surface affects
We went camping on the North Olympic beach a few weeks ago.
We came with the intention (in the phenomenological sense) of coming in contact
with objects that make us happy. The way we entered the beach as a zone of
happiness was with an angle supported by good memories: walks in the hard
January wind, watching an atavistic brother climb escarpments like a cutter
hoping to feel something, drinking out of tin cups around a drift-wood fire
with friends who we met in landscapes of similar power up above Lake Issyk Kul.
We like the high Olympic coast because it feels good; we associate it with the
wild and infinitely mysterious. Here we are treading close to Kant’s definition
of the sublime, and the effect of this is something which takes away our
happiness. This is because, as Neitzsche tells us, “a reason is sought in
persons, experiences, etc. for why one feels this way or that” (354 in Ahmed
40) and as soon as reason casts its shadow over our feelings our feelings are diminished.
Happiness can only be performed when it is sustained not by how we ought to
feel but by those more automatic experiences of proximity to unassimilated
objects of desire. Here we have affect, which as Sara Ahmed puts it, “is what
sticks, or what sustains or preserves the connection between ideas, values, and
objects” (29). Affects are what lies between senses and feelings; they are what desire and revulsion are made of.
I’ve been making my way through the Affect
Theory Reader over the summer.
So far Sara Ahmed’s chapter on happiness has made the biggest impression. Using
figures such as melancholic migrants she points out that normative claims made
for happiness (neoliberal American Dreams, nuclear families and so on)
sometimes fail to deliver the happiness they promise. Instead minorities
encounter homogenous ideals that promise levity but are packaged with ethnic
and racial humiliation. She suggests that the sort of “bad feelings” these
experiences inspire “are seen as orientated toward the past, as a kind of
stubbornness that ‘stops’ the subject from embracing the future. Good feelings
are associated here with moving up and moving out. The demand that we be
affirmative makes those histories disappear by reading them as a form of
melancholia” (50).
Jenn, as always my fixed star, discussed this with me as we
walked down the beach toward the Chilean Memorial
where Alfred Jensen, his wife, his young son and a crew of 17, succumbed to the
ocean on November 24, 1920. Along the way we looked for trash from Fukushima where 15, 867 souls on March 11, 2011 were swallowed by the waves and
refuse was spit back by currents, we met a dead deer along the way, soft with
rot, there was an eagle in a tree high above the rocks. We had heard that there
were inscriptions in the rocks along this shore marking places where the people
whose land we now occupy used to encounter whales – something that I’m sure
brought them much happiness when it went well. There is a deeper happiness when
you get close to the surface of things and see the traces of pain and pleasure
they contain and express. I’m implicated in the colonization of this landscape
and the political economy that pillages it, but, as Foucault put it so well,
“do not think that one has to be sad in order to be militant.” There is still happiness in resistance; paraphrasing Deleuze, no reason to despair, just find new weapons.