The Affective Economy of Hidden Hate

I could not agree more with Ahmed's observation that worshipers of the Aryan race "claim the position of the victim" and redefine their other-directed hate as in-group directed love (117). Ahmed's analyses of claims made on the Aryan Nation's website are in agreement with my own observations when, in the process of researching for my written pathetic argument, I found myself reading several articles posted on the official Ku Klux Klan (KKK) website. 


As Ahmed observes in the diction of British officials William Hague and David Blunkett, the KKK uses words to "generate effects" and paint a picture of minority groups who have invaded a "white America" and who threaten the existence of white christian values--if not the existence of white Christians themselves. The KKK site uses words like danger, victims, and threat with remarkable frequency and to strong effect. The "klansmen" use emotionally-charged claims of white unity and fear tactics to blur the lines between different and delinquent, minority and monster, inter-racial romance and rape, and of course, between love and hate. They claim the existence of an "anti-white and anti-christian" agenda in the media and, more generally, of an"ongoing race war ... where white men, women, and children, are the victims." In addition to racial minorities, they consider their white Christian ways to be "under attack by Liberals, Leftists, Socialists, Humanists, Jews and outright Communists." As in Ahmed's observations, the KKK will hate to"slide across different figures" and depict these non-white figures as a "common threat" (120). All the while, however, they outright deny that there is any hate in their message. 
Consider the following lines gathered on their homepage:

• We belong to The Knights because we love our people.
• We want to state for the record that we do not endorse hatred.
• Klansmen and Klanswomen throughout the nation are at work distributing literature, passing out cards, talking to friends and neighbors…always spreading the good news of white Christian revival…not because they hate you, but because they love you.
• It is not hatred but rather the glimmer of hope in the eyes of our children that motivates us.
• The Knights is a love group not a hate group. 

Similar tactics are currently being used by France, as they pass their "Burka-Ban" laws. An In the Arena news release calls the bill an attempt at "integrating devout muslims into society." Many would agree that, on the face of it, the move looks suspiciously like legislated Islamophobia. Yet, President Sarkozy sees it quite differently: "The burqa is not a religious symbol. It's a sign of enslavement of debaseness. I want to say this solemnly. The burqa will not be welcomed on the territory of the French republic. We cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behind a mask, deprived of all social life of their identity." Unlike those who subscribe KKK and Arian Nation ideals, Sarkozy does not style himself the victim. Instead, his intolerance is veiled with concern for the so-called enslaved and debased Muslim women. Of course, not all Islamic women consider themselves the victims. The news release features to Muslim women on opposing sides of the issue. One woman argues that "the niqab dangerously equates piety with the disappearance of women,"while the other says "when I choose to cover this way it's because I am fighting against a systematic oppression against women in which women's bodies are being sexualized and objectified." 


In addition to claims of victimization, this issue seems to be a fitting example of Ahmed's concept of "sticky words", those emotionally charged and repetitive compound utterances that, though reflecting inherently separate concepts, become hopelessly and often tragically associated with one and other. Europe, like the U.S, has recently increased it's usage of labels like "Muslim terrorists" and "radical Islam." The labels are especially common in highly emotional (and thus highly memorable) contexts like discussions of war, the tragedy of September 11th, and issues of national and airport security, and seem to have snowballed into a wide-spread theme of fear and conspiracy. One writer, Robert Spencer, writes an article claiming the existence of a "multifaceted nonviolent campaign to assert the primacy of elements of Islamic law and custom over American law and custom."  Another article, which addresses France's "Burka ban" lists among objections to the style of dress that it "poses security concerns as it allows people to conceal weapons or hide their identity." 

But, of course, so do muumuus and winter wear and neither of those have been banned in any country. In my opinion, it's not that people are concealed, it's the sort of people who are concealed--Muslim people, a people much of the Western world has decided to stigmatize with sticky words.

In this country, we have consistently designated some group or another as an enemy, which has done wonders for uniting the nation, but has surely been a painful experience for anyone connected to, or suspected to be connected to, the designated group. During the Cold War, it was "the Commies" (remember the McCarthy Era?) during the second World War it was the Japanese (remember the internment camps?), and now, in the midsts of our "War on Terror", it's Muslims--or, as we seem to like to call them, terrorists. When will we learn? This perpetual hate, cleverly disguised as love and protection, has destroyed lives. It has even changed our language. We seem to reach a point where the sticky words have been so adhesive that even when they are removed, they leave behind a residue of negative connotation. The word "communist" is now thrown around like an insult, and during the 2008 presidential elections, attempts were made to discredit Obama by calling him "a Muslim." To those who did not grow up in a culture of McCarthyism or who have not experienced the "War on Terror", the use of such words to injure another is simply incomprehensible.