Ars Philosopha — January 24, 2013, 9:00 am

Can We Truly Love Our Enemies?

Philosopher Jerome Neu argues that our emotional responses can be trained

I’m toward the end — God willing — of a harrowing divorce, so when I heard about Jerome Neu’s On Loving Our Enemies (Oxford University Press, 2012), I knew I both needed and feared it. The title recalled for me the summer I was twenty-one. I had been a kind of neo-Hindu-Christian Buddhist for the previous fifteen years — my father ran a syncretist quasi-cult called the Church of Living Love — and although I had read a good bit of Friedrich Nietzsche, there was one book I wouldn’t open: The Antichrist, a late masterpiece. It was medicine I didn’t want to take. Finally, in the summer of 1988, while on a two-month-long road trip with my father, I read — or rather, misread — the book and found that I’d been right: I soon lost my “faith,” whatever it had been.

It was probably no coincidence that I discovered the Smiths that summer, too. I remember frequently singing in my head the lyrics to “Heaven Knows I’m Miserable Now,” especially, of course:

In my life
Oh why do I smile
At people whom I’d much rather
Kick in the eye

“Listening For Voices,” December 1886

Okay, I was a young twenty-one. But the sentiment wasn’t entirely trivial. I was losing an ethic I’d been following my entire life — that De imitatione Christi (the title of another of my favorite books, by the fifteenth-century German canon Thomas à Kempis), was how a person should be. That summer, I decided that Christ was plain wrong when he taught “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). And that the Buddhist lama Gyalse Nugulchu Thogme was still crazier when he wrote during the fourteenth century, “If, in return for not the slightest wrong of mine, someone were to cut off even my head, through the power of compassion to take all his negative actions upon myself is the practice of a bodhisattva. Even if someone says all sorts of derogatory things about me and proclaims throughout the universe, in return, out of love, to extol that person’s qualities is a bodhisattva” (The Heart of Compassion, verses 13 and 14).

Freud famously claimed that loving our enemies is psychologically impossible, and perhaps unjust to our friends. Given limited emotional resources, he argued, don’t our friends deserve more of us than our enemies? In The Antichrist, Nietzsche expressed the suspicion that “loving” our neighbors might be a self-deceptive expression of our resentment for them — even of our contempt. If, for example, someone is trying to limit your time with your children, is it sensible to love that person, even if it is possible? Are anger, resentment, even hatred truly unacceptable emotions? Would I be living a better life if I never felt outrage? Or a less complete one?

Twenty-four years later, I’m no wiser about Christian faith or being a bodhisattva, and I still like the Smiths. But a divorce — this is my second, both of them involving children — is the kind of traumatic event that makes you think about love more than does falling in love, getting married, or even having a child. Here’s a person you once loved as much as anyone you’ve known. You became bonded by love, offered promises of love (insisted I’ll never love anyone else or I couldn’t live without you), had children together (sat in a hospital room holding a brand-new baby, a kind of synthesis of the two of you, only better), and now suddenly you’re sitting under fluorescents at the cheap conference table of a balding mediator in a $300 blue suit, and it’s Annie Lennox: “I don’t love you anymore/ I don’t think I ever did.”  Worse still, you’re fighting over the kids, and it’s not just that you’ve lost this love — your partner has become your enemy. Even if you wanted to love that person again, could you? More to the point: could I?

So, here I am, reluctantly and desperately reading On Loving Our Enemies. Jerome Neu is not writing a self-help book. He’s a professional philosopher, made famous by his brilliant analysis of emotion, A Tear Is an Intellectual Thing (OUP, 2000; the title is from William Blake’s “The Grey Monk”). His new book is mostly about Freud, and Freud, as we know, is a bit skeptical about love: he’d like to reduce it to something akin to fear and sex. Fear is part of divorce; sex, of course, has nothing to do with it (ask any adulterer, or better yet, read Norman Rush). But Neu teaches — and I think Freud would agree — that our emotional responses, while not entirely under our control, can be trained, for better or for worse. He uses Diderot’s The Paradox of Acting to support the point that we can seem to feel ways that we truly do not. But it is also the case, he argues, that by pretending to feel a particular way we may incline ourselves in an emotional direction: “The effects may work backward, that is, from standards of external behavior to the shape of internal life.”

If I want to love my ex-wife, in this light, the first step is to start acting as if I love her. But even if this technique makes it psychologically possible to do so, is it the right thing to do? “The distinction between the psychological and the moral (fact/value),” Neu writes, “may be more questionable than it might at first appear.” That is to say, figuring out how I can feel and how I ought to feel might not be as simple as the (seemingly morally desirable) goal of loving my enemy or the impossibility of actually doing it. For Neu, as for Freud, I am probably not even in a position to say whether or not I actually love or hate my ex-wife. Self-knowledge is so elusive that perhaps the best I can say is whether I am speaking and acting in a loving or a hateful way.

My next step, then: smile at my ex. Even as I understand the impulse behind Morrissey’s line.

Share
Single Page

More from Clancy Martin:

Conversation March 30, 2015, 2:45 pm

On Death

“I think that the would-be suicide needs, more than anything else, to talk to a person like you, who has had to fight for life.”

Ars Philosopha October 9, 2014, 8:00 am

Are Humans Good or Evil?

A brief philosophical debate.

Ars Philosopha March 14, 2014, 12:46 pm

On Hypocrisy

Should we condemn hypocrites, when we can’t help but be hypocrites ourselves?

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

October 2018

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Printed Word in Peril·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February, at an event at the 92nd Street Y’s Unterberg Poetry Center in New York, while sharing the stage with my fellow British writer Martin Amis and discussing the impact of screen-based reading and bidirectional digital media on the Republic of Letters, I threw this query out to an audience that I estimate was about three hundred strong: “Have any of you been reading anything by Norman Mailer in the past year?” After a while, one hand went up, then another tentatively semi-elevated. Frankly I was surprised it was that many. Of course, there are good reasons why Mailer in particular should suffer posthumous obscurity with such alacrity: his brand of male essentialist braggadocio is arguably extraneous in the age of Trump, Weinstein, and fourth-wave feminism. Moreover, Mailer’s brilliance, such as it was, seemed, even at the time he wrote, to be sparks struck by a steely intellect against the tortuous rocks of a particular age, even though he labored tirelessly to the very end, principally as the booster of his own reputation.

It’s also true that, as J. G. Ballard sagely remarked, for a writer, death is always a career move, and for most of us the move is a demotion, as we’re simultaneously lowered into the grave and our works into the dustbin. But having noted all of the above, it remains the case that Mailer’s death coincided with another far greater extinction: that of the literary milieu in which he’d come to prominence and been sustained for decades. It’s a milieu that I hesitate to identify entirely with what’s understood by the ringing phrase “the Republic of Letters,” even though the overlap between the two was once great indeed; and I cannot be alone in wondering what will remain of the latter once the former, which not long ago seemed so very solid, has melted into air.

What I do feel isolated in—if not entirely alone in—is my determination, as a novelist, essayist, and journalist, not to rage against the dying of literature’s light, although it’s surprising how little of this there is, but merely to examine the great technological discontinuity of our era, as we pivot from the wave to the particle, the fractal to the fungible, and the mechanical to the computable. I first began consciously responding, as a literary practitioner, to the manifold impacts of ­BDDM in the early 2000s—although, being the age I am, I have been feeling its effects throughout my working life—and I first started to write and speak publicly about it around a decade ago. Initially I had the impression I was being heard out, if reluctantly, but as the years have passed, my attempts to limn the shape of this epochal transformation have been met increasingly with outrage, and even abuse, in particular from my fellow writers.

As for my attempts to express the impact of the screen on the page, on the actual pages of literary novels, I now understand that these were altogether irrelevant to the requirement of the age that everything be easier, faster, and slicker in order to compel the attention of screen viewers. It strikes me that we’re now suffering collectively from a “tyranny of the virtual,” since we find ourselves unable to look away from the screens that mediate not just print but, increasingly, reality itself.

Photograph (detail) by Ellen Cantor from her Prior Pleasures series © The artist. Courtesy dnj Gallery, Santa Monica, California
Article
Among Britain’s Anti-Semites·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

This is the story of how the institutions of British Jewry went to war with Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party. Corbyn is another feather in the wind of populism and a fragmentation of the old consensus and politesse. He was elected to the leadership by the party membership in 2015, and no one was more surprised than he. Between 1997 and 2010, Corbyn voted against his own party 428 times. He existed as an ideal, a rebuke to the Blairite leadership, and the only wise man on a ship of fools. His schtick is that of a weary, kindly, socialist Father Christmas, dragged from his vegetable patch to create a utopia almost against his will. But in 2015 the ideal became, reluctantly, flesh. Satirists mock him as Jesus Christ, and this is apt. But only just. He courts sainthood, and if you are very cynical you might say that, like Christ, he shows Jews what they should be. He once sat on the floor of a crowded train, though he was offered a first-class seat, possibly as a private act of penance to those who had, at one time or another, had no seat on a train.

When Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, the British media, who are used to punching socialists, crawled over his record and found much to alarm the tiny Jewish community of 260,000. Corbyn called Hez­bollah “friends” and said Hamas, also his “friends,” were devoted “to long-term peace and social justice.” (He later said he regretted using that language.) He invited the Islamist leader Raed Salah, who has accused Jews of killing Christian children to drink their blood, to Parliament, and opposed his extradition. Corbyn is also a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and a former chair of Stop the War, at whose rallies they chant, “From the river to the sea / Palestine will be free.” (There is no rhyme for what will happen to the Jewish population in this paradise.) He was an early supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its global campaign to delegitimize Israel and, through the right of return for Palestinians, end its existence as a Jewish state. (His office now maintains that he does not support BDS. The official Labour Party position is for a two-state solution.) In the most recent general election, only 13 percent of British Jews intended to vote Labour.

Corbyn freed something. The scandals bloomed, swiftly. In 2016 Naz Shah, Labour MP for Bradford West, was suspended from the party for sharing a Facebook post that suggested Israel be relocated to the United States. She apologized publicly, was reinstated, and is now a shadow women and equalities minister. Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London and a political supporter of Corbyn, appeared on the radio to defend Shah and said, “When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.” For this comment, Livingstone was suspended from the party.

A protest against anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in Parliament Square, London, March 26, 2018 (detail) © Yui Mok/PA Images/Getty Images
Article
Nothing but Gifts·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

If necessity is the stern but respectable mother of invention, then perhaps desperation is the derelict father of subterfuge. That was certainly the case when I moved to Seattle in 1979.

Though I’d lived there twice during the previous five years, I wasn’t prepared for the economic boom I found upon this latest arrival. Not only had rent increased sharply in all but the most destitute neighborhoods, landlords now routinely demanded first, last, and a hefty security deposit, which meant I was short by about fifty percent. Over the first week or so, I watched with mounting anxiety as food, gas, and lodging expenses reduced the meager half I did have to a severely deficient third. To make matters even more nerve-racking, I was relocating with my nine-year-old son, Ezra. More than my well-being was at stake.

A veteran of cold, solitary starts in strange cities, I knew our best hope wasn’t the classifieds, and certainly not an agency, but the serendipity of the streets—handmade for rent signs, crowded bulletin boards in laundromats and corner grocery stores, passersby on the sidewalk; I had to exploit every opportunity that might present itself, no matter how oblique or improbable. In Eastlake, at the edge of Lake Union between downtown Seattle and the University District, I spied a shabby but vacant one-story house on the corner of a block that was obviously undergoing transition—overgrown lots and foundation remnants where other houses once stood—and that had at least one permanent feature most right-minded people would find forbidding: an elevated section of Interstate 5 just across the street, attended by the incessant roar of cars and trucks. The house needed a new roof, a couple of coats of paint, and, judging by what Ezra and I could detect during a furtive inspection, major repair work inside, including replacing damaged plaster-and-lath walls with sheetrock. All of this, from my standpoint, meant that I might have found a solution to my dilemma.

The next step was locating the owner, a roundabout process that eventually required a trip to the tax assessor’s office. I called the person listed on the rolls and made an appointment. Then came the moment of truth, or, more precisely, untruth, when dire circumstance begot strategic deception. I’d never renovated so much as a closet, but that didn’t stop me from declaring confidently that I possessed both the skills and the willingness to restore the entire place to a presentable—and, therefore, rentable—state in exchange for being able to live there for free, with the length of stay to be determined as work progressed. To my immense relief, the pretense was well received. Indeed, the owner also seemed relieved, if a bit surprised, that he’d have seemingly trustworthy tenants; homeless people who camped beneath the freeway, he explained, had repeatedly broken into the house and used it for all manner of depravity. Telling myself that inspired charlatanry is superior to mundane trespassing—especially this instance of charlatanry, which would yield some actual good—I accepted the keys from my new landlord.

Photograph (detail) © Larry Towell/Magnum Photos
Article
Checkpoint Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Laura Sandoval threaded her way through idling taxis and men selling bottles of water toward the entrance of the Cordova International Bridge, which links Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, to El Paso, Texas. Earlier that day, a bright Saturday in December 2012, Sandoval had crossed over to Juárez to console a friend whose wife had recently died. She had brought him a few items he had requested—eye drops, the chimichangas from Allsup’s he liked—and now that her care package had been delivered, she was in a hurry to get back to the Texas side, where she’d left her car. She had a …
Checkpoint on I-35 near Encinal, Texas (detail) © Gabriella Demczuk

Number of toilet seats at the EU Parliament building in Brussels that a TV station had tested for cocaine:

46

Happiness creates a signature smell in human sweat that can induce happiness in those who smell it.

Trump struggles to pronounce “anonymous”; a Sackler stands to profit from a new drug to treat opioid addiction; housing development workers in the Bronx are accused of having orgies on the clock

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today