One of the conclusions that I have come to as a result of pleasure theoretical thinking is that resistance — or change — is the result of displeasure. Once you hear it it will seem obvious to you — but, if people are happy, then they will not make any efforts to change the current state of things, and if they are unhappy, then they will seek change.1 In turn, when I consider change, or resistance, I understand this either to mean social, material, or interpretive change.
I raise this issue because it is one that I look for everywhere, to test it and either confirm or disconfirm its validity. Here is an example from Talk of Love: How Culture Matters, or a review at least, that supports my claim:
Among her insights are that “happy” people in “settled” times avoid examining cultural meanings or challenging them even if they don’t actually believe them. Conversely, in “unsettled” times (adolescence, divorce, political unrest), people question the culture more actively, Swidler contends, to search for answers or solutions to issues, problems or unhappiness.
On the basis of this review, it seems that the author argues that this effect of happiness is a property of cultural meanings. However, this focus on meaning is a disembodied way of looking at things. Instead, I argue that the interpretive phenomena she observes should be understood as an extension of the embodied and phenomenological experience of pleasure.
Via Scatterplot.
1 I don’t typically speak about pleasure in terms of happiness, but in this case it seemed to fit. I almost changed it, but then left it, to leave a trace of what originally came to mind, and as an ironic reference to the recent turn to happiness as a theoretical landscape that seems to be taking place.
Subscribe to blog in a reader
Subscribe to blog by email