While we all wait to see how Police Scotland is going to handle any instances of ‘hate crime’ at tomorrow’s football match in Glasgow, we thought it might be an idea to present some current and past thinking on ‘hate’.
As members of the Scottish public for which ‘The Hate Monster’ was specifically designed, we have to assume that our superiors know what they’re doing. They surely consulted a broad range of specialists, be they psychologists, marketing people, perhaps even lawyers and experienced police officers. Significant amounts of cash must’ve been spent.
Reaction to the animated character and his ‘working-class’ Weegie accent has been, let’s say, ‘mixed’. The poster campaign reminded us of something and we couldn’t quite put our finger on it but a friend pointed out that it’s reminiscent of the Aids awareness campaigns back in the late 80s - doom-laden and designed to frighten.
We read somewhere (and can’t locate it now) that ‘hate’ is unusual insofar as there is no clear facial expression it can be associated with. That’s why we took time over the selection of our image for this post - anger, fear, panic, shock…these are all identifiable in a person’s expression. But hate is different. Does that man hate someone? Certainly looks like he's had a rough night or two and he's none too happy. But does he 'hate' anyone? Does he hate trans people, black people, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, his Mum, the neighbour’s cat? Would you start believing that he hated you if he looked at you like that every day when you passed each other in the street?
And that’s why the lack of a definition - for police and public alike - is such a problem. It’s one thing to seek to change behaviour. But to do so without a clear understanding of what is being targeted just creates confusion and mistrust.
For thousands of years, all over this planet, human beings have sought to understand their own emotions. Below is a selection of thoughts from philosophical individuals and brief summaries of major religions’ take on ‘hate’.
As a personal exercise we tried making a definition of our own but soon gave up. Just as Orwell - clinical with words though he was - could not define precisely what ‘common decency’ is, the word ‘hate’ presents a similar problem. We know what it is when we see it (and more specifically when it is performed) but this calamitous Hate Act is doomed to fail (and possibly to harm) because it assigns responsibility for identification of the ‘criminal’ on self-professed victims who can ‘see’ hate where none may be present.
Over and above all the complexities of the language and the policing and the legal ramifications and the damage being done to Scotland’s reputation, many people are angered because the whole campaign is so shoddy, childish and offensively patronising. It seems also to have decided who the ‘criminals’ are, the kind of areas they live in, their age and socio-economic background i.e. people like the man in our image.
Whether or not being categorised in this way constitutes a ‘hate crime’, the behaviour of our government and national police force has already been well-noted by the people being painted as ‘haters’ - 'those people' happens to include us and we won’t forget this shameful episode anytime soon.
‘To conclude, I will briefly mention two directions for further research. The first is psychological. I have argued that hate is a mechanism of self-affirmation that appears when our self-worth is threatened. This self-affirmative character has different functions in each type of hate and this should be examined carefully. Normative hate can contribute to reinforce societal rules. In retributive hate, the self-affirmation can have a therapeutic dimension. But in ideological and malicious hate, the self-affirmation is merely illusory and even self-deceptive. In ideological hate, the self-affirmation has a tautological and redundant character: no matter what the other does or how the other is, the self-affirmation has the function of reinforcing the existing ideology. Malicious hate can lead to a destruction of the other, but our feeling of being uplifted is unreal: we keep experiencing the target as desirable and superior to us.
The second direction for research is moral in nature. My account prepares the field to address a series of moral issues about hate which, until now, have received scant attention. Hate has been described as irrational and blind, but if the analysis provided herein is correct, this must not always be the case. Retributive and normative hate can fulfill an instrumental function for the individual and the society to which she belongs. Though I think that hate is never an appropriate response toward others who have wronged us, I want to conclude with the thought that some types of hate seem less reproachable than others.’
Ingrid Vendrell Ferran
Hate: toward a Four-Types Model | Review of Philosophy and Psychology (springer.com)
‘Though many would agree that hate speech can have destructive effects, and that there is a moral imperative on the state to cultivate something like respectful relations between its members, objections to hate speech bans abound. In a wide-ranging response to these concerns, Parekh (2012) considers (and rejects) six common objections to the prohibition of hate speech. These six objections are: (1) that the harm of hate speech, while real, is relatively minor and a small price to pay given the interest of democratic nations; (2) that bans are not the answer, but rather “better ideas” and “more speech” are; (3) that a prohibition would have a dangerous “chilling effect” and that hate speech bans are a slippery slope to all sorts of unwanted restrictions; (4) that bans give the state too much power to judge the content of speech and decide what can or cannot be said, threatening state-neutrality, skewing political debate, and infringing on individual liberty; (5) that bans are an objectionable form of paternalism or moral authoritarianism, and is incompatible with the assumption that humans are responsible and autonomous individuals and that society is made up of free and equal citizens; and finally, (6) that bans are ineffective at changing attitudes and removing the hate from the hate speaker’s heart, with the result that bans have the effect of moving extremists underground, alienating them from wider society, and in doing so rendering us ignorant of their violent potential and impotent to engage in effective de-radicalization.’
Anderson, Luvell and Michael Barnes, "Hate Speech", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/hate-speech/>.
‘Enmity and Hatred should clearly be studied by reference to their opposites. Enmity may be produced by anger or spite or calumny. Now whereas anger arises from offences against oneself, enmity may arise even without that; we may hate people merely because of what we take to be their character. Anger is always concerned with individuals-a Callias or a Socrates-whereas hatred is directed also against classes: we all hate any thief and any informer. Moreover, anger can be cured by time; but hatred cannot. The one aims at giving pain to its object, the other at doing him harm; the angry man wants his victims to feel; the hater does not mind whether they feel or not. All painful things are felt; but the greatest evils, injustice and folly, are the least felt, since their presence causes no pain. And anger is accompanied by pain, hatred is not; the angry man feels pain, but the hater does not. Much may happen to make the angry man pity those who offend him, but the hater under no circumstances wishes to pity a man whom he has once hated: for the one would have the offenders suffer for what they have done; the other would have them cease to exist.
It is plain from all this that we can prove people to be friends or enemies; if they are not, we can make them out to be so; if they claim to be so, we can refute their claim; and if it is disputed whether an action was due to anger or to hatred, we can attribute it to whichever of these we prefer.’
Aristotle.
The Internet Classics Archive | Rhetoric by Aristotle (mit.edu)
‘Thomas Aquinas viewed hatred with nuance, drawing distinctions between hating the sin and hating the sinner. In his work, Summa Theologica, he unpacks this concept.
For Aquinas, hating someone entirely – their nature and their flaws – is always sinful. True Christian love requires desiring another's good, which means hating their evil. He uses the analogy of a doctor treating a patient with cancer. The doctor doesn't hate the patient, but the cancer itself, wanting to remove it for the patient's well-being.
This distinction becomes important when dealing with sinners. We can, and even should, hate the sinful acts themselves, as they go against God's will and hinder the sinner's happiness. Aquinas cites scripture, like Jesus' words in Luke 12:26, to support this idea. However, this hatred shouldn't extend to the person themselves. We should still love their human nature, created by God, and desire their ultimate good.
Aquinas uses the term "perfect hatred" to describe this concept. It's not a hatred filled with animosity, but a hatred born from love that seeks to eliminate the evil within the person. This aligns with the concept of charity, which emphasizes love for God and neighbor.
There are subtleties, though. Aquinas acknowledges the difficulty of separating the sin from the sinner completely. However, the key takeaway is that hatred shouldn't cloud our judgment or lead us to wish ill on the person themselves. Our ultimate goal, according to Aquinas, should be to see the sinner turn away from evil and return to God's good graces.’
Freud saw hate as a fundamental human drive, intertwined with love in a concept he called "ambivalence." Here's a breakdown of his perspective:
It's important to note that Freud's theories on hate have been debated and revised. However, they offer valuable insights into the underlying psychological forces that contribute to hatred.
While Bertrand Russell doesn't have a vast written exploration of hate, he did offer a concise and impactful perspective. Here's a look at his view:
It's important to understand that Russell's view is brief but powerful. He focused on the detrimental effects of hatred on both individuals and society, advocating for a more rational and loving approach to navigate the complexities of the world.
Carl Jung didn't directly explore "hate" as a single concept, but his work on the psyche offers insights into its origins and potential transformations. Here's a look at how Jungian psychology sheds light on hatred:
Overall, Jung viewed hatred as a complex emotion with psychological roots. By understanding its origins in the Shadow, projections, or unresolved complexes, we can potentially transform hatred through self-reflection and individuation. This can lead to a more peaceful and integrated individual and society.
Jean-Paul Sartre doesn't directly explore "hate" as a singular concept, but his existentialist philosophy sheds light on its potential sources and complexities:
Sartre doesn't offer a simple solution for hate. However, his philosophy suggests that acknowledging our freedom, taking responsibility for our choices, and engaging authentically with "the Other" are crucial steps. By confronting our anxieties and facing our existence head-on, we can potentially overcome the urge to define ourselves through hatred.
Niccolò Machiavelli, the author of "The Prince," didn't directly praise hatred. However, his focus on effective leadership in a dangerous world implies a pragmatic view of its potential uses and drawbacks for a ruler. Here's a breakdown:
Overall, Machiavelli wouldn't promote hatred as a desirable emotion. However, he might see it as a potential tool or consequence of ruling, something a leader needs to be aware of and manage strategically. His focus lies on achieving and maintaining power, and hatred might be a factor to consider in that pursuit, even if a risky one.
In Buddhist philosophy, hatred (dvesha) is considered one of the "three poisons" alongside greed (raga) and delusion (moha). These are seen as the root causes of suffering. Here's how Buddhism approaches hatred:
Buddhism doesn't advocate for suppressing hatred. Instead, it encourages understanding its roots and transforming it through practices like meditation and cultivating loving-kindness. The goal is not to eliminate hatred entirely but to prevent it from controlling our thoughts and actions, leading to a more peaceful and compassionate way of life.
Judaism views hatred with strong disapproval, emphasizing love and compassion as core values. Here's a breakdown of its perspective:
Here are some examples within Judaism:
Overall, Judaism views hatred as a destructive force that goes against core values of love, compassion, and forgiveness. It emphasizes introspection, focusing on our own actions and intentions, while striving to create a more peaceful world through understanding and reconciliation.
Islam
Examples in Islamic Tradition:
Overall, Islamic philosophy views hatred as a negative emotion that hinders personal growth and social harmony. It emphasizes love, mercy, justice, forgiveness, and the importance of intention to cultivate a more peaceful and compassionate existence.
Ancient Egyptians didn't have a single, all-encompassing concept for "hate" like we do today. However, their beliefs and practices offer insights into how they viewed similar emotions:
Here's how these concepts might translate to the concept of hate:
Overall, while Egyptians didn't have a direct equivalent to "hate," their emphasis on order, balance, and a pure heart suggests they viewed emotions like hatred with disapproval as disruptive and potentially harmful forces.
In Hinduism, hatred (dvesha) is seen as a negative emotion that hinders spiritual progress and creates suffering. Here's a look at how Hindu philosophy approaches hate:
Overall, Hinduism views hatred as a barrier to spiritual liberation. By cultivating positive qualities, practicing non-violence, forgiveness, and compassion, and ultimately realizing the interconnectedness of all beings, Hindus aim to overcome hatred and achieve spiritual liberation.
No spam or ads, just the latest posts and updates from Scotland's newest pro-independence blog.
.png)
