No abstract

No abstract

We typically think of emotional states as highly individualised and subjective. But visceral gut feelings like discomfort can be better understood as collective and public, when they reflect implicit biases that an individual has internalised. Most of us evade discomfort in favour of comfort, often unconsciously. This inclination, innocent in most cases, also has social and political consequences. Research has established that it is easier to interact with people who resemble us and that such in-group favouritism contributes to subtle forms of discrimination. If we want a more equal and unbiased society, we have a duty to expose ourselves to more discomfort. Living up to this duty requires an enhanced emotional vocabulary that captures the political dimensions of physiological affect. I argue that a better understanding of what I call interaction discomfort can mitigate subtle forms of discrimination.

Chapter 4 presents a contextual view of emotions, arguing that gut feelings do not reveal our true self or grant us insight into human nature, and that our emotions speak to the social facts of our time and place. Building on insights from the latest research in the scientific and philosophical study of emotion, the chapter highlights two dimensions that bear influence on emotional affect: (i) the external context, pointing to both the concrete situation in which an emotion is experienced and the broader environment of an agent that shapes their affective, physiological responses; (ii) the internal context, pointing to an agent’s hermeneutic equipment and epistemic resources to interpret and make sense of their emotional states, both in the actual moment of experience and after the fact.

We typically think of emotional states as highly individualised and subjective. But visceral gut feelings like discomfort can be better understood as collective and public, when they reflect implicit biases that an individual has internalised. Most of us evade discomfort in favour of comfort, often unconsciously. This inclination, innocent in most cases, also has social and political consequences. Research has established that it is easier to interact with people who resemble us and that such in-group favouritism contributes to subtle forms of discrimination. If we want a more equal and unbiased society, we have a duty to expose ourselves to more discomfort. Living up to this duty requires an enhanced emotional vocabulary that captures the political dimensions of physiological affect. I argue that a better understanding of what I call interaction discomfort can mitigate subtle forms of discrimination. Key words implicit bias • emotional synchrony • affect • emotions • structural discrimination Key messages• Political change relies on the mitigation of implicit, affective biases, not just the barring of explicit discrimination. • We are drawn to people in whose company we feel comfortable and avoid situations and people that make us uncomfortable. • To counteract such biases and enhance social mobility, we have a duty to choose more interaction discomfort. • Understanding the political dimensions of our gut feelings will make us better equipped to tackle awkward interactions.