucundan geçmemişti hiç. Daha önce başka eleştirmenlerin de söz konusu ettiği Alfonso Cuaron'un Son Umut'unu izlemek zorunlu hale geldi. Birçok queer roman eserin dolayımına sokulurken, sözlerimi yazarın Toni Morrison'un En Mavi Göz'ünden alıntıladığı ve eserde sıkça sözü edilen yanlış bilinçle ilgili pasajla bitiriyorum: "Mutlular mavi gözlüdür, mavi gözlüler güzeldir, güzeller iyidir, iyiler mutludur."
"
September 10, 2022
Un game-changer, simplemente. El capítulo dedicado a las feministas aguafiestas es poderoso, los debates de los objetos y la esperanza son para repetirlos hasta volverlos mantras; sin embargo, el de los migrantes lo sentí un poco más acelerado, quizá incluso generalizador, hay de migraciones a migraciones, en fin. Un libro perfecto con todo y matices.
La traducción es excelente, aunque podría ayudarse más de los demostrativos, es medio engorroso estar leyendo sujetos completos (sobre todo si están formados de tres o cuatro palabras).
La traducción es excelente, aunque podría ayudarse más de los demostrativos, es medio engorroso estar leyendo sujetos completos (sobre todo si están formados de tres o cuatro palabras).
September 1, 2010
I cannot speak highly enough of this book, and more importantly of this woman. She really is what the good stuff is made of! I have spent the past year writing around this kind of material for my thesis, so do not wish to go into a critical analysis of the book here. All I would like to do is to urge everyone to read it. And to even go back and read 'The Cultural Politics of Emotion'.
Today i was writing away at my computer and the cover of this book fell open, and saw her inscription to me on the first page, hoping that I find my 'hap'.
That certainly gave me a 'hap' to put into happiness.
Today i was writing away at my computer and the cover of this book fell open, and saw her inscription to me on the first page, hoping that I find my 'hap'.
That certainly gave me a 'hap' to put into happiness.
February 13, 2021
This is a fine book, but it has dated. It required a deeper theorization of commodification - and work.
This book has disconnected from an understanding of work - and leisure. The deep exploitation of most workers - most of the time - is invisible in this discussion.
Yes - happiness is heteronormative. But most citizens - most of the time - are so disconnected from happiness, it is no longer a word of value
This book has disconnected from an understanding of work - and leisure. The deep exploitation of most workers - most of the time - is invisible in this discussion.
Yes - happiness is heteronormative. But most citizens - most of the time - are so disconnected from happiness, it is no longer a word of value
June 26, 2021
Me encantó y más aún con la experiencia de discutir capítulo a capítulo en un taller.
April 4, 2020
¿Qué es la felicidad? No esperéis descubrirlo en este ensayo porque no es el propósito de Ahmed. Su trabajo comienza hablando del estudio de la felicidad como ciencia, ( psicología positiva) algo que ya hace eva illouz en su Happycracia. La felicidad se ha asociado a un estilo de vida, a una serie de objetos y la mayor parte de la sociedad tiende a ellos o cree que si no los alcanza no logrará ser feliz. ( Una pareja joven , con niños monos a poder ser blancos, trabajos de éxito, casa tal, coche x..).
Y en todo esto hay una serie de cuerpos, de colectivos que deben seguir la corriente para mantener la comodidad pública porque "yo soy Feliz si tu eres feliz".
La promesa de la felicidad localizada en esos objetos se convierte en toda una guía de adoctrinamiento.
Aquí es donde ahmed en un estudio interdisciplinar analiza esos colectivos ajenos a esa promesa de felicidad: las feministas aguafiestas "killjoy feminist", los queers infelices y los inmigrantes melancólicos.
Es un ensayo de fácil acceso, ameno ademas porque ahmed usa para explicar sus conceptos varias obras literarias y películas. Si es verdad que las referencias son infinitas y las notas al final de cada capítulo dan para pasar mucho tiempo investigando..
Yo después de leer a illouz y ahora a Ahmed sólo os digo que la felicidad da bastante miedo ^_^.
La felicidad enfoncada hacía un consumo determinado hacía una sexualidad , modelo de familia, a la vuelta al hogar, la blanquitud predominante hacía una individualización extrema...
Y en todo esto hay una serie de cuerpos, de colectivos que deben seguir la corriente para mantener la comodidad pública porque "yo soy Feliz si tu eres feliz".
La promesa de la felicidad localizada en esos objetos se convierte en toda una guía de adoctrinamiento.
Aquí es donde ahmed en un estudio interdisciplinar analiza esos colectivos ajenos a esa promesa de felicidad: las feministas aguafiestas "killjoy feminist", los queers infelices y los inmigrantes melancólicos.
Es un ensayo de fácil acceso, ameno ademas porque ahmed usa para explicar sus conceptos varias obras literarias y películas. Si es verdad que las referencias son infinitas y las notas al final de cada capítulo dan para pasar mucho tiempo investigando..
Yo después de leer a illouz y ahora a Ahmed sólo os digo que la felicidad da bastante miedo ^_^.
La felicidad enfoncada hacía un consumo determinado hacía una sexualidad , modelo de familia, a la vuelta al hogar, la blanquitud predominante hacía una individualización extrema...
March 18, 2024
I like the main argument - that happiness as a concept is overrated, in a sense that an individual cannot always be the only factor to blame because of his or her mis/fortune, that we are overwhelmed by the think-pink culture and I am also completely in agreement with the author's stance that "the move from happiness to suffering can sprint you into action". But this book is much tooooo long!!!!! The author keeps repeating herself over and over again.... It should have been one marvelous essay.....
Here is a wonderful and clever video on the subject - Zygmunt Bauman on Happiness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKQc...
Here is a wonderful and clever video on the subject - Zygmunt Bauman on Happiness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKQc...
Read
May 30, 2021another book I’ve read for my thesis lol, was interesting
July 17, 2022
“In coming to value that which is not valued, and in finding joy in places that are not deemed worthy, we learn about the costs of value and worth. […] To embrace silliness is to embrace affects that would not ordinarily participate in an affirmative or happiness ethics. Our unhappy archives are unsurprisingly full of silliness and other inappropriately positive affects. […] The freedom to be unhappy, […] thus include[s] the freedom to be happy in inappropriate ways.”
Read
July 23, 2023Totally reorienting. Genius beyond genius, pure poetry. Somehow also compulsively readable—all academics should be taking note from Sara Ahmed.
Read
March 3, 2021Una pasada de ensayo. Interesantísimo. Cada página me ha tenido en vilo. Además, se me ha hecho superameno. Seguiría leyendo páginas, páginas y más páginas.
July 21, 2015
One of my favorite jokes:
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: That's not funny.
We've been trying to fight against the stereotypes of the feminist killjoy, dour queer, angry radical, melancholy migrant. It's frightening when someone says Maybe they're right sometimes. Maybe engaging consciously with injustice will make you unhappy. Instead of trying to claim that we're finding some deeper happiness, maybe we should be challenging the supremacy of the promise of happiness to begin with.
This book is written with an academic stance, and I found some of the philosophy dry and the close readings of movies and books too detailed. But I'm fascinated by the big ideas in it: how feminists, queers, migrants, and revolutionaries are 'affect aliens'; the coercive, reactive nature of the push for happiness; the exploration of 'queer pessimism' and 'being for being against'; and the notion that freedom to be unhappy also carries with it the freedom to be happy in inappropriate ways.
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: That's not funny.
We've been trying to fight against the stereotypes of the feminist killjoy, dour queer, angry radical, melancholy migrant. It's frightening when someone says Maybe they're right sometimes. Maybe engaging consciously with injustice will make you unhappy. Instead of trying to claim that we're finding some deeper happiness, maybe we should be challenging the supremacy of the promise of happiness to begin with.
This book is written with an academic stance, and I found some of the philosophy dry and the close readings of movies and books too detailed. But I'm fascinated by the big ideas in it: how feminists, queers, migrants, and revolutionaries are 'affect aliens'; the coercive, reactive nature of the push for happiness; the exploration of 'queer pessimism' and 'being for being against'; and the notion that freedom to be unhappy also carries with it the freedom to be happy in inappropriate ways.
June 11, 2013
Chapters 1-3, on feminist killjoys and unhappy queers, were excellent; 4.5 stars.
Ahmed lost me a bit when it came to migrants and happy futures, although this may be more of a deficit on my part as a reader, rather than her as a writer. I think I'm with Liz on this one.
Ahmed lost me a bit when it came to migrants and happy futures, although this may be more of a deficit on my part as a reader, rather than her as a writer. I think I'm with Liz on this one.
May 25, 2011
I adore this book. My only critique is that I don't like the way she split up the chapters according to different identity groups. Otherwise, it's a fantastic examination of the "dark underbelly" of happiness.
May 9, 2016
3.5
i kind of hoped to fall in love with this, but didn't, really. lots of interesting concepts here that i might return to, though, just wasn't always very convinced by the way they were connected.
i kind of hoped to fall in love with this, but didn't, really. lots of interesting concepts here that i might return to, though, just wasn't always very convinced by the way they were connected.
May 18, 2021
Este libro que, más que deconstruir, destruye el concepto de felicidad, dándote una palmada comprensiva en la espalda. Este libro que te incita a aceptar la infelicidad que llevas arrastrando toda tu vida como una tara, mientras te dice que tu amargura puede ser la herramienta más poderosa de transformación social y política. Este libro que hace acopio de todo, que grita desde la intersección de los incomprendidos. Este libro me ha hecho irónicamente muy feliz, con permiso de Sara Ahmed.
June 4, 2023
Llevo 5 meses leyendo este libro, largo, sesudo y muy, muy interesante. Indistintamente, las reflexiones se han ido relacionando con muchos aspectos de mi vida o de cómo observo el mundo. Pero, además, llegar al capítulo de “Futuros felices” en un momento en el que arrasa el discurso neoliberal y en el que personalmente me encuentro planteándome el porqué he sido tantas veces tachada de pesimista, uf. Me ha sanado y me ha ayudado a comprender.
December 9, 2022
I wrote a 13 page book review of Ahmed’s work for rhetorical theory. A fine work of scholarship written against the backdrop of happiness scholarship and happiness industry research. She uses critical affect theory to explain happiness as emotionally sticky. Happiness emotions and life desires stick to objects in life and in imagination which gives life direction. By using agendas from critical race, gender, and queer studies she takes a look at happiness as normative (replete with “happy objects”) and their unhappy affects on queers, feminists, and migrants. Her methodology is an archive of television, novels, and movies, and her findings have implications that happiness needs to expand solipsistic notions stemming from happy people; which is to say that happiness is that which happy people enjoy and that which others should want in their future. Throughout the 300 pages, you wish the notes were less extravagant (I ended up quitting visiting them after awhile), and the methodology would branch out to other methods of fact gathering. At one point, she bolsters her ideas with an analysis of movies like Bend It Like Beckham and Michael Bay’s The Island, and I had to suspend belief that a Michael Bay analysis belongs anywhere near scholarship. Another problem this book may have with some people is that she tends to characterize feminists queers and migrants in very narrow ways to say unhappiness/despair equals non normative. In the context of political struggle that may be true, but people can also have emotional connections to their identity that aren’t so narrow. I didn’t have that problem but I connect with queer scholarship because of its latent unhappiness with the world as it is. If you have ever felt alienated because of melancholia or bad feelings, or a lack of desire for things your peers desire, and feel that your unhappy emotions contribute to society rather than to it’s detriment (which is so often communicated in rhetoric toward killjoys and humanities scholars) this is the book for you. In that sense, it’s a rare work of scholarship with personal and emotional implications.
Powell’s Books have several copies for purchase in its warehouse.
Powell’s Books have several copies for purchase in its warehouse.
June 9, 2020
"En "La mística de la feminidad" Betty Friedan tematiza el malestar generalizado que a
las mujeres provoca el ideal social madre-esposa impuesto tras la segunda guerra
mundial; la promesa de felicidad vinculada al hogar y a la crianza no solo incumple las
expectativas proyectadas sino que mutila la posibilidad de imaginar un horizonte nuevo
en el que la vida emerja con punzante novedad. Además de la tristeza subversiva que
el feminismo trae consigo, Sara Ahmed analiza la realidad afectiva de las personas
queer así como la de las migrantes cuya desdicha pone en jaque la obligatoriedad de
la alegría y su función narcotizadora. La toma de conciencia de la clase, el género, la
sexualidad y la raza genera un desconsuelo que visibiliza el carácter contingente del
contenido de la ley que regula nuestra forma de complacernos.
Partiendo de la máxima de Simone de Beauvoir según la cual “siempre es fácil
declarar feliz una situación que se quiere imponer”, Sara Ahmed tuerce la mueca para
desvelar el sometimiento homogeneizador que el imperativo de la felicidad esconde y
teoriza sobre la aflicción como camino para salir de la servidumbre, pues cuando la
vida es insoportable la tristeza es obligatoria." Mónica Herranz
las mujeres provoca el ideal social madre-esposa impuesto tras la segunda guerra
mundial; la promesa de felicidad vinculada al hogar y a la crianza no solo incumple las
expectativas proyectadas sino que mutila la posibilidad de imaginar un horizonte nuevo
en el que la vida emerja con punzante novedad. Además de la tristeza subversiva que
el feminismo trae consigo, Sara Ahmed analiza la realidad afectiva de las personas
queer así como la de las migrantes cuya desdicha pone en jaque la obligatoriedad de
la alegría y su función narcotizadora. La toma de conciencia de la clase, el género, la
sexualidad y la raza genera un desconsuelo que visibiliza el carácter contingente del
contenido de la ley que regula nuestra forma de complacernos.
Partiendo de la máxima de Simone de Beauvoir según la cual “siempre es fácil
declarar feliz una situación que se quiere imponer”, Sara Ahmed tuerce la mueca para
desvelar el sometimiento homogeneizador que el imperativo de la felicidad esconde y
teoriza sobre la aflicción como camino para salir de la servidumbre, pues cuando la
vida es insoportable la tristeza es obligatoria." Mónica Herranz
December 13, 2021
This book was recommended to me by a graduate student while I was in college. She felt that everyone should read this book and even copied the first two chapters for us to read.
I’m not sure what to make of it. It’s a dense text that puts the importance of unhappiness into present-day and historical context.
The main messages I’m taking away are that unhappiness is important for change, and the promise of happiness is a myth for those who are privileged enough to not need desire.
I don’t recommend this book unless you’re looking to get deep into happiness politics, but the TL;DR of it is that it’s OK (and even good!) to be unhappy, and your discomfort with the world is valid and important (i.e. your parents are wrong for saying that you kill joy by bringing up serious societal issues).
I’m not sure what to make of it. It’s a dense text that puts the importance of unhappiness into present-day and historical context.
The main messages I’m taking away are that unhappiness is important for change, and the promise of happiness is a myth for those who are privileged enough to not need desire.
I don’t recommend this book unless you’re looking to get deep into happiness politics, but the TL;DR of it is that it’s OK (and even good!) to be unhappy, and your discomfort with the world is valid and important (i.e. your parents are wrong for saying that you kill joy by bringing up serious societal issues).
March 15, 2022
Incisive and revolutionary, showing the dangers of living life following around the shifting definitions of "happiness" and the objects/actions that purportedly lead to them as well as how socio-cultural power is exerted in the prescription/promise of "happiness" in exchange for obedience to a set of norms.
January 7, 2024
Erinomainen tutkielma siitä, minkälaisia normatiivisia ominaisuuksia ja vaatimuksia onnellisuuteen ja sen tavoitteluun liitetään, ja miten onnellisuuden käsitettä saatetaan käytää yhteiskunnallisen kritiikin piilottamisessa ja tukahduttamisessa. Ahmed pohtii onnellisuuden määritelmää, sen lieveilmiöitä, erilaisten marginalisoitujen ryhmien suhdetta onnellisuuteen ja hyödyntää muutamia onnellisuutta sivuavia populaarikulttuurin teoksia. Ajatus loistaa kirkkaana alusta loppuun, teksti on selkeää ja tehokasta. Psykoanalyysia ei tunnu tämän genren kirjallisuudessa pääsevän millään karkuun ja siitä lähtee yksi tähti. Välillä myös tuntui siltä, että onnettomuus tai tyytymättömyys (unhappiness) vallitsevan yhteiskuntajärjestyksen alla johtaa automaattisesti parempaan lopputulemaan kuin onnellisuuden tavoittelu, sillä onnellisuuteen liittyy niin paljon epäoikeudenmukaisuutta, enkä ole tästä aivan samaa mieltä - tyytymättömyys voi olla tehokas katalyytti ja motivaattori, mutta olisin toivonut hieman monipuolisempaa pohdintaa onnellisuuden tavoittelun erilaisista muodoista ja mahdollisuuksista.
"We recognize how much the promise of happiness depends upon the localization of suffering; others suffer so that a certain "we" can hold on to the good life. (. . .) The wrong of happiness is that it participates in the localization and containment of misery, the misery of those who cannot inhabit the apparently empty sign of happiness, who cannot populate its form. To walk way from such happiness is to be touched by suffering.
(. . .)
The political will to be affected by unhappiness could be rewritten as political freedom. We would radicalize freedom as the freedom to be unhappy. The freedom to be unhappy is not about being wretched or sad, although it might involve freedom to express such feelings. The freedom to be unhappy would be the freedom to be affected by what is unhappy, and to live a life that might affect others unhappily. The freedom to be unhappy would be the freedom to live a life that deviates from the paths of happiness, wherever that deviation takes us. It would thus mean the freedom to cause unhappiness by acts of deviation.
(. . .)
To recognize the causes of unhappiness is thus a part of our political cause. This is why any politics of justice will involve causing unhappiness even if that is not the point of our action. So much happiness is premised on, and promised by, the concealment of suffering, the freedom to look away from what compromises one's happiness. To revolt can hurt not only because you are proximate to hurt but also because you cause unhappiness by revealing the causes of unhappiness. You become the cause of the happiness you reveal. It is hard labor to live and the work under the sign of unhappiness. The unhappy archives that I have discussed throughout this book thus reflect on the collectivity of unhappiness. They resist the individualism that posits the unhappiness of one against happiness of many. It is not simply that we recognize that unhappiness is collective or shared; it is also that we realize that challenging happiness can only be a share project. It is too hard to cause unhappiness of the many as one."
(pp. 195-196)
"We recognize how much the promise of happiness depends upon the localization of suffering; others suffer so that a certain "we" can hold on to the good life. (. . .) The wrong of happiness is that it participates in the localization and containment of misery, the misery of those who cannot inhabit the apparently empty sign of happiness, who cannot populate its form. To walk way from such happiness is to be touched by suffering.
(. . .)
The political will to be affected by unhappiness could be rewritten as political freedom. We would radicalize freedom as the freedom to be unhappy. The freedom to be unhappy is not about being wretched or sad, although it might involve freedom to express such feelings. The freedom to be unhappy would be the freedom to be affected by what is unhappy, and to live a life that might affect others unhappily. The freedom to be unhappy would be the freedom to live a life that deviates from the paths of happiness, wherever that deviation takes us. It would thus mean the freedom to cause unhappiness by acts of deviation.
(. . .)
To recognize the causes of unhappiness is thus a part of our political cause. This is why any politics of justice will involve causing unhappiness even if that is not the point of our action. So much happiness is premised on, and promised by, the concealment of suffering, the freedom to look away from what compromises one's happiness. To revolt can hurt not only because you are proximate to hurt but also because you cause unhappiness by revealing the causes of unhappiness. You become the cause of the happiness you reveal. It is hard labor to live and the work under the sign of unhappiness. The unhappy archives that I have discussed throughout this book thus reflect on the collectivity of unhappiness. They resist the individualism that posits the unhappiness of one against happiness of many. It is not simply that we recognize that unhappiness is collective or shared; it is also that we realize that challenging happiness can only be a share project. It is too hard to cause unhappiness of the many as one."
(pp. 195-196)
July 7, 2023
Sara Ahmed’s, The Promise of Happiness, scrutinizes our ubiquitous desire to be happy. Of concern is the Being of happiness, as a concept, rather than happy feelings or feeling happy. Ahmed investigates the distribution and mobility of happiness - how happiness is meant for some bodies more than others – as well as the co-dependency between happiness and morality, the good life. Upon questioning the utility of happiness, Ahmed concludes by proposing what happiness, as a concept, can be utilized for.
To start, Ahmed paints a devastating image of happiness, illustrating happiness as a technology of social control: happiness is promised to those who live their lives the right way, where the ‘right’ way, and what the good life is, is determined by societies powerful structures, and reflects these structures of power. The path to happiness, the path to living the good life, involves becoming proximate to whiteness, heteronormativity, and wealth.
Importantly, Ahmed also un-conceals the violence within and underneath happiness. Happiness is violent insofar as it punishes those who do not, or can not, follow the path to happiness, and as it conceals and covers over forms of injustice, suffering, and unhappiness. Gender inequality; racism; colonialism; classism; homophobia, and more, are justified, and allowed to persist, insofar as they contribute to the happiness of society. In this way, happiness for all negates happiness for certain individuals.
Nonetheless, Ahmed does not demonize happiness, nor she does romanticize or call for a turn to unhappiness. Rather, she severs the ties between happiness and ethics, happiness and the good life, and re-images happiness, and unhappiness, as possibilities, and as conditions of possibilities instead. In taking happiness as possibility, Ahmed makes happiness possible for those bodies which are not proximate to whiteness, heteronormativity, or wealth. Widening the scope of possibilities for what the good life is, and can be, enables new actualities for the world; enables new worlds.
To start, Ahmed paints a devastating image of happiness, illustrating happiness as a technology of social control: happiness is promised to those who live their lives the right way, where the ‘right’ way, and what the good life is, is determined by societies powerful structures, and reflects these structures of power. The path to happiness, the path to living the good life, involves becoming proximate to whiteness, heteronormativity, and wealth.
Importantly, Ahmed also un-conceals the violence within and underneath happiness. Happiness is violent insofar as it punishes those who do not, or can not, follow the path to happiness, and as it conceals and covers over forms of injustice, suffering, and unhappiness. Gender inequality; racism; colonialism; classism; homophobia, and more, are justified, and allowed to persist, insofar as they contribute to the happiness of society. In this way, happiness for all negates happiness for certain individuals.
Nonetheless, Ahmed does not demonize happiness, nor she does romanticize or call for a turn to unhappiness. Rather, she severs the ties between happiness and ethics, happiness and the good life, and re-images happiness, and unhappiness, as possibilities, and as conditions of possibilities instead. In taking happiness as possibility, Ahmed makes happiness possible for those bodies which are not proximate to whiteness, heteronormativity, or wealth. Widening the scope of possibilities for what the good life is, and can be, enables new actualities for the world; enables new worlds.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 30, 2021
Luego de ver The Babadook, un film de horror muy recomendable, me sorprendió saber que el monstruo homónimo, que aterroriza a Amelia y a su pequeño Samuel, fue asimilado como un ícono queer (entendido como todo aquello que escapa de la heteronormatividad). Leer el libro de Sara Ahmed me ayudó a comprender este fenómeno más cabalmente.
Sara Ahmed es una filósofa contemporánea, británica-australiana, reconocida por su trabajo en el giro afectivo de las ciencias sociales. Este giro cambia la atención científica, del paradigma dominante de la representación (las ideas, lo abstracto y simbólico) a lo sensible, la experiencia, lo que afecta al cuerpo como punto de partida para la investigación. Aunque la mayor parte de su trabajo ha sido sobre la teoría queer.
En el 2010 saca su libro «La promesa de la felicidad. Una crítica cultural al imperativo de la alegría», que comencé a leer en septiembre y que terminé cuatro meses después. Es un libro que tiene su complejidad.
De manera sucinta y superficial, la felicidad es, simultáneamente, una orientación y un destino. La orientación es hacia ciertos objetos que prometen ese destino. Se conoce ese destino porque ya se transitó por allí (por ejemplo, la felicidad que recordamos sentir cuando comimos cierto dulce) o porque aprendemos que la cercanía a esos objetos nos producirá la anhelada felicidad.
El deseo no es innato. Aprendemos a desear. Nuestros deseos más íntimos son el resultado de nuestras interacciones sociales. Así la felicidad se convierte en un potente dispositivo para orientar a los individuos hacia esos objetos del deseo que permiten la reproducción de una sociabilidad concreta: la familia, la heterosexualidad, el consumo de mercancías, etcétera.
La felicidad es un producto histórico cuya concepción actual viene de los utilitaristas ingleses como John Stuart Mill. Su fórmula más popular es: la mayor felicidad al mayor número de personas. No es casualidad que la búsqueda de la felicidad se manifestara como derecho inalienable en la Declaración de Independencia de los Estados Unidos; como tampoco lo es que ésta filosofía sustentara el derecho del Imperio Británico a colonizar la mayor parte del mundo: llevar su felicidad civilizatoria a los infelices bárbaros (a cambio de algunos pocos beneficios).
El discurso contemporáneo de la felicidad (incluyendo a la psicología positiva) subraya que la tristeza es contagiosa, por lo que también debemos alejarnos de las personas infelices, aguafiestas y melancólicas. Debemos señalarlas, denostarlas como lacras de nuestra bonita sociedad porque pueden desestabilizarla. Debido a este rechazo, Ahmed busca qué minorías son susceptibles a ella y encuentra a las feministas, a las personas queer y los migrantes.
Las feministas son aguafiestas, incomodan, señalan el sufrimiento que genera nuestra felicidad en las personas feminizadas. Yo aquí también añadiría a los veganos, anticapitalistas y anticapacitistas. Es más, a mi entender, no se puede ser ninguna de estas cosas si no se tiende hacia todas a la vez. El aguafiestas incomoda interpelando. Si todos estamos incómodos, la salida es el cambio.
Las personas queers, por otro lado, son los infelices por antonomasia. Al seguir una orientación sexual desviada, tener una identidad de género no binaria, desarrollar afectos fuera de la moralidad correcta, no tienen otro destino que la infelicidad. Solamente el recto camino tiene su monopolio. Una persona queer feliz sólo es posible si se le instrumentaliza dentro de la heteronormatividad, tal como la homosexualidad aceptada y legalizada hoy en día. De allí que Babadook sea un personaje asimilado como queer: en toda familia con un miembro queer es como si un monstruo se hubiera instalado en ella.
Migrar implica pérdida y por tanto duelo. Sin embargo, la sociedad de acogida le insiste al migrante que debería sentirse feliz y agradecido por su afortunada condición. Cuando el objeto perdido desaparece de la consciencia, mas no el sentimiento de pérdida, entonces se habla de melancolía. Entonces, los migrantes de primera generación son, por lo general, melancólicos: añoran lo que ya no está y no saben con exactitud qué es. Las sociedades desarrolladas apuntan entonces sus baterías ideológicas a los migrantes de segunda generación, para evitar que hereden dicha melancolía, ya que es un posible espacio para la radicalización terrorista, particularmente en el caso de los musulmanes.
El capítulo quinto habla sobre futuros felices. O su inexistencia. La felicidad se presenta como una promesa, se mueve hacia adelante si se hace lo correcto. Sin embargo, hoy en día, el horizonte de esta promesa sólo existe hasta el futuro inmediato. Hoy en día ya no es posible imaginar utopías, sólo distopías. Repitiendo a Fredric Jameson, parece «más fácil imaginar el fin del mundo que el fin del capitalismo». La felicidad, por sí misma, es incapaz de ofrecer confianza en la humanidad en el largo plazo.
En muchas de las distopías existentes en el cine y la literatura, el héroe que irrumpe y trastorna el orden establecido, es una persona a quien ningún chile le embona, cuestionan, incomodan a los demás, son inconformes, melancólicos, solitarios. Tanto Bernard Marx, en Un Mundo Feliz; Winston Smith, en 1984; Lincoln Seis-Echo, en la película de la Isla, del 2005; o Z, en Antz, de 1988, son los protagonistas del cambio social (o su intento). Parece ser, por tanto, que aceptamos la infelicidad como germen de toda revolución.
La propuesta de Ahmed, a mi juicio, es hegeliana, sin adscribirse a ésta: la positividad sin negatividad, o al revés, imposibilita la superación. Es por ello la potencia revolucionaria de las feministas, queers y migrantes, en nuestras sociedades capitalistas y heteropatriarcales.
Obviamente, Ahmed no proclama la infelicidad como solución a la felicidad, sino más bien una aproximación existencialista: la apertura al momento, torne éste feliz o infeliz. La felicidad está bien como episódica, pero no tanto como horizonte, debido a su naturaleza individualista y anestésica.
Sara Ahmed es una filósofa contemporánea, británica-australiana, reconocida por su trabajo en el giro afectivo de las ciencias sociales. Este giro cambia la atención científica, del paradigma dominante de la representación (las ideas, lo abstracto y simbólico) a lo sensible, la experiencia, lo que afecta al cuerpo como punto de partida para la investigación. Aunque la mayor parte de su trabajo ha sido sobre la teoría queer.
En el 2010 saca su libro «La promesa de la felicidad. Una crítica cultural al imperativo de la alegría», que comencé a leer en septiembre y que terminé cuatro meses después. Es un libro que tiene su complejidad.
De manera sucinta y superficial, la felicidad es, simultáneamente, una orientación y un destino. La orientación es hacia ciertos objetos que prometen ese destino. Se conoce ese destino porque ya se transitó por allí (por ejemplo, la felicidad que recordamos sentir cuando comimos cierto dulce) o porque aprendemos que la cercanía a esos objetos nos producirá la anhelada felicidad.
El deseo no es innato. Aprendemos a desear. Nuestros deseos más íntimos son el resultado de nuestras interacciones sociales. Así la felicidad se convierte en un potente dispositivo para orientar a los individuos hacia esos objetos del deseo que permiten la reproducción de una sociabilidad concreta: la familia, la heterosexualidad, el consumo de mercancías, etcétera.
La felicidad es un producto histórico cuya concepción actual viene de los utilitaristas ingleses como John Stuart Mill. Su fórmula más popular es: la mayor felicidad al mayor número de personas. No es casualidad que la búsqueda de la felicidad se manifestara como derecho inalienable en la Declaración de Independencia de los Estados Unidos; como tampoco lo es que ésta filosofía sustentara el derecho del Imperio Británico a colonizar la mayor parte del mundo: llevar su felicidad civilizatoria a los infelices bárbaros (a cambio de algunos pocos beneficios).
El discurso contemporáneo de la felicidad (incluyendo a la psicología positiva) subraya que la tristeza es contagiosa, por lo que también debemos alejarnos de las personas infelices, aguafiestas y melancólicas. Debemos señalarlas, denostarlas como lacras de nuestra bonita sociedad porque pueden desestabilizarla. Debido a este rechazo, Ahmed busca qué minorías son susceptibles a ella y encuentra a las feministas, a las personas queer y los migrantes.
Las feministas son aguafiestas, incomodan, señalan el sufrimiento que genera nuestra felicidad en las personas feminizadas. Yo aquí también añadiría a los veganos, anticapitalistas y anticapacitistas. Es más, a mi entender, no se puede ser ninguna de estas cosas si no se tiende hacia todas a la vez. El aguafiestas incomoda interpelando. Si todos estamos incómodos, la salida es el cambio.
Las personas queers, por otro lado, son los infelices por antonomasia. Al seguir una orientación sexual desviada, tener una identidad de género no binaria, desarrollar afectos fuera de la moralidad correcta, no tienen otro destino que la infelicidad. Solamente el recto camino tiene su monopolio. Una persona queer feliz sólo es posible si se le instrumentaliza dentro de la heteronormatividad, tal como la homosexualidad aceptada y legalizada hoy en día. De allí que Babadook sea un personaje asimilado como queer: en toda familia con un miembro queer es como si un monstruo se hubiera instalado en ella.
… la propia experiencia de la inmigración está basada en una estructura de duelo. Cuando se deja el país de origen, ya sea voluntaria o involuntariamente, es preciso hacer el duelo por todo un conjunto de pérdidas, concretas y abstractas, entre las que se cuentan la patria, la familia, el lenguaje, la identidad, la propiedad e incluso el propio estatus dentro de la comunidad.
—Sara Ahmed citando A dialogue on Racial Melancholia de David L. Eng y Shinhee Han
Migrar implica pérdida y por tanto duelo. Sin embargo, la sociedad de acogida le insiste al migrante que debería sentirse feliz y agradecido por su afortunada condición. Cuando el objeto perdido desaparece de la consciencia, mas no el sentimiento de pérdida, entonces se habla de melancolía. Entonces, los migrantes de primera generación son, por lo general, melancólicos: añoran lo que ya no está y no saben con exactitud qué es. Las sociedades desarrolladas apuntan entonces sus baterías ideológicas a los migrantes de segunda generación, para evitar que hereden dicha melancolía, ya que es un posible espacio para la radicalización terrorista, particularmente en el caso de los musulmanes.
El capítulo quinto habla sobre futuros felices. O su inexistencia. La felicidad se presenta como una promesa, se mueve hacia adelante si se hace lo correcto. Sin embargo, hoy en día, el horizonte de esta promesa sólo existe hasta el futuro inmediato. Hoy en día ya no es posible imaginar utopías, sólo distopías. Repitiendo a Fredric Jameson, parece «más fácil imaginar el fin del mundo que el fin del capitalismo». La felicidad, por sí misma, es incapaz de ofrecer confianza en la humanidad en el largo plazo.
En muchas de las distopías existentes en el cine y la literatura, el héroe que irrumpe y trastorna el orden establecido, es una persona a quien ningún chile le embona, cuestionan, incomodan a los demás, son inconformes, melancólicos, solitarios. Tanto Bernard Marx, en Un Mundo Feliz; Winston Smith, en 1984; Lincoln Seis-Echo, en la película de la Isla, del 2005; o Z, en Antz, de 1988, son los protagonistas del cambio social (o su intento). Parece ser, por tanto, que aceptamos la infelicidad como germen de toda revolución.
La propuesta de Ahmed, a mi juicio, es hegeliana, sin adscribirse a ésta: la positividad sin negatividad, o al revés, imposibilita la superación. Es por ello la potencia revolucionaria de las feministas, queers y migrantes, en nuestras sociedades capitalistas y heteropatriarcales.
Obviamente, Ahmed no proclama la infelicidad como solución a la felicidad, sino más bien una aproximación existencialista: la apertura al momento, torne éste feliz o infeliz. La felicidad está bien como episódica, pero no tanto como horizonte, debido a su naturaleza individualista y anestésica.
November 29, 2022
¡Yo me esperaba el enésimo ensayo sobre la mercantilización & fetichización de los afectos en el capitalismo emocional, no un análisis interseccional de los diversos mecanismos de cohesión social & otrerización que se articulan en torno a una idea de "felicidad" construida por y para funcionar como sostén de un sistema imperialista cisheteropatriarcal! ¡Me ha engañado, Sara Ahmed!
February 28, 2020
Me pareció denso.
Read
September 19, 2021Fantastic piece of cultural criticism. Straightforward, incisive, and best of all very well-written
Read
October 17, 2023okay okay I think I understand affect theory a little better now... success!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews