In Sullivan’s “What is so bad about hate?” there are several issues that emerges. All these issues the author argues results from misunderstanding of what hate really is. According to Sullivan (308), hate today is everywhere and is consuming human beings without really understanding what hate really is. Sullivan argues in his piece that human beings like generalizing even without understanding the context of issues. According to Sullivan, there are some actions and feelings that are mindless and very involuntary that can qualify to be hate. The only problem is that in most cases human beings just fail to recognize how deep some of these things may be entrenched in their behavior.
Sullivan in his articles argues that people like to pose as not concerned and judgmental based on an individual’s background. This however changes at some point when caught in a difficult situation. Sullivan (309) suggests that some involuntary and spontaneous impulses are just hate in its other form. Most people according to Sullivan (309) take hate to be things that are darker and graver. To them, lazy prejudices that make judgment bases on background, ethnicity, race and color is not hate.
Even though people may not harbor harm and malice to people from different backgrounds, these perceptions change at some point. The mindless and involuntary impulses are as a result of prejudices. Sullivan argues that in most scenarios, people from different backgrounds and groups in human society have prejudices that are actually hatred. This however in most cases go unnoticed since normally human beings behave in a way to suggest that people are not very different.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"What Is So Bad About Hate?".
There are questions arising of whether hate should only include voluntary and self-conscious activities. This definition of hate that according to Gordon (30) is got from the way human beings behave and define hate. In order to understand what hate really is then human inner feelings should also be involved for the simple reason that the thought process of human beings from inside.
Human actions are voluntary or involuntary can be categorized as hate according to Sullivan. There are people according to the author that show friends a lot of support when they are together but vehemently opposes the ideologies and beliefs they stand for. In doing this Sullivan argues that these are people who should be categorized as haters. When people talk about hate today, they mean open rejection of an ideology such as murdering someone just because of race. This definition in modern society is very much acceptable. It is what people have come to know as hate.
The kind of hate that people categorize as it is very rare today in the United States. Hate just like love have its shadings that can often be seen from people. The different types of hate that exist today come out in various forms. They are identifiable in human actions. Some are outright hate actions that can be seen with people some may not be seen but are well present with an individual. The modern definition of hate however does not recognize most of these shadings. Sullivan argues that hate in its contemporary meaning only use terms that reveal the identity of victims but never that of perpetrators. In this sense Pfeffer (3) suggest that the definition of hate today is narrow in its scope and definition. This is why most involuntary activities that otherwise are hate may not be categorized as so today.
Failure by people to understand what hate is has made it hard to condemn it. The mindless and very involuntary actions are as much as open hatred. The many types of hates can either be dominant or dormant in a way. The dormant according to Gerstenfeld (23) are triggered involuntarily. The failure to recognize most types of hates and concentrating more on definition that recognizes only the victims but not the perpetrators has made it further hard to understand hate (Hall, 56).
According to Sullivan the tone and style in which people criticize some things can only be described as hateful. These include expression that make other people feel abandoned and left out. The society often can give such form of hatred little or no attention at all. The focus only begins when there is physical or adverse psychological effect of perpetrators actions. But still under this, the definition will be bent on victims with no or little mention of the perpetrator. When with groups involuntary hate may not be able to come openly because individuals would like to pretend that everything is alright and that there is no discrimination based on an individual’s background, race or color.
The bottom-line of Sullivan’s arguments is that people have not really understood what hate is. The understanding of hate is narrow in its scope until involuntary and mindless actions that obviously come as a result of contempt and suspicion go unrecorded as hate. The focus has been more on seen actions of hate and definition is heavily leaned on victims other than perpetrators. In this regard, the modern definition of hate falls short of a proper definition.
- Gerstenfeld, Phyllis B. Hate crimes: Causes, controls, and controversies. Sage, 2013.
- Gordon, Mrs. “Where is the Love? Hate Groups in Society.” Sociology (2015).
- Hall, Nathan. Hate crime. Routledge, 2013.
- Pfeffer, Rebecca. “Mark Austin Walters (ed): Hate crime and restorative justice.” Crime, Law and Social Change (2015): 1-3.
- Sullivan, A. “What’s so bad about hate? The illogic and illiberalism behind hate crime laws.” New York Times Magazine 26 (1999).
