“Hatred,” says psychologist Robert Enright, “has a long shelf life. Once it enters into the human heart, it’s hard to get it out. It breeds destruction, discouragement, and hopelessness.”
Enright hails from the University of Wisconsin, in the so-called “liberal enclave” of Madison, where ongoing demonstrations by members of public employee unions against the elected governor have put some vivid moments of hatred on view. Reporter Mike Tobin of Fox News remarked, “A teacher was giving me the business yesterday, and the teacher told me she hates me because it makes her feel good” (emphasis mine).
Anyone who has ever been targeted by a pack of bullies understands. Venting hatred, especially under the righteous cover of a “cause,” gives one a sense of belonging and purpose and—quite unlike love—it does so in an expeditious and rather painless way. Mob-supported hatred removes openness from the social equation, and that in turn takes away vulnerability, leaving one with a powerful sense of communal well-being that can serve as a reasonable facsimile of being loved by others. One loves one’s hate because it makes one feel beloved.
On the surface, attaching oneself to a hate-collective seems a safe way to belong. One feels invited to the party; one no longer has to think for oneself, or worry about individual appearances or instincts. To continue to fit-in, to feel as if you were truly loved, all one needs to do is continue to hate—and that not even willingly.
This hate that feels like wide-open love is paradoxically limiting and self-defeating. Once hatred has become one’s social vehicle of choice, the travel options become limited: either stay the course and wear the peripheral blinders or attempt to break free and risk the very real possibility of being altogether ditched.
Regardless of whether one hates a Republican governor or a pro-abortion president or Hollywood or “fundamentalism” or “the system” or even a sports team, if one’s sense of belonging depends on hatred, then second-thoughts will flee and stagnation will follow. The only way to re-energize and to delay the inevitable endgame described by Enright as “destruction, discouragement, and hopelessness” is to find a new hate to love.
Hence, hating George W. Bush begat hating Sarah Palin, begat hating Christine O’ Donnell, begat hating Michele Bachman, begat hating Scott Wilson. Hating Bill Clinton begat hating Hillary Clinton begat hating Michael Moore, begat hating Bill Maher, begat hating Barack and Michelle Obama. In the hate-collective there must always be an Emmanuel Goldstein in order for love to feel fresh and new.
Now, some will say that these figures have earned a measure of distrust, which justifies the hate. But distrust is such a subjective and selective thing; if distrust is the acceptable impetus for hate, then anyone may claim justification for feeling and encouraging virulent (and eventually violent) hatred of others.
A racist can justify his racism by claiming a “reasonable distrust” against another race simply by pointing to history. A homophobe can rant at gays because he “distrusts” their proclivities; a Jew could hate a German because he doesn’t trust him not to regret Auschwitz. As we see in Great Britain, where a Pentecostal Christian couple has been excluded from the foster care system because they cannot affirm the homosexual lifestyle, the distrusting conventional wisdom—in this case distrusting a Christian’s ability to care well for children—can discriminate against whoever is not falling in line, and that discrimination can even be legislated into law.
The most insidious part of this Borg-like hate collective is how easily one can slip into its influence through the simple error of attaching real but disproportionate feelings of love onto things which are often illusory and ultimately temporary. I love my politics so much that I must hate you for your policies; I love my church so much that I must hate you for not loving it as intensely; I love the promise of my pension plan so much that I must hate you for pointing out that it is unsustainable; I love my opinions so much that I must not allow you to have opinions of your own.
Hatred is a twisting perversion of paradoxes wherein one can claim a love for God so fervent that it justifies hating another, even as God hates your hate, because it has been born of the absolute idol one has made out of one’s professed love.
A few years ago a university study confirmed the old adage that there is “a thin line between love and hate.” It seems that the same brain circuitry is involved in feeling both emotions, the major difference being that with feelings of love a large part of the of the cerebral cortex shuts down, along with judgment and reasoning abilities. With hate, much of the cortex remains open.
This makes perfect sense, in a way. We can always give a million reasons justifying our hate to others, but our love? Often we cannot explain our love at all, except as an open and full-hearted mystery, just like the unfathomable mysteries of God, redemption and mercy.
This study also helps explain why unreasonable love can so often tumble into hate, and why hatred, once engaged by reason, finds it so difficult to break freely into love.
It is that thin, thin line between love and hate that can so confuse our sensibilities, and thrust us so far apart from each other, and perhaps ourselves.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
John Allen on Robert Enright in Rome.
The Science of the thin line between love and hate.
Comments:
That would certainly seem to fit the "hate-collective" phenomenon.
One factual correction, though: it's not actually correct that the Pentecostal couple referred to have been "excluded from the foster care system". I'm sure that nothing is going to stop the "Britain bans orthodox Christians from fostering" meme from establishing itself firmly in the internet's bloodstream, but highly recommend people read this post (from a conservative Christian perspective) explaining what the case actually says:
http://www.peter-ould.net/2011/03/01/breaking-christians-with-traditional-moral-views-can-still-be-foster-parents/
To be frank, that case may be a better illustration of the flip side of the "hate-collective" phenomenon: the "martyr mentality" that actively pursues scapegoat status in order to feel validated by the hatred of "this mob that knows nothing of the law".
Hate is a spiritual desire to destroy: even God is said to "hate evil". Only a spiritual being can "hate". For example, animals can rip each other apart, but we do not say they "hate" each other. Therefore, a non-spiritual or secular society is theoretically unable to "hate". This is one reason why the spiritual are blamed as sources of "hate".
Of course, a more systemic reason for Leftist revulsion of a Sarah Palin is that she epitomizes all that impedes the secular dream. She promotes the "myth" of God, sees the world as an unequal environment where humans dominate, so fully believes her faith as to bare a Down-syndrome child...etc. But, the Left does not "hate" per se...they only want to tear her apart.
We live in a society, today, where the mere acknowledgement of difference or seperate identity is "hateful". This is where you should look to understand modern "hate". It is here you will find the 2 worldviews. One is secular. It is based on the "moral absolute" of a randomly evovled world that is god-free and utterly (physically) equal--incapable of promoting "hatred".
The other view recognizes the world as it is, as an unequal place of lion kings, queen bees, top dogs and pecking orders: with people as part of that mix. Yes, we are spiritual beings that can misplace are desire to destroy evil for the lazy device of desiring to destroy whole groups of people. That is the ugly side of "hate". However, that ugly side is morally unacceptable to the spiritual. It is a sin.
But to the redistributional secularist, on the streets of Madison or wherever, physical inequality speaks for itself...it is hate!
I would note that hate, like love, is a choice. We don't need to control the hate. We need to choose love. And we will fail over and over again. Making the effort to stand back up, over and over, is what life is all about. So we need to remind ourselves from time to time. Thank you, Ms. Scalia, for reminding us all.
Objection 1: It would seem that love is not a cause of hatred. For "the opposite members of a division are naturally simultaneous" (Praedic. x). But love and hatred are opposite members of a division, since they are contrary to one another. Therefore they are naturally simultaneous. Therefore love is not the cause of hatred.
Objection 2: Further, of two contraries, one is not the cause of the other. But love and hatred are contraries. Therefore love is not the cause of hatred.
Objection 3: Further, that which follows is not the cause of that which precedes. But hatred precedes love, seemingly: since hatred implies a turning away from evil, whereas love implies a turning towards good. Therefore love is not the cause of hatred.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,9) that all emotions are caused by love. Therefore hatred also, since it is an emotion of the soul, is caused by love.
I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), love consists in a certain agreement of the lover with the object loved, while hatred consists in a certain disagreement or dissonance. Now we should consider in each thing, what agrees with it, before that which disagrees: since a thing disagrees with another, through destroying or hindering that which agrees with it. Consequently love must needs precede hatred; and nothing is hated, save through being contrary to a suitable thing which is loved. And hence it is that every hatred is caused by love.
Reply to Objection 1: The opposite members of a division are sometimes naturally simultaneous, both really and logically; e.g. two species of animal, or two species of color. Sometimes they are simultaneous logically, while, in reality, one precedes, and causes the other; e.g. the species of numbers, figures and movements. Sometimes they are not simultaneous either really or logically; e.g. substance and accident; for substance is in reality the cause of accident; and being is predicated of substance before it is predicated of accident, by a priority of reason, because it is not predicated of accident except inasmuch as the latter is in substance. Now love and hatred are naturally simultaneous, logically but not really. Wherefore nothing hinders love from being the cause of hatred.
Reply to Objection 2: Love and hatred are contraries if considered in respect of the same thing. But if taken in respect of contraries, they are not themselves contrary, but consequent to one another: for it amounts to the same that one love a certain thing, or that one hate its contrary. Thus love of one thing is the cause of one's hating its contrary.
Reply to Objection 3: In the order of execution, the turning away from one term precedes the turning towards the other. But the reverse is the case in the order of intention: since approach to one term is the reason for turning away from the other. Now the appetitive movement belongs rather to the order of intention than to that of execution. Wherefore love precedes hatred: because each is an appetitive movement."
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q29, ii
(Benziger Bros. edition, 1947, Translated byFathers of the English Dominican Province)
How did you arrive at the conclusion that only a spiritual being can hate? The Catechism deals with hate as if we can do so, and the Bible refers many times over to us being able to hate and be hated.
Also, your use of animals tearing each other apart but not hating each other does not seem to work because those same animals are not capable of love, meaning they also cannot experience 'a hate that feels like love', the title of this article.
I do not mean to argue, but am trying to understand how you came to the conclusion you did.
Sorry.
-- "On the Pleasure of Hating"
William Hazlitt, ca. 1826
But what about conservatives who hate liberals? When the Bible told us many times, to "be liberal' in helping the poor?"
Good point, conservatives shouldn't hate liberals. However the Bible's phrase be liberal meant be generous. It did not mean a political faction which did not exist when the Bible was written. That is like confusing Scotch tape with Scotch whiskey.
As for "helping the poor" I really hope you are not going to bring up that "Conservatives are skinflints" meme again? Statistically conservatives give more then liberals. And I am not aware of any conservative who holds it to be a conservative position that the poor should die and decrease the surplus population.
It is difficult to disapprove of actions without adopting an attitude of dislike for the perpetrator of those actions. Praying for someone's conversion (Change of Heart) is suggested. Who would have believed that Dr. Nathanson could change?
TeaPot562
I think these examples from her original post refer to conservatives hating liberals:
"Regardless of whether one hates...or a pro-abortion president or Hollywood..."
"Hating Bill Clinton begat hating Hillary Clinton begat hating Michael Moore, begat hating Bill Maher, begat hating Barack and Michelle Obama."
"A homophobe can rant at gays because he “distrusts” their proclivities; "
You can be right in your opinions and still be wrong in how you deal with others - and vice versa.
http://www.archden.org/archbishop/docs/12_04_02_offertory_liturgy.htm
- about offering of ourselves , including our gifts and weaknesses and those of others in our lives too , trusting that He can transform it all ...
Was listening to a sermon the other day about a boy who was ashamed and bitter about his dad's alcoholism but listened to the priest's advice to esp. offer up these areas at the Holy Mass , with the bread and wine ..how, within a year , the father himself was in the process of trying to help others like him !
Being able to call on The Holy Spirit is an awesome privilege that is possibly underused !
And jason t, I hear you. I hate it when I get those two confused.
"But what about conservatives who hate liberals? When the Bible told us many times, to "be liberal' in helping the poor?"
Friend Jamie: you need to get a handle on the various meanings of the word "liberal."
As for Conservatives hating liberals, witness the Tea Party gatherings last summer as opposed to the thugs and goons who have gathered in Madison, Wisconsin. For the record, I don't hate thugs and goons; I just don't like them.
I assume you meant to say Scott WALKER?
The whole mess in Wisconsin proves to me that ANY political movement or strategy that is based on class warfare, or on envy, on pitting one group of citizens against another (and I believe BOTH sides are guilty of doing so in this case), or convincing one group to blame another for all their problems, is doomed to fail.
It is certainly not right for labor unions to fight with almost demonic fury against concessions needed for the good of the entire state. From what I can see public employee unions are NOT being abolished or outlawed, simply limited in the scope of what they can negotiate, and in their ability to compel payment of dues from workers who do not want to belong to those organizations. This is not what I (as a non-union employee of a different state) would consider completely unreasonable.
That being said... it is also not right for certain elements of the conservative movement to use public employees (most of whom are NOT wealthy, nor do they all have "lavish" pensions) as a scapegoat for all fiscal problems, or to go out of their way to try to neatly divide the nation into noble, hardworking "tax payers" on one side and greedy, unproductive "tax eaters" on the other. In real life, most people fall into BOTH categories. It may be true that half of American citizens don't pay federal income tax but when you factor in state and local taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. I can't think of anyone who could completely escape paying taxes. Nor can I think of anyone who goes through life without taking advantage of ANY government funded institution or service whatsoever.
The right approach, in my opinion, would be to simply point out that we are all fellow citizens in the same boat, and it is in EVERYONE'S interest, no matter who they work for, to have a fiscally sound government that lives within its means, tells the truth, and does not make promises it cannot keep.
You admit that animals cannot love or hate for they are not spiritual beings. That is exactly what I said. My further example of secularists pretending their worldview precludes hate was meant to be rather tongue in cheek.
As for the article's premise of a deep, inter-relation between love and hate, I think it somewhat like saying that God had to have an equal force in opposition...which is to say I think it is a false premise. That is why I suggest Elizabeth look to the white hot battle going on in the culture war over identity and differences interpreted as "hate'. It is here she will discover that modern secular opinion is based on a "flat" worldview of absolute physical equality--a boy is a tree is a fish. Thus, to make distinctions among the sexes for example is ultimately to "hate".
Now, you and I live in the real world where we make rational distinctions between animals and people...etc...but the secular reference to "hate" comes from a very irrational place.
It is easy to understand the Left or secularists if you realize their worldview is FLAT and their only moral absolute is that all things evolved randomly; thus, everything is of utterly equal in "value". In other words, the Strong should not bully the Weak because all of Nature is equal.
Their use of the word "hate" is miles away from what rational people consider "hate". That is all I was suggesting to Elizabeth.
Something like the bottom 40% of American households don’t pay federal income taxes, but, in 2004, those households earned less than $35,000 a year. That’s why they’re not paying income taxes. They don’t earn enough money to tax.
And you’re absolutely right that they still pay sales taxes, gas taxes, and payroll taxes. In fact, they spend a higher proportion of their income on those taxes than the other 60% of American households.
Not sure about your $35,000 a year earners not paying taxes. I'm not working tat the present, and my husband makes 40,000. a year. 14.5% is taken off the top and put into a teacher's retirement fund. That leaves 34,000 gross to be taxed. Take 12 months into that, and it means his gross is 2850 per month.
He takes home 2250 a month. There are no union dues in this area. So the 600 all goes to taxes, FICA, etc. (no social security, since we pay into a pension instead.)
$600 a month! I think that, if you don't have children or own a house, you get slammed even if you DO gross $35,000 or so. All I can figure is, those 40-some % of people who don't pay taxes must be getting child tax credits and mortgage deductions.
(And it'll be worse if the marriage penalty comes back.) We sure could use lower taxes. One of those White House parties could feed the two of us for a year!
But what about conservatives who hate liberals? When the Bible told us many times, to "be liberal' in helping the poor?
I appreaciate the potentially self-critical side of your more recent works. Though the self-criitical side is not always clear. It may even be that your own criticism/hate, is still there. And still directed mostly at others.