> >"Do not think that one has to be sad in order to be militant, even
> >though the thing one is fighting is abominable." - Foucault
>
> Foucault's counsel doesn't make sense, in that no one has ever said
> that "one has to be *sad* in order to be militant." I'd think that
> one has to be *angry* against injustice, exploitation, or oppression
> (of at least some kind, even if s/he has yet to see the ensemble of
> social relations that creates & recreates it) in order to get
> involved in political actions. Overwhelming sadness depresses you,
> making you inclined to turn inward & withdraw from the world,
> sometimes to the point of paralysis. In contrast, anger -- if you
> are not consumed by it -- motivates you to do something about the
> object of your anger (e.g., racism). The difference is rooted in
> biology: "when you get angry, your heart rate and blood pressure go
> up, as do the levels of your energy hormones, adrenaline, and
> noradrenaline.... Anger is a natural, adaptive response to threats;
> it inspires powerful, often aggressive, feelings and behaviors,
which
> allow us to fight and to defend ourselves when we are attacked" (at
> <http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/anger.html>). The point is to control
> anger & use it productively.
>
> Yoshie
========
Sadness is more intricate than you suppose in the above, but I'm not
sure e-lists are good place to grapple with the issue.
Ian