Weaponized Fear: Sociopolitical War and the Need for Human Desire

Introduction

Everybody knows the icy feeling of fear. It helps drive the choices we make in our lives on an everyday basis and can motivate us towards extremes in political and social settings.[1] We are in a time of political terror, and with growing party radicalism, violence and hate are running rampant throughout most sociopolitical issues. For example, social or political threats often result in an extremist binary response based in fear. Alan Lambert explains this with social identity theory, which studies how individuals identify themselves with ideologies from social groups, which in turn influence their social behavior and the relationships they have with both the members of that social group and the people whose beliefs oppose them. In this article, this is used to explain rally effects, or bipartisanship.[2] When people are afraid, they will search for a sense of security. For many, this lies in a feeling of belonging, which you can easily find in the political group that best represents what you believe in. As fear continues to increase, so too does the attachment to whatever social or political group you have connected to. And as these rally effects continue to strengthen, so too does the fearful reaction of warring with people who have different beliefs than you. 

Another example of this divide can be found in Monica Bustinza and Kaila Witkowski’s work, which analyzes over 1,000 tweets by President Trump during the COVID shutdown, revealing that fear-based rhetoric was largely used to not only rally republicans against immigrants, but against democratic beliefs as well. They argue that using fear in large political settings creates incongruence, which turns certain social communities, or even issues, into an evil “other,” and one that must be eradicated. This can be put on an even larger scale, such as the disconnect between political parties. Political incongruence directly affects the connections we make with each other and therefore, the way that we respond to fear-based politics.[3] This is arguably how many political figures keep control of the members of their party – by driving fear into everyday political discourse, politicians have the opportunity to influence the reactions of the general public and keep them divided, based solely on opinion. Because people in power have drastically increased the fear of the opposing party, there is now an automatic association of negativity with any person that disagrees with what you consider your fundamental ideals.[4] This has resulted in an ever-growing divide, and one that must be addressed if there is any hope of moving forward as a nation rather than individuals. 

What is important to notice in this context is that the people in power are the ones so concerned with keeping us divided in our parties, and are the ones who continue to foster this environment of terror.[5] Fear is constantly used as a control tactic, even at the highest levels of the government. We are manipulated with it, by people who recognize the potential for bad and recognize that this negative potential can influence both how the general population reacts to political events and how they interact with each other. And due to the fearful nature of the rhetoric used by the people in power, it dominates most other media consumed by the collective, which in turn makes the political agenda of a corrupt individual take over the desire of the general population.[6] Fear cannot be allowed to overtake how we think and act in sociopolitical settings, and it certainly cannot be allowed to be weaponized against us and influence our behavior, especially towards each other. 

That is not to say that fear should be avoided altogether. It is all too real, and there for a reason. It keeps us safe and protects us from dangerous threats but also keeps us from falling into the pitfalls of moral decline, allowing us to live and learn from our choices.[7] But there is also a social fear, one usually associated with failure. This is what is used to manipulate and drive people to political extremism. What if I say the wrong thing? What if I look stupid? What if they make fun of me and I don’t fit in? What if I don't know what I’m doing? What if they’re better than me? Questions like this all involve a sense of self-failure, leading to lower confidence and therefore a higher need for security. From there, it is clear to see that a fear-based rhetoric preying on these individual anxieties can easily draw in large crowds with the illusion of safety and radicalize them for higher political endeavors, weaponizing us against each other in the process. So how do we combat this societal fear? 

1. Desire.

Charlie Jane Anders, in her book describing how to write creatively during hard times, describes the power of motivational emotion and how to resolve fear in both yourself and the characters you are creating in a natural way.[8] One of the emotions that is constantly at war with fear in most people is desire, so it seems like the natural, human refutation of the negative side effects of fear while still embracing the power of its emotional motivation. Anders states that “You can write about people who want things…Desire is complicated and messy, and that’s why it’s so great” (116, 120). Human nature wants things, and if fear can so easily be used as a manipulation tactic in political settings, then wanting something bad enough is what will force us from this individualistic worry and into a collective craving for social justice. 

Obviously not all desires are good, which is why fear of physical and social dangers is so important to the survival of humanity. A common argument is that a desire-based approach to politics can easily be turned towards dark ambition. For example, a democracy’s function is entirely dependent on the larger population’s desire, but that can easily get increasingly less educated and more unified under one set of ideals until it becomes a dictatorship, or even a fascist government. I must point out in this situation that these desires become increasingly individualist and manipulative – what looks like a larger, agreed-upon ideal, is really representing a single person’s ideal for their own gain. While this does not necessarily apply to all examples, it is not possible to avoid negative fallacies in political arguments. There will always be corrupt people in the world who want to work the systems in place to their own benefit, but the social fear that is used to control the general public and their opinions on sociopolitical issues cannot be allowed to control the narrative of our lives. This means that desire, desire for human things, is the only thing that will challenge this fear, create just sociopolitical change, and create the space for potential connections and discourse about these human desires. 

2. Connection. 

As Anders boldly states, “Human connection. It’s the whole fucking ball game” (113). In literature contexts, like what Anders describes, connections formed between characters and the actions that result directly from those relationships are the driving force of a story, and what keeps the attention and investment of the reader.[9] However, this framework can apply to our real lives and situations where isolation and fear are used for control. People often love a good book because it invites the reader in and evokes a sense of empathy – a direct relationship between the character and the reader that allows them to be completely immersed into the novel’s world, based on emotional representation. Fear is arguably one of the largest emotions that people are affected by, which is why fearful rhetoric is especially successful in political settings. But the aim of political fear, to isolate and manipulate, works against the growth of humanity. On the other hand, much like the relationships in books, the ones built on open conversation, respect, and natural human desires are sustainable emotional connections that foster an environment of development and sociopolitical change. 

A life spent in privacy is a life that has been robbed of the experiences of the outside world, including potential allies in people who would not get a second thought when stuck in an individualist mode.[10] Right now our politics are violently charged, forced into an intense battle between the right and the left, with fear-based rhetoric forcing citizens to choose a side and assume a defensive position that attacks anyone with opposing beliefs. But what would our politics look like if we approached it together, allied as one community hell-bent on making just sociopolitical change for all people? Democracy was meant to function as a collective; different groups of people, united under aligned goals (or even common enemies), actively participating together in politics to advocate for the changes they want to see. Democracy – true democracy – relies on the plurality of community participation. In her commentary of Hannah Arendt’s Political Thought, Adriana Cavarero relates this concept as sharing power horizontally rather than vertically, supporting the idea of intergroup connections as an important part of political activism. In this framework, the idea of plurality includes not only the congregation of multiple bodies, but the open acceptance of others, no matter what identitarian frame they find belonging in. 

But it is not enough to just have a lot of people together. If they have all been forced into the same controlled mindset by fear-based rhetoric, a crowd can in fact become dangerous.[11] There must be more to plurality than simply “more people.” This implies that there must be sustainable and meaningful connections with others, but specifically ones who are different from you.[12] Complex exchanges and mutual respect can make all the difference when trying to connect with someone, and they force you to broaden your perspective, allowing for more understanding and growth between members of opposing communities. “Plurality, by functioning as an antidote to the homogeneity of the people, the nation, or the race, does succeed in neutralizing the inevitable mechanisms of expulsion and exclusion that identity-frames risk begetting and empowering, and which populist demagogues, especially in the digital era, know how to exploit emotionally, if not to produce” (Cavarero 27).  In other words, in a time of political domination from the ‘superior’ perspective, plurality allows for a refutation of the individualistic rhetorical fear employed by those in charge and instead promotes the amalgamation of multiple ‘other’ groups in a combined effort to create equal sociopolitical conditions for all.[13] In this way, plurality is essential to the refutation of political fear as a manipulation tactic and instead employs both fear and desire to create a community capable of activism and participation in a democracy.  

3. Shared Goals.

After we have addressed the problem of fear and found a larger functioning society, we can then move towards actionable change. A problem without a solution does little more than raise hope with no guarantee of ever following through. When we point out the flaws in a political or social issue, or even within communities, without having any next steps or pragmatic plans to see it though, all we have is obvious flaws. What becomes important then is actionable change brought about by desire-based connections that create shared goals. Goals can easily become the connection between social groups, and creating natural and lasting ones can motivate the activism of a community and advocate for sustainable change. Having a clear path towards a clear end not only organizes political thoughts and actions, but also creates the natural manifestation of desire and places it in the focus of one’s mind. Goals afford for endurance, allowing a large period of devotion towards an issue.[14] They give a purposeful shape to the struggles and stories of a community while still allowing for different and perhaps unconventional growth and/or success.[15] However, it is incredibly important to create the right goals for your community.

This is not to say that goals can be right or wrong. Rather, goals that are completely dependent on collective desires and connections instead of individual ones allow for a level of endurance that many plans simply don’t have. When goals are created based on a larger population, not only are there automatically more community members to work towards change, but there is a deeper sense of justice and pride that runs through a collective when they are mobilized for a common goal.[16] They are more dedicated to their cause and follow a sense of obligation to their fellow activists, resulting in a tighter-knit community focused on change that allows for the equal benefit and growth of all members. This duty, to both each other and the larger community to which we belong, creates an environment in which there is continued effort and constant revision, which lets the goals themselves grow and develop alongside community members. In this way, goals allow for development as individuals, in a community, and with politics.

4. Pragmatic Action.

In her realist argument for collective political action, Caroline Levine claims that “goals do not only reinforce the status quo; they afford the realization of aspirations of all kinds” (Levine 130). In other words, goals create the space for human desire to become reality. However, creating sustainable, community-oriented goals will not be enough. We must also do everything we can to ensure that some sort of progress has been made – in other words, to make sure our ‘aspirations are realized.’ This does not mean that you should go out and run yourself into the ground trying to make a difference, or that you should resort to any means necessary. A much better option is to rely on your community; create lasting goals that benefit humanity and create a plan together that prioritizes pragmatic action.[17] 

This idea is largely influenced by Levine’s work, which claims that “Scholars have typically argued that it is our job to understand the past, to theorize and analyze rather than to try and change the world. But the binary opposition between scholarship and activism has boxed us into an unnecessary powerlessness” (xv). That is, Levine is saying that while we have no issues pointing out the problems with the world and dreaming of a better tomorrow, we seem to have a much harder time actually “designing, building, and maintaining” (xv) the sociopolitical systems that will generate and sustain just change. By embracing pragmatic action, we can eliminate this feeling of powerlessness, leading to overall less political fear in our communities and more growth in our activism. Fear will still exist, and that can fuel these negative responses; but prioritizing pragmatic action by prioritizing joint desires in a larger community is the only effective way to eliminate fear-based rhetoric that damages “other” social groups and weaponizes people against each other. 

Once we have identified the sociopolitical change we want to see, the question then becomes how to start. This stage is racked with political fear: What will be enough? What can I possibly do? What actions are big enough to do something? What actions are too far? What if I accidentally cause harm? What if I accomplish nothing at all?[18] What if you succeed? What if you make a difference in even one person’s life? What if you inspire them to do the same thing? We can live in the land of “what if’s” if that is what we choose. But why would you want to live in a constant state of fear, paralyzed by what could potentially happen next? I’m not claiming that this is an easy task – in fact, quite the opposite. Like I mentioned earlier in this paper, fear is very real and there for a reason, but this does not mean it should be allowed to dictate our choices and relationships. It seems cliche, but as Tom Hanks famously quoted in A League of Their Own, “Of course it’s hard. It’s supposed to be hard. If it was easy, everyone would do it. Hard is what makes it great.” I would much rather live in a world where people are willing to try and fail than respond with hate and violence because of the nature of the world. Fear will always be present, and always be weaponized, but we do not have to fall victim to its trap. 

Combating Social Fear in Creative Literature

This framework can be studied in Veronica Roth’s Carve the Mark, a science-fiction young adult novel that follows two young characters from opposing cultures whose fates are forcibly intertwined. Set in a galaxy where entire planets are united (except for these two cultures), this book plays with the emotional impact of opposing viewpoints forced into proximity in a time of intense pressure, making the book an effective case study to analyze when discussing fear in sociopolitical circumstances. As we follow these two characters through their forced proximity to each other and terrifying political and social conditions, we can see the development of a shared desire to be better, and to make a change for the betterment of all of the people on their planet.[19]

The general plot of this book can be further explained by the blurb: 

“In a galaxy powered by the current, everyone has a gift. 

Cyra is the sister of the brutal tyrant who rules the Shotet people. Cyra’s currentgift giver her pain and power – something her brother exploits, using her to torture his enemies. But Cyra is much more than just a blade in her brother’s hand: she is resilient, quick on her feet, and smarter than he knows.

Akos is the son of a farmer and an oracle from the frozen nation-planet of Thuvhe. Protected by his unusual currentgift, Akos is generous in spirit, and his loyalty to his family is limitless. Once Akos and his brother are captured by Shotet soldiers, Akos is desperate to get his brother out alive – no matter what the cost. 

Then Akos is thrust into Cyra’s world, and the enmity between their countries and families seems insurmountable. Will they help each other survive, or will they destroy one another?” (Roth)

Maybe it’s obvious, but they end up helping each other survive – prioritizing both of their desires and working on their relationship every day to build a lasting connection capable of great influence. This book is written in dual perspectives. By getting to see the side of both main characters, we also get to see the values of each culture first-hand, and how they intersect with each other. This creates an intriguing political framework that plays out through the plot and characters, making this novel an excellent representation of the argument that desire, connection, shared goals, and pragmatic actions are the necessary steps to create sustainable and just change. 

For example, take the following scene, which takes place after the two main characters have started to try and form a connection, which unfortunately does not last. They choose to betray each other and both end up in a very low moment: “‘How do you keep doing this?” he said. “Keep going, when everything is so horrible?”…“Find another reason to go on,” I said. “It doesn’t have to be a good one, or a noble one. It just has to be a reason.” I knew mine:…The desire to live” (Roth 151)(Desire). Here, the male main character (Akos) asks the female main character (Cyra) what keeps her going in a life that has been nothing but fear and pain, and her answer is simply survival. Later in the series, Akos then identifies his own reason, and his desire in life becomes saving his brother. This idea of a driving force becomes central to both of these characters as they develop throughout the story. This one thing is what makes them get up, learn, and fight for another chance. 

At the beginning of the story, both of the characters are very focused on their own interests. They have no reason to trust each other and build a real connection, especially since they are forced to live with their enemy (each other). However, when they are both stripped of everything and threatened by both each other’s betrayal and the consequences from the Shotet ruler, Ryzek, they turn instead to why they should go on. They are living in a moment of fear, and Cyra has been living in fear all her life because of her ruthless brother. When Akos asks her how to continue, he is not only opening the door for desire to come and combat fear, but he is making a human connection, based not on common interests but on a shared desire to keep going despite the horrors of their reality. It is also important to note that throughout the story, as these characters grow, change, and develop their connections with each other and with others, their desires shift as well. This is an excellent representation of the powerful yet flexible nature of desire that allows it to so easily refute fear. 

As the book’s plot progresses, so too does the connection between Akos and Cyra. They mature and grow together, trying to learn about each other and the human needs and desires that they have. Take for instance, the following quote: “‘My point is,” he continued, “that when I was ten I was so scared of even seeing pain that I could hardly stand it. Meanwhile, when you were ten, you were being told to cause it, over and over again, by someone much more powerful than you were. Someone who was supposed to be taking care of you.” For a moment I ached at the thought. But only for a moment. “Don’t try to absolve me of guilt.” I meant to sound sharp, like I was scolding him, but instead I sounded like I was pleading with him. I cleared my throat. “Okay? It doesn’t make it better” (Roth 163-164). This conversation takes place after Ryzek, the ruler of Shotet and Cyra’s brother, forces her to torture a man to death in a combat arena, in front of the entire nation with her currengift. In this scene, Cyra opens up about her experience, and Akos responds by trying to understand her experiences and how they have created who she is. It is clear that he doesn’t quite understand, and probably never will. However, he is still trying, and Cyra is willing to have that open conversation and tell him her emotional response.

There is a multidirectional exchange here on both an intellectual and emotional level, and this human connection clearly means something to Cyra, which is shown in the lack of usual brutality in her response. In one of the first moments where trust is starting to be earned back between them, this not only shows an effort for growth on both sides, but is an attempt to understand and communicate on a deeper level – a more human level than politics usually allows, especially when forced into enemy positions. This then inspires the people around them to join their community and connect over their shared desires for change, starting with Cyra slowly joining a small rebel group to try and take down the Shotet regime (although this is unbeknownst to Akos at first). This community, and its growth, are unpredicted and unprecedented in this novel, and therefore serves as a form of connection that is more effective in their attempt to make change than any one group is on their own. The unique link between these characters then shows the power of human connections and how they can create the space for greater goals and change based on their shared desires. 

Unfortunately, Cyra then betrays Akos again (but with good intentions this time) and crafts a plan with the rebels to get Akos and his brother out. It all falls through due to a fatal flaw, and while some of the characters escape, Cyra is captured and tortured. Akos then also joins the rebels in a plot to rescue Cyra, and all the characters (except the brother) then find themselves on the run, trying desperately to stay alive long enough to do something about Ryzek’s tyranny.[20] They are then suddenly joined by a small group of mostly leadership from Thuvhe – the chancellor, the oracle (Akos’s mother), and a political university student (Akos’s sister) – who tell them that the chancellor’s sister has been kidnapped by Ryzek.[21] They have a discussion on what they should do, and the rebels say “‘Forgive me, I know she’s the sister of your chancellor, but the fate of Oreive Benesit isn’t particularly relevant to our interests. We are interested only in unseating Ryzek Noavek’” (Roth 401). The chancellor’s immediate reaction is to bristle and avoid that open conversation. However, Cyra chooses instead to try and find a common interest – a way to mobilize both parties towards the same goal. Consider the following quote: “‘It’s relevant to your interests because it’s an opportunity,” Cyra said, lifting her head. “Since when does Ryzek Noavek call official ceremonies for platoons of sojourning soldiers? He’s just doing it so he has a captive audience when he murders Oreive Benesit, to prove he can defy his fate. He will ensure that all of Shotet is watching. If you want to move against him, do it then. Do it when everyone is watching, and take away his moment of triumph’” (Roth 401). This is an excellent example of a character advocating for a shared goal. 

This conversation is much further in the book, closer to the climax, and after most of the characters have basically been beaten down to within an inch of their lives. In other words, this is the plan for the final determining moment of the success of these characters, and while they have nothing to lose on an individual level, they have everything to lose as a community oriented towards a singular goal. In this passage, Cyra tries to find common ground regardless of their reasons for doing it. At the beginning of this scene, the two groups are opposed, with different goals and different ideas on how to carry them out. By the end of this scene, due to open conversation and finding solutions that have a benefit to humanity rather than individuals, they are all on the same page with a plan that both saves the sister and kills the tyrant. Cyra embraces the differences between the two groups and uses it as their strength rather than what tears them apart. This creation of a shared plan towards a shared end then mobilizes these characters and creates a sense of obligation towards one another, making sure this plan succeeds to benefit the entirety of the planet. 

However, this book does not have the “magic gloss” where everything works out perfectly in the end and they all live happily ever after. Just like in reality, practical actions had to be taken to ensure the progress of their plan. After they create the plan, Akos is upset because killing Ryzek takes away any chance of saving his brother from the fate the monarch has bestowed on him, and everyone is worried that the distraction they have planned – for Cyra to publicly challenge her brother in the arena – will fail, and she won’t be able to kill him.[22] And if she fails, they won’t be able to save the sister. That night, Cyra can’t sleep, and after a brief conversation with the oracle, she pieces together that her brother’s closest advisor is in fact a secret rebel – her desire is to avenge those she had loved and lost because of Ryzek.[23] Cyra then decides to go to her with a secret plan. Consider the following quote: “‘You foolish child. You think you’ll be able to beat Ryzek Noavek in the arena?”…“No” I said. “I came to you with a plan. Your role in it would be simple.” I reached into the satchel at my side and took a vial from the packet I had brought with me. “All you have to do is pour this vial into Ryzek’s calming tonic in the morning. I assume you’ll be at his side when he drinks it’” (Roth 421). However morally questionable this plan sounds, it successfully exemplifies pragmatic action taken to ensure the progress and perhaps even unconventional success of their plan to make change for all of their people.[24] She is making sure that she does not fail, not only out of obligation to the fulfillment of these shared goals, but also the obligation to the people in her community, and the desires they contribute to these goals. 

The most important thing to note about the conclusion of this plot is that the ending is not necessarily a happy one for all parties involved. Ryzek recovers enough from his slip-up to say he also had a secret plan, and reveals that the chancellor’s sister, Orieve, is not where they through she would be but is actually also in the arena, and threatens to have her killed if Cyra does not give him the antidote. In this moment, Cyra is forced into an impossible situation where if she tries to save the sister, their plan will fail and he will still kill the sister and everyone else involved; however, if she makes the call to follow through and ensure her success at the cost of appearing like she is deciding who lives and who dies. But by approaching the situation pragmatically, Cyra chooses to let Oreive die in the arena. This seems like a morally grey decision, and it is. But the truth is that life is more complicated than black and white, and this book approaches that complicated topic in a form that is easily understandable. However harsh it may seem, the practical solution in this creative context says that letting one person die who has no chance of survival in either situation in order to save the lives of everyone involved, unseat a tyrannical leader, and make space for real, sustainable, and just sociopolitical change is the most realistic, and one that cements the progress of your political endeavors.[25] Additionally, by showing that not all parties got what they wanted in the resolution of the plot, this novel also mirrors the reality of compromise, showing the reader that you won’t always be happy with the results, but that the effort is fulfilling when it has a benefit to a larger human population. Even when working through personal grief, the Thuvhesit leadership decides to stay and work with the Shotet rebels, intent on creating change for the whole planet.[26] Altogether, this book excellently employs desire, connection, shared goals, and pragmatic desire to have its characters advocate for larger, just, and lasting sociopolitical change. 

Conclusion

Once one is within this framework, the question then becomes how to start. We know there are problems, but what do we do to fix them?  We must make a plan. While trying to maintain practicality myself, I cannot offer a detailed, universal plan for political activism as each issue will require a different approach, which should be discussed among your community to benefit a larger population’s desire. What I can do, however, is offer my ideas to help you get started and overcome that initial fear, allowing you to continue from the following steps into your own pragmatic actions. 

1. Take a deep breath, and have confidence in yourself.  The deep breath is simply to help calm the nerves and focus your mind.  However, belief in yourself and what you’re doing is key in emotionally heavy sociopolitical contexts. Confidence in the face of fear is not only inspiring to others terrified by political action, it is empowering to have faith in your cause and your work, working as a natural refutation to fear-based rhetoric. 
2. Brainstorm any and all ideas and write them down. What communities you want to be a part of, what you’re passionate about, the change you want to see, what plans come to mind, events you want to do, systems that could possibly replace current corrupted ones, possible solutions to problems, anything you can think of (and it’s okay if your thoughts are a complete mess). This is now a dumping ground for all of your ideas that you can come back to and continue to revise and work on, allowing for continued sustainable growth. 
3. Discuss with your community and create an actionable plan. After your brainstorm, you can bring your ideas to the members of your community and have open-minded, respectful discourse about them until you have refined it to one small, practical goal that you can work on. Then talk about what physical actions you can do to meet that goal. From there, you can continue to create your plan and alter any goals when needed as you continue to grow your movement in practicality.[27] 

These steps can be taken into the world as a practical application in order to create a space where fear is present, but does not rule over the social and political relationships and interactions we have, especially in our everyday lives. In a time where high tensions in our political climate are increasingly seeping into our social one, employing these tactics in our interactions can help avoid the extremist fear-based response that constantly drives up the political threats in our social sphere, and instead promotes a desire-based rhetoric that inspires community and pragmatic action based on shared goals. 

Notes

[1] Bleiker, Roland, and Emma Hutchison. "Fear no More: Emotions and World Politics."  Of International Studies, vol. 34, no. S1, 2008, pp. 115-135.
For further reading: This paper paints fear as manipulative, yet pivotal to the theorizing of solving problems. Additionally, it shows that emotions shape how we live and what we believe in, so therefore shape how we interact with politics.

[2] Lambert, Alan J., et al. "Threat, Politics, and Attitudes: Toward a Greater Understanding of Rally-'Round- the-Flag Effects. "Current Directions in Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, vol. 20, no. 6, 2011, pp. 343-348.
For further reading: This paper goes deeper into rally-round-the-flag effect and the need for security, explaining extreme bipartisanship, especially why there is so little political education in radicalism.

[3] Bakker, Bert N., et al. "Hot Politics? Affective Responses to Political Rhetoric." The American Political Science Review, vol. 115, no. 1, 2021, pp. 150-164.
For further reading: This source looks at political rhetoric of both right- and left-wing videos, then analyzes the affective responses that study participants have to them, focusing particularly on the presence of lack of ‘arousal.’ The author’s findings verified the hypothesis that people with extreme political beliefs will automatically feel more connection and positive affects to rhetoric that mirrors their own ideologies and feel more negative affects to rhetoric that contradicts it.

[4] Altheide, David L. ""the News Media, the Problem Frame, and the Production of Fear"." Sociological Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 4, 1997, pp. 647-668.
For further reading: This source analyzes how news media promotes a feeling of fear into public discourse. It argues that the introduction of fear into media is purposeful and constant, designed to spread across the country like wildfire, which in turn promotes a more individualistic concern rather than a public one. It also brings up the question of desensitization as it discusses our entertainment forms of media, which might be necessary to discuss in my argument.  

[5] Altheide, David L. ""the News Media, the Problem Frame, and the Production of Fear"." Sociological Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 4, 1997, pp. 647-668.

[6] Goussios, Charalampos, et al. "Rhetorical use of Fear in Presidential Speeches: The War on Terror Discourse." Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research, vol. 7, no. 2-3, 2014, pp. 163-183.
For further reading: This source analyzes the use of fear-based rhetoric in presidential speeches in times of nation-wide terror as a tool to create a consensus throughout the population.

[7] Goussios, Charalampos, et al. "Rhetorical use of Fear in Presidential Speeches: The War on Terror Discourse." Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research, vol. 7, no. 2-3, 2014, pp. 163-183.

[8] Anders, Charlie Jane. Never Say You Can’t Survive: How to get Through Hard Times by Making Up Stories. New York, Tom Doherty Associates, 2021.
For further reading: Under more creative/aesthetic circumstances, writing with emotion and about emotion becomes crucial, and fear is almost necessary as both the author and the characters try to work out the ending. However, desire in characters is what makes them so appealing to the audience, and real seeming. People relate to those who know what they want and are unafraid to try and go for it. They also relate to characters who have real relationships that they rely on to fulfill their desires.

[9] Anders, Charlie Jane. Never Say You Can’t Survive: How to get Through Hard Times by Making Up Stories. New York, Tom Doherty Associates, 2021.

[10] Cavarero, Adriana. Surging Democracy: Notes on Hannah Arendt’s ‘Political Thought.’ Stanford University Press, 2021.
For further reading: This book is a commentary on Hannah Arendt’s political work that furthers the argument that human connection based on something other than politics (plurality) is necessary for a true functioning society. This builds on the concept of plurality to include the argument that political action is the most effective when presented as something other than political (for example, you want to raise money for a cause, you have a bake sale).

[11] Take for example the January 6th insurrection of 2021. Fear and anger ruled that day, and forced one party into a battle where they didn’t really know what they were fighting for and the other party into a state of shock, anger, and fear as a response to the appalling violence displayed by all of these bodies. Multiple bodies came together to practice active politics – yet the like-minded fear of all members created a dangerous force that was unchecked and unfocused. This has clearly resulted in growing fear around politics, increased bipartisanship, and relentlessly shifting blame.)

[12] Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach to Saving the University. John Hopkins University Press, 2019, pp. 38.

[13] Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach to Saving the University. John Hopkins University Press, 2019, pp. 3, 55, 74.

[14] Levine, Caroline. The Activist Humanist: Form and Method in the Climate Crisis. Princeton University Press, 2023, pp. 129.

[15] Levine, Caroline. The Activist Humanist: Form and Method in the Climate Crisis. Princeton University Press, 2023, pp. 145.

[16] Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach to Saving the University. John Hopkins University Press, 2019.
For further reading: Part of the core of the author’s argument is this “obligation” to each other. When we have this notion of doing things for a greater cause rather than just ourselves, there is more to lose – there are other people it effects, and when we have deeper human connections, this obligation to fulfill each other’s needs and desires can drive us towards great political activism. In other words, working as a team – together, not just coexisting. This allows for not only a greater reliance on your support system, but a deeper connection that serves a collective goal. When we carry this obligation to each other, we start to merge more into a collective, connected regardless of our political or social views.

[17] Levine, Caroline. The Activist Humanist: Form and Method in the Climate Crisis. Princeton University Press, 2023, pp. 15-19.

[18] Levine, Caroline. The Activist Humanist: Form and Method in the Climate Crisis. Princeton University Press, 2023, pp. 149-158.

[19] There will be large spoilers ahead, but I will do my best to keep most of them in the footnotes at least. (Please don’t let this stop you from reading this book – I cannot recommend it enough). These footnotes will give greater detail to a situation to clarify the connection to the political framework.

[20] SPOILERS: Cyra turns out to not be the biological sister of Ryzek. I don’t want to say more as this is a large plot point of the second book, but their plan falls through because they were relying on Cyra’s blood to get through a blood lock, and it wouldn’t open.

[21] SPOILERS: This is because Ryzek thinks that Oreive is the chancellor, but she is not. His fate, told by the oracles at his birth, was that he would fall by the chancellor’s hands – he mistakenly takes the wrong sister in a plot to avoid his fate.

[22] SPOILERS: The brother (Eijeh) is also an oracle, which is why Ryzek fought so hard to keep him. In order to draw out his power, Ryzek used his currentgift to swap their memories until Eijeh became a completely different person. We find out later that their two minds have become so tangled that they do not know whose memories belong to who – they are one mind,  split into two bodies. Additionally, Cyra can normally take Ryzek in the arena, but she is recovering from the injuries inflicted by him (having half of the skin on her neck and scalp peeled off and then forced to fight anyone in the arena who would challenge her, to the death, after telling the entire population that she killed their beloved mother). Akos also faces his own practical decisions while facing his largest moral dilemma – does he stoop to the brutal low that fills him with self-loathing and murder the man that killed his father in front of him?

[23] SPOILERS: Ryzek ordered Cyra to torture her husband and child, both of which died of some sort of after-effect from her currentgift. Her nephew and sister were executed by Ryzek, and he took her niece’s eye (all for different acts of treason).

[24] SPOILERS: It is not in fact poison, but a sleeping potion, intent on incorporating Akos’s desire to save his brother into their plan as well – putting on a show in the arena and acting like she killed him, but saving his life to try and force his to restore Eijeh’s memories. However, does this necessarily effect the moral quality of this choice?

[25] I want to be very careful with my assertions here with morality. This exact situation in reality would not necessarily have the same implications, and I do not want to make claims on how we decide who lives and who dies.

[26] SPOILERS: The chancellor at one point says that the Shotet are part of her people too because they live on the planet too and she should be looking out for them. She wants to advocate for change for them and decides that she cannot leave this alone and that she cannot leave the people who can help her reach the rest of the Shotet people, which is explored a lot more in the second book. It is also important to note that they are still on the run from Shotet soldiers are fleeing to a different planet at the end of the book, showing a realistic development towards change while not falling into the “happily-ever-after” stereotype.

[27] Levine, Caroline. The Activist Humanist: Form and Method in the Climate Crisis. Princeton University Press, 2023, pp. 16-17.

Works Cited

Altheide, David L. ""the News Media, the Problem Frame, and the Production of Fear"." Sociological Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 4, 1997, pp. 647-668.

Anders, Charlie Jane. Never Say You Can’t Survive: How to get Through Hard Times by Making Up Stories. New York, Tom Doherty Associates, 2021.

Bakker, Bert N., et al. "Hot Politics? Affective Responses to Political Rhetoric." The American Political Science Review, vol. 115, no. 1, 2021, pp. 150-164.

Bleiker, Roland, and Emma Hutchison. "Fear no More: Emotions and World Politics." Of International Studies, vol. 34, no. S1, 2008, pp. 115-135.

Bustinza, Monica A., and Kaila Witkowski. "Immigrants, Deviants, and Drug Users: A Rhetorical Analysis of President Trump's fear‐driven Tweets during the 2019 Government Shutdown." Policy and Internet, vol. 14, no. 4, 2022, pp. 788-806.

Cavarero, Adriana. Surging Democracy: Notes on Hannah Arendt’s ‘Political Thought.’ Stanford University Press, 2021.

Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach to Saving the University. John Hopkins University Press, 2019.

Goussios, Charalampos, et al. "Rhetorical use of Fear in Presidential Speeches: The War on Terror Discourse." Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research, vol. 7, no. 2-3, 2014, pp. 163-183.

Lambert, Alan J., et al. "Threat, Politics, and Attitudes: Toward a Greater Understanding of Rally-'Round- the-Flag Effects. "Current Directions in Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, vol. 20, no. 6, 2011, pp. 343-348.

Levine, Caroline. The Activist Humanist: Form and Method in the Climate Crisis. Princeton University Press, 2023.

Roth, Veronica. Carve the Mark. HarperCollins Publishers, 2017.