On Hating Fat People
First, let's discuss some terms... "hating", "fat", "people".
Ask some skinny person who seems constantly be obsessing about fat people, why he seems to hate them so much, and he will deny that he does. "Hate", after all, is a strong terms. It is a scary term since one definition says that it is a feeling so intense that it demands action. The feeling involves dislike, emnity, antipathy and hostility. But the feeling also might involve aversion, horror, loathing and repugnance. So while hate may be a motivator for action, what action to be taken is not uniquely specified. On the one hand, a person may seek to destroy the hated object, but on the other, he may try get as far away from it -- physically or psychologically -- as possible.
The different possible responses consistent with hatred suggests that hatred may be involved in the flight-fight response set: an organism, confronted by a perceived threat will respond to that threat depending on its options. An animal confronted by a threat will usually choose to escape from it unless it is cornered with no chance of escape. A cornered animal with some resources to respond to a threat -- at least a slim chance of escape -- will generally choose to fight. An animal who -- anthropomorphically speaking -- perceives no chance of escape will freeze in the hope of not being noticed, or if death is imminent, give in.
But this suggests that hatred is different from aggression. Aggression my be the result of hatred, but hatred may merely fester inside, eating at one's soul, with no action taken toward what is hated.
Perhaps he is telling the truth. Perhaps he does not hate all fat people, but a particular fat person, and that person's appearance has become the salient point of his anger. Consequently, he generalizes this person's faults or sins to all fat people.
But whatever the initial cause of this person's attitude toward fat people, their existence appears to deeply offend him. But does this means that he hates them? After all, hatred is an emotion, and is therefore a private event, know only in its specifics and content to the person experiencing it. Any labeling of any external manifestation of that emotion is an inference or an operational definition. We make such an inference based on the belief that one's behavior is congruent with one's internal state, that thought and action, or feeling and action are in agreement.
And actions themselves are not simple. An action is a general term that seems to be used to designate something that occurs in the world, that makes some change in the world. And the world itself is not simple in that there is a symbolic world that is shared among people. It is then possible that an action may change the symbolic world, which is then manifested in a change in the physical world. In other words, language is symbolic action, and therefore can result in changes in the "real" world.
But since the consequence of any action, real or symbolic, depends on its "force", any action is considered more or less dangerous or consequential depending on how it affects others or the world. The rantings of some ineffectual bigot may be qualitatively no different from those of Adolf Hitler. Furthermore, the direct effect that both the bigot and Hitler had on the world may be equivalent. It seems likely that Hitler himself, a Fuhrer, never killed anyone with his own hands. Similarly, the hypothetical bigot may also have never have murdered. The difference between Hitler and the bigot is that others were willing to make themselves the instruments of Hitler's will, whereas no one pays any attention to the bigot.
Ask some skinny person who seems constantly be obsessing about fat people, why he seems to hate them so much, and he will deny that he does. "Hate", after all, is a strong terms. It is a scary term since one definition says that it is a feeling so intense that it demands action. The feeling involves dislike, emnity, antipathy and hostility. But the feeling also might involve aversion, horror, loathing and repugnance. So while hate may be a motivator for action, what action to be taken is not uniquely specified. On the one hand, a person may seek to destroy the hated object, but on the other, he may try get as far away from it -- physically or psychologically -- as possible.
The different possible responses consistent with hatred suggests that hatred may be involved in the flight-fight response set: an organism, confronted by a perceived threat will respond to that threat depending on its options. An animal confronted by a threat will usually choose to escape from it unless it is cornered with no chance of escape. A cornered animal with some resources to respond to a threat -- at least a slim chance of escape -- will generally choose to fight. An animal who -- anthropomorphically speaking -- perceives no chance of escape will freeze in the hope of not being noticed, or if death is imminent, give in.
But this suggests that hatred is different from aggression. Aggression my be the result of hatred, but hatred may merely fester inside, eating at one's soul, with no action taken toward what is hated.
Perhaps he is telling the truth. Perhaps he does not hate all fat people, but a particular fat person, and that person's appearance has become the salient point of his anger. Consequently, he generalizes this person's faults or sins to all fat people.
But whatever the initial cause of this person's attitude toward fat people, their existence appears to deeply offend him. But does this means that he hates them? After all, hatred is an emotion, and is therefore a private event, know only in its specifics and content to the person experiencing it. Any labeling of any external manifestation of that emotion is an inference or an operational definition. We make such an inference based on the belief that one's behavior is congruent with one's internal state, that thought and action, or feeling and action are in agreement.
And actions themselves are not simple. An action is a general term that seems to be used to designate something that occurs in the world, that makes some change in the world. And the world itself is not simple in that there is a symbolic world that is shared among people. It is then possible that an action may change the symbolic world, which is then manifested in a change in the physical world. In other words, language is symbolic action, and therefore can result in changes in the "real" world.
But since the consequence of any action, real or symbolic, depends on its "force", any action is considered more or less dangerous or consequential depending on how it affects others or the world. The rantings of some ineffectual bigot may be qualitatively no different from those of Adolf Hitler. Furthermore, the direct effect that both the bigot and Hitler had on the world may be equivalent. It seems likely that Hitler himself, a Fuhrer, never killed anyone with his own hands. Similarly, the hypothetical bigot may also have never have murdered. The difference between Hitler and the bigot is that others were willing to make themselves the instruments of Hitler's will, whereas no one pays any attention to the bigot.
posted by Godel at 1:08 PM
0 comments
