�鶹ӰԺ

We are thrilled to share the Professor Deb Cantrell recently released her latest book, Emotions, Activism, and Social Change. The book  explores the role of anger in social activism, drawing from sociology, psychology, philosophy, and law. It contrasts activists' view of anger as a signal of commitment and justice with critics who see it as irrational and dangerous. The book suggests that perceptions of anger reflect societal power dynamics and rules on emotional labor, particularly around race and gender. It proposes shifting focus from individual emotions to relational contexts, offering new practices for using anger effectively in driving social change, including examples of legal reforms.

Learn more about the book in the following interview with Professor Cantrell. 

What inspired you to write this book? Was there a particular moment or movement?

DC: I was inspired to write my book for a few reasons. I have experience as an advocate in a few different social movements. Like most activists, sometimes I felt empowered and energized by the work, while other times I felt ineffective and demoralized. Writing this book gave me a chance to step back and reflect on those shared activist experiences and try to unpack them, especially because the emotions involved were so conspicuous. 

Next, I always am intrigued when I encounter contradictory narratives, and there are some prominent ones in social movement work. For example, “you can only be a good activist if you’re angry” compared to “angry activists aren’t helpful because they act irrationally.” My book gave me a chance to dig into why those kinds of contradictions exist and how each could be accurate and inaccurate at the same time. 

Finally, I have found the last handful of years very challenging in terms of how often social discourse is antagonistic and unyielding. I wanted to see if I could offer some thoughts about how to disrupt that pattern—whether within social movement work or beyond. 

 Why did you choose to focus particularly on anger among the range of emotions involved in activism? What makes anger a pivotal emotion in social movements?

DC: I suppose I’d note first that, to me, the book focuses as much on love (or lovingkindness) as it does on anger. To my mind, those two emotions travel together in social movement work. The lead chapters of the book start with anger because my own experience and the research both suggest that anger often is the emotion that comes most readily to mind when we think about social activism. And, it’s an emotion that generates complicated and competing beliefs for people. So, I thought it would be helpful and necessary to spend some time unpacking those beliefs about anger before offering thoughts about love.

Can you provide a specific example from the book of social change involving changing the law, and how this demonstrates the way in which a new approach to anger can be effective? 

DC: My main worry about anger leading activism is that it discourages activists from building a large enough group of supporters to be able to have the power to change the law. I argue that anger fosters disconnection, but social change requires expanding connection. I offer the marriage equality movement as an example of how social change typically requires people to come together across a range of perspectives in order to actually have enough power (political and otherwise) to change the law. I describe how efforts by lesbian mothers in the ‘60s and ‘70s to successfully litigate for their parental rights laid some foundation for the idea that a “family” could be something other than a married heterosexual couple with children. That expanded idea of “family” gained traction in the LGBTQ community and stimulated conversations about redefining marriage and changing laws to allow for “gay” marriage or “same sex” marriage. That then triggered notable social and political backlash, including in our own state of Colorado. 

To move forward, advocates had to build a bigger coalition and that included bringing in more folks beyond the LGBTQ community. The conversation about “same sex” marriage became one about “marriage equality”—a subtle shift, but one that put the focus on the dignity of any two people who wished to commit to a marriage, and that shift built connections beyond the LGBTQ community. But, that shift also meant that activists within the LGBTQ community needed to set aside disagreements about whether marriage did, or did not, reflect a history of paternalism that was too problematic to ever support. Those disagreements within the community often were heated. I argue that the marriage equality movement succeeded not because the disagreements about marriage were resolved, but because enough people believed that there was common ground on which to build connections and solidarity. In turn, that brought in more people, which built the power needed to change laws.

Based on your research, where do you see the future of activism heading, particularly concerning the role of emotions?

DC: My own view of “activism” is that it is less an object that can be studied and is more a dynamic and constantly changing set of interactions between humans who do and don’t agree with each other. So, I continue to be very interested in the dimensions of human relationality that seem to be most critical to community building. I think one of the most important take-aways that I have from working with the terrific body of research out there on social movements is that no one perspective tells us everything. I hope the perspective that I offer in my book about emotions is useful. Even more, I’m hoping that it prompts responses that then help me refine my knowledge. I’m eager to see where that takes my research.

What do you hope readers will take away from your book?

DC: All of us, all the time, are part of webs of relationships. Relationality is part of what it means to be a human being, and it is a less a choice, and more a fact. We are more likely to flourish if we can engage our webs of relationships positively and supportively, but that also means we have to be open to finding common ground with others. We find common ground less often through anger, and more often through lovingkindness. Social change requires a big tent in which people cultivate unexpected connections instead of valorizing unnecessary differences. So, find ways to interrupt habits that rely on caustic anger and replace them with habits that sound in more connective emotions, like lovingkindness.