Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

/404/ Emotion Sickness: The Politics of Feelings (IV) ft. Catherine Liu (Patreon)

Published:
2024-04-16 17:51:41
Edited:
2024-04-16 17:55:10
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Downloads

Content

On melodrama and the bourgeois subject.

[Patreon Exclusive]

We're back with the next installment of our series on the "emotional turn". Alex talks to Catherine Liu about whether politics is staged in a "melodramatic" fashion today.

What is the bourgeois subject, why was it good, and where did it go?

What is melodrama?

Does public crying make us feel connected? Is it all Oprah's fault?

Why is psychoanalysis the solution to, not the cause of, therapy culture?

How is indignation used today? Is the political scene just villains and victims?

Links:

Emotion Sickness I ft. Nina Power

Emotion Sickness II ft. Ashley Frawley

Emotion Sickness III ft. Alex Hochuli

Oprah Winfrey and the Glamour of Misery, Eva Illouz

Interview with Christine Gledhill, from the book Melodrama After the Tears (pdf attached)

Files

Comments

NigelBOpinion

"It's the most emotional argument that becomes the logic of the day" ...Sure can't think of anything from the past 7 months that confirms this analysis!

Robert Monks

well worth listening to. Making me think about aspects I didn't consider. which is what a better quality interview tends to do.

Daniel L

Great ep. I feel like the donation culture is particularly American (though also internet driven too I think)

Tann from the mountains

This is a very interesting critique of what she is doing, but as a good cultural critique, she is not proposing anything more than a critique of the critique. We almost complete the full circle here. First, it was the bourgeoisie subject that was criticized because of its rationality and coldness, and now it is criticized because it’s emotionally open and “historical.” Though it’s hard to see that the revolutionary subject was not emotionless and not melodramatic. The drama of David vs. Goliath is, in the end, the story of almost all revolutions, and is Uber dramatic and romanticising operssion. She is also not proposing anything more than going back to the rational, “republican” subject (funny how this can be linked with a conservative project), praising socialist rationalism. But is this what we really want for the left? It’s also saying, in other words, let’s go back to daddy—maybe he doesn’t talk much and sometimes can hit you, but at least he gives stability. Is that the liberating project?