What should we do with bad feelings? Negative affects, impotential responses
What should we do with bad feelings? Negative affects, impotential responses
Bad feelings are everywhere. When faced with this situation in our empirical encounters or conceptual analyses, most socio-spatial research is committed to making things right again, with an eye to unleashing new potentials for action by repairing bad feeling. Yet this ‘ethics of rehabilitation’ assumes both the inherent possibility and ethical desirability of working away those affects that are deemed to be ‘negative’. We argue that this activating process risks delegitimising, in possibly troubling or violent ways, the ethical validity of both incapacities (when one is unable to act) and negative capacities (when one decides to not act). Instead of a rehabilitative ethics, we propose an ‘ethics of impotentiality’ that suspends the urge to activate negative affects, offering a radically situated ethical relation that is neither didactic nor moralising, refuses any easy distinction between empowering and disempowering affects, and allows for subjects to stay with inaction.
affect, ambivalence, ethics, impotentiality, incapacity, negativity, refusal
190-205
Dekeyser, Thomas
1d9c6f52-4273-45f6-850c-187f6a7447c9
Zhang, Vickie
8be87051-b92d-44d6-b920-a1fe6eecbc44
Bissell, David
3c4e7c0e-925d-4e02-9851-c74b1705f274
1 April 2024
Dekeyser, Thomas
1d9c6f52-4273-45f6-850c-187f6a7447c9
Zhang, Vickie
8be87051-b92d-44d6-b920-a1fe6eecbc44
Bissell, David
3c4e7c0e-925d-4e02-9851-c74b1705f274
Dekeyser, Thomas, Zhang, Vickie and Bissell, David
(2024)
What should we do with bad feelings? Negative affects, impotential responses.
Progress in Human Geography, 48 (2), .
(doi:10.1177/03091325231213513).
Abstract
Bad feelings are everywhere. When faced with this situation in our empirical encounters or conceptual analyses, most socio-spatial research is committed to making things right again, with an eye to unleashing new potentials for action by repairing bad feeling. Yet this ‘ethics of rehabilitation’ assumes both the inherent possibility and ethical desirability of working away those affects that are deemed to be ‘negative’. We argue that this activating process risks delegitimising, in possibly troubling or violent ways, the ethical validity of both incapacities (when one is unable to act) and negative capacities (when one decides to not act). Instead of a rehabilitative ethics, we propose an ‘ethics of impotentiality’ that suspends the urge to activate negative affects, offering a radically situated ethical relation that is neither didactic nor moralising, refuses any easy distinction between empowering and disempowering affects, and allows for subjects to stay with inaction.
Text
Revised submission 24 August
- Author's Original
More information
e-pub ahead of print date: 11 December 2023
Published date: 1 April 2024
Keywords:
affect, ambivalence, ethics, impotentiality, incapacity, negativity, refusal
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 494549
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/494549
ISSN: 1477-0288
PURE UUID: 61b51c9c-949f-4c63-a7ec-6bc5f7c3b717
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 10 Oct 2024 16:42
Last modified: 11 Oct 2024 02:11
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Thomas Dekeyser
Author:
Vickie Zhang
Author:
David Bissell
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics