The Politics of Emotional Shockwaves

1st ed. 2021 Edition Ana Falcato

(Editor)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-politics-of-emotional-shockwaves-1st-ed-2021-edi
tion-ana-falcato-editor/
The Politics
of Emotional
Shockwaves
Edited by
Ana Falcato and Sara Graça da Silva
The Politics of Emotional Shockwaves
Ana Falcato • Sara Graça da Silva
Editors

The Politics of
Emotional
Shockwaves
Editors
Ana Falcato Sara Graça da Silva
IFILNOVA IELT
Universidade Nova de Lisboa Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Lisboa, Portugal Lisboa, Portugal

ISBN 978-3-030-56020-1    ISBN 978-3-030-56021-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56021-8

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
­transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 IELT and IFILNOVA are supported by National Funds through
FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia—under the projects
UIDB/00657/2020 and UIDB/00183/2020, respectively. The editors
are supported by FCT under the contractual programme in accordance
with articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Law Decree no. 57/2016, of
August 29, altered by Law no. 57/2017, July 19.
 Acknowledgements

When we initially planned to edit this book, we were far from imagining
the social and political turmoil the world would be facing as we now
write this short acknowledgment message, still quarantined at our homes.
We would like to show our appreciation for everyone involved in the
making of this volume of which we are so very proud. Inevitably, the
COVID-19 pandemic affected everyone’s deadlines, tested everyone’s
patience, and inspired a new take on what was already a challenging
endeavor.
The number of chapters collected in this book, and their diversity, is a
testament to the ever-growing and ebullient interest the topics of emo-
tion and morality originate, especially in this political context. Our most
sincere thanks to all the contributors for their enlightening chapters,
patience, and cooperation in these testing times. Thank you also to the
editors at Palgrave for their professionalism and understanding during all
the phases of the process, especially Lauriane Piette and Dhanalakshmi
Muralidharan.

vii
 Contents

I ntroduction xvii
Ana Falcato and Sara Graça da Silva


Emotion and Political Polarization  1
Jesse Prinz


The Efficacy of Anger: Recognition and Retribution 27
Laura Luz Silva


Emotional Shockwaves, Populist Mode of Humour and
Post-­Truth Politics 57
Javier Gil and Sergio Brea


Negativity in Contemporary Journalism Towards Civic and
Material Progress 81
João N. S. Almeida


Perverse Witness: The Role of Photography and Shock
Compulsion in Contemporary Trauma Discourse101
Hannah R. Bacon

ix
x Contents


Shockwaves of Rape and Shattering of Power in the
Contemporary Indian Web Series: The Case of Delhi Crime,
Made in Heaven, and Judgement Day123
Shuhita Bhattacharjee


“You Stink!” Smell and Moralisation of the Other147
Sara Graça da Silva


The Moral Significance of Shock165
Oded Na’aman


Emotional Shock and Ethical Conversion187
Ana Falcato


Making and Breaking Our Shared World: A Phenomenological
Analysis of Disorientation as a Way of Understanding
Collective Emotions in Distributed Cognition203
Pablo Fernández Velasco and Roberto Casati


The Radiant Indifference of Being: The Mystic Fable of The
Passion According to G.H.221
Nicolas de Warren

Index251
 Notes on Contributors

João N. S. Almeida is a PhD candidate of the Literary Theory

Programme at the Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa (School
of Arts and Humanities of the University of Lisbon). He obtained his
Master’s degree in 2018 with a dissertation on Nietzsche’s early tropologi-
cal theory of language. Since then, he has presented several talks and
articles in academic circles on topics such as Fiction Theory, Epistemology
and Ontology, Early Christianity, Sound Theory, Art Cinema and Popular
Cinema, and Philosophy of Language.
Hannah R. Bacon holds a PhD in Philosophy from Stony Brook
University. Bacon’s dissertation employs the work of Henri Bergson to
present a durational conception of trauma and interrogates the conse-
quences this would have for a Levinasian intersubjective ethics. Broader
interests include aesthetics, phenomenology of embodiment, incarcera-
tion, care ethics, philosophy of race, gender, and sexuality, and social and
political philosophy. Bacon holds a Master’s degree in philosophy from
The New School.
Shuhita Bhattacharjee is Assistant Professor of Liberal Arts (English) at
the Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad. Having completed her
PhD from the University of Iowa, she is working on a Routledge USA
monograph that examines the representation of colonial idols in
fin-de-­
­ siècle British and Anglo-Indian literature and on an Orient
xi
xii Notes on Contributors

Blackswan (Literary/Cultural Theory Series) monograph on Postsecular

Theory. She has written in English Literature in Transition and has current
and forthcoming publications on the Victorian Gothic and on diaspora
literature and culture with Palgrave Macmillan, Lexington Books
(Rowman and Littlefield), and Edinburgh University Press. Alongside
her academic interests, she has worked extensively in the social sector at
national and international levels in areas such as violence against HIV-
positive women, gendered approaches to sex education, gender-­sensitive
HIV media campaigns, and awareness of workplace anti-sexual harass-
ment laws among university students.
Sergio Brea holds a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Oviedo
(Spain). His dissertation is entitled The (at)traction of the center. A
philosophical-­political proposal on the social liberal and fascist syntheses and
speeches in Europe and Spain. His research focus has been on issues in
political philosophy and includes articles and a book on Carl Schmitt’s
thought.
Roberto Casati is the Director of Institut Jean Nicod. In the last years,
he has worked mainly on the computational properties of shadow repre-
sentations. His last book, The Visual World of Shadows, written in collabo-
ration with Patrick Cavanagh, was published in 2019 with MIT Press.
More generally, Casati has worked on theoretical problems related to cog-
nitive artifacts in the framework of an extension and generalisation of the
“two modes” account of reasoning, which is meant to be an alternative to
“extended mind” theories. A number of training and field projects are
ongoing or planned. The main aim is to dovetail the cognitive mechanics
underlying the use of artifacts (shifting, bridging, recycling, contracting,
and so on) in a unitary framework centered on the tradeoff between rep-
resentational advantages. His present research is on wayfinding and navi-
gation, and he is writing a book on the centrality of maps for cognition.
Nicolas de Warren is Associate Professor of Philosophy & Jewish Studies
at Penn State University. He is the author of numerous articles and has
recently published A Momentary Breathlessness in the Sadness of Time and
co-edited Philosophers at the Front. He is writing a book on forgiveness
and another one on the impact of the First World War on German
Philosophy.
 Notes on Contributors xiii

Ana Falcato holds a PhD in Philosophy from the NOVA FCSH, Lisbon,
Portugal. Between 2013 and 2015 she was a Humboldt Research Fellow
at the Johannes-Gutenberg University and the University of Oxford. Her
work has appeared in Studies in the Novel, Hypatia, Kant-Studien,
Wittgenstein-Studien and Daimon: Revista International de Filosofía. She
published Philosophy in the Condition of Modernism in 2018 and
Phenomenological Approaches to Intersubjectivity and Values (co-edited
with Luís Aguiar e Sousa) in 2019. She is a research fellow at IFILNOVA,
where she conducts a project about the novelistic and critical work of
J.M. Coetzee. Over the past four-and-a-half years she has organised sev-
eral international meetings at NOVA, and in all of them she systemati-
cally presented work on negative moral emotions, discussed through the
lenses of literary criticism, phenomenology, and philosophical, anthropo-
logical, and moral philosophy.
Pablo Fernández Velasco is pursuing his PhD on the phenomenology
of disorientation at Institut Jean Nicod (ENS, EHESS, CNRS) in
Paris, and he is a visitor at University College London, where he col-
laborates with the Philosophy Department, the Spatial Cognition Lab,
and the Bartlett School of Architecture. His work combines an inter-
disciplinary approach with philosophical methods, and has been pub-
lished in venues such as Journal of Consciousness Studies and Human
Geographies. He specialises in the phenomenology of space and in theo-
ries of cognition such as Distributed Cognition or the Predictive
Processing framework.
Javier Gil is an Associate Professor at the University of Oviedo. His
teaching and research interests encompass the areas of political p
­ hilosophy,
democratic theory, normative ethics, bioethics, and, more recently, pub-
lic health ethics and disaster ethics. He is a member of the management
committee of the COST Action CA16211 “Reappraising Intellectual
Debates on Civic Rights and Democracy in Europe” (RECAST). Some
of his recent publications are “Checks and Ambivalences: On Pierre
Rosanvallon’s Conceptual History of the Political”, in Global Intellectual
History (2019); “Hilary Putnam”, in Amy Allen and Eduardo Mendieta
(eds.), Cambridge Habermas Lexicon (Cambridge University Press, 2019);
“Abstaining citizenship”, in Claudia Wiesner et al. (eds.), Shaping
xiv Notes on Contributors

Citizenship (Routledge, 2018); “Modelling meritocracy”, in Philosophy

and Public Issues (2017); “Democratic authority and informed consent”
in Kari Palonen and José María Rosales (eds.), Parliamentarism and
Democratic Theory (Budrich, 2015).
Sara Graça da Silva received her PhD from Keele University in 2008
with a thesis on the rich interplay between nineteenth-century science
and literature: “Sexual Plots in Charles Darwin and George Eliot:
Evolution and Manliness in Adam Bede and The Mill on the Floss”. She is
appointed Researcher at the Institute for Studies of Literature and
Tradition, NOVA/FCSH, Portugal, working on evolutionary readings of
literature. She has a large experience with working in an interdisciplinary
environment and has collaborations with Durham’s Centre for the
Coevolution of Biology and Culture, and the Centre for the History of
Emotions at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development. She has
contributed to the Victorian Literature Handbook, Dictionary of Nineteenth
Century Journalism, Utopian Studies, Royal Society Open Science, National
Geographic, PNAS, amongst others, and has edited two volumes with
Routledge on the relationship between Morality and Emotion: New
Interdisciplinary landscapes in Morality and Emotion. Routledge (2018),
and Morality and Emotion: (Un)conscious Journey to Being.
Routledge (2016).
Oded Na’aman is a Postdoctoral fellow at the Martin Buber Society of
Fellows at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Before coming to the
Hebrew University, Oded was a lecturer at the Stanford Philosophy
Department and a postdoctoral fellow at the McCoy Family Center for
Ethics in Society at Stanford University. He received his PhD in
Philosophy from Harvard University. Oded writes about ethics, moral
psychology, philosophy and literature, and political philosophy. Recently,
he has been developing a process-based view of the rationality of emo-
tions in general and of emotional change in particular. Recent publica-
tions include “The Rationality of Emotional Change: Toward a Process
View”, Noûs 2019; “The Fitting Resolution of Anger”, Phil Studies 2019.
 Notes on Contributors xv

Jesse Prinz is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Director of

Interdisciplinary Science Studies at the City University of New York,
Graduate Center. His research focuses on the perceptual, emotional, and
cultural foundations of human psychology. He is author of Furnishing the
Mind (2002), Gut Reactions (2004), The Emotional Construction of Morals
(2007), Beyond Human Nature (2012), and The Conscious Brain (2012).
Two other books are forthcoming: The Moral Self. New York: Oxford
University Press (in production) and Works of Wonder: A Theory of Art.
Oxford: Oxford University Press (in production).
Laura Luz Silva is a Post-Doctoral researcher at the Center for
Philosophical Psychology at the University of Antwerp. She works with
Bence Nanay. Laura holds a PhD in Philosophy from University College
London and a BSc in Neuroscience from the same institution. Laura
works primarily on the Philosophy of Emotion, at the intersections of
Moral Psychology, Feminist Philosophy, and Philosophy of Mind. Her
research is empirically informed in two distinct senses: she strives to take
social reality seriously and engages with experimental work in the brain
and behavioral sciences. Laura’s doctoral work focused on the emotion of
anger in particular, and defended its ability to play the roles feminist
philosophers have long advocated of it, by developing an account of
anger, and its rationality, that better fits empirical and phenomenological
reality. Laura’s research focuses on fundamental questions regarding what
emotions are, including what and how emotional states represent the
world around us, as well as epistemological questions regarding how
emotions play positive and ­distinctive roles in the generation of knowl-
edge. Laura is particularly interested in how these fundamental questions
help shed light on the practical role emotions play, or ought to play, in
our everyday and political lives.
 Introduction
Thou Shall not Believe in Fairies

We are living in dangerous times. The historical moment the world is

facing is one of absolute uncertainty, with the soil of democracy being
meticulously dismantled in front of our eyes on a daily basis. The subjec-
tive experience of such catastrophic events at a global scale is bound to be
one of emotional shock. It is thus natural to assume that under such
progression of existential threats, the emotional (im)balance of millions
of men and women reflects these constant waves of emotional trauma,
impacting on social, cultural, political, religious, technological, and other
levels of existence.
Not so long ago, pre-COVID-19 crisis, the world was already facing a
sense of emotional disorientation, fuelled by the rise of political extrem-
ism and growing economic adversities. When we set up to edit this book,
we were far from imagining that we would be confronted with such a
shocking turn of events regarding the sort of life we grew familiar with.
We are still in the beginning of this fight, and no one really knows how it
will end, but the shockwaves from the COVID-19 pandemic have already
changed the world as we knew it, and have so far succeeded in forcing us
to assess new priorities of survival. This situation also created a sense of
unity within and among nations which is hard to recall even in times of
war. Governments and politicians agreed that people came first, and acts
of empathy and altruism grew and flourished mostly everywhere.

xvii
xviii Introduction: Thou Shall not Believe in Fairies

Additional laws and severe restrictions were also enforced to control and
halt the spread of the virus, which saw the normality of our lives and
liberties altered indefinitely. The enforcement of measures differed
according to each country and culture specific circumstances and has
been met with various degrees of acceptance. It certainly raised a myriad
of sensitive questions regarding morality (or better still, moralities) and
emotions.
It is interesting to observe the emotional waves that emerged during this
testing period. We use the word “wave” deliberately here for there has been
no word shared more widely over these weeks than “tsunami”. As with any
tsunami, the danger is greater as the waves travel inland, becoming higher
and higher until the unavoidable shock happens. As with a real tsunami,
the world has been hit hard. It was awakened from trivial petulances to
face real challenges and fight for our continuity as a species. The motion
ranged from a sense of distant unaffected empathy when only the other
(national or foreign) was stricken to an assimilation of feelings of panic
and despair when the virus knocked at everyone’s door. Far and wide, an
initial selfishness stemmed out of fear and was reflected in competitive and
hoarding behaviour for the benefit of ingroups only. Many, including poli-
ticians, were caught preaching classical cases of “do as I say, not as I do”,
demanding from others what they themselves could not carry out.
In his book Why Everyone (else) Is a Hypocrite (2011), Robert Kurzban
argues that people often fail to see their own inconsistencies. It is pre-
cisely this failure that makes us believe that everyone else is an hypocrite.
When explaining human behaviour, he recognises that people use moral-
ity strategically in social environments, manipulating it in both coopera-
tive and competitive situations. Furthermore, he claims that we are not so
different from the politicians we complain about other than the fact that
they are in the public eye. In a chapter masterfully titled “Morality is for
birds”, Kurzan notes “this might be one reason that politicians appear to
be such hypocrites. My guess is that—and maybe I’m just naive—politi-
cians, despite appearances, aren’t actually all that much more hypocritical
than the rest of us. It’s just that the rest of us skate by without anyone
noticing” (Kurzban 2011: 217). We are all guilty of having felt pleasure
at witnessing others’ misfortune. In this setting, politicians are great tar-
gets for this emotion, which cultural historian Tiffany Watt Smith
 Introduction: Thou Shall not Believe in Fairies xix

describes as Schadenfreude (from the German for “Schaden”, damage, and

“Freude”, joy):

Schadenfreude might be seen as the opposite of empathy, but even vicari-

ous sadness can be a pleasure. We all know people who love a good catas-
trophe, so long as it’s not happening to them. All that gossip and drama,
the boxes of wine, the tissues. Misery, as the old saying goes, loves com-
pany. It’s reassuring, to hear about other people’s bad decisions and errant
spouses and ungrateful children. It reminds us that it’s not only our own
hopes that get dashed—everybody else’s do, too. (Smith 2018)

In a first clash which reflected a raw survival reaction, the “me/us” instinct
spoke louder than the “them”, but it was not long before people realised
that the former could not succeed without the latter, and displays of pro-
social behaviour, generosity and support towards outgroups flourished.
Bonds between neighbours and strangers were strengthened, and a duty
of abnegation, norm following and sacrifice towards a bigger, moral goal,
was incorporated. Indeed, in times of affliction, morality and law can act
as pacifying and unifying premises in controlling conflicts that may arise
from the intersection of the various forces that pull us in different direc-
tions. Research in cognitive neuroscience and moral psychology suggests
that behaving morally and cooperating with others helps solve and nego-
tiate social problems. We want to feel we belong (and the sense of belong-
ing is crucial here), to a group, to a community, to the world.
Over the years, research has shown that group mentality is crucial for
successful social interactions. Whilst most emotions are about the “me”,
we can feel strong emotions to what happens to other people, something
evolutionary psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt call moral emotions:
“The moral emotions can be defined as those emotions that are linked to
the interests or welfare either of society as a whole or at least of persons
other than the judge or agent” (Haidt 2003: 276). As “biological, psycho-
logical, and social entities”, our exposure to society and to a specific con-
text from infancy to old age impacts deeply on our actions and on the
way we react and perceive the other and ourselves, morally and emotion-
ally (Schechtman 2014: 197). In practicing of our ability to put ourselves
in someone else’s shoes on a daily basis, we constantly struggle to
xx Introduction: Thou Shall not Believe in Fairies

counterbalance our heliocentric tendencies with the need for cooperation

and collaboration, and within this effort, morality provides a calming,
soothing sense of security and identity by setting behavioural boundaries.
As Marieke Vermue and colleagues note in a recent study on trust behav-
iour, “group memberships form an important part of our self-concept”,
and is a “strong predictor of cooperation between individuals” (Vermue
et al. 2019: 1004).
In this book, we propose looking at emotions beyond the sheer con-
ceptual and meta-conceptual level—that is, in terms of knowing what
makes an emotion moral and how we know that is the case—and
approach strong emotional episodes head-on. Our intention is to account
for this new global disposition of calamity, lack of orientation and politi-
cal incongruence, and analytically zoom in this epochal imbalance in dif-
ferent parts of the world, in different media, and in as many different
types of emotional events. Emotional responses cut across cultural, social
and political differences, and the shape and grade of interpersonal feed-
back naturally accompanies these variations.
The intensity and success of social exchanges depends on the trust
people allocate to feelings of belonging and community. A few years ago,
James Jasper, a sociologist from New York, made a comment at a confer-
ence on Democracy and Emotions at the Centre for the History of
Emotions, at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin, which, thinking about
it now, hit us for both its simplicity and reach within the present context.
Jasper pointed out how, not so long ago, having emotions excluded peo-
ple from citizenship whereas nowadays they are perceived as a require-
ment. Whether they are real or fake, that is another question.
The current global situation has also made ideological divisions more
pronounced, and politics has not escaped this vivisection. On the con-
trary, political gospel in democratic societies appears more refined than
ever. The rise of political polarisation is the focus of Jesse Prinz’s discus-
sion, which reviews this trend “through a specific lens: the role of emo-
tions”. Prinz argues that emotions allow us to better understand the
sources of political segmentation, and offers a tridimensional analysis of
the ways in which they contribute to this reality: through an affective
look, zooming in on the issue of ideology and, finally, on questions of
identity. While the author focuses primarily on the situation in the US,
 Introduction: Thou Shall not Believe in Fairies xxi

his analysis retains a global perspective in an effort to present possible

solutions to encompass diverse communities, for “in order to understand
polarization, it is important to look beyond party divisions in any
country”.
Precisely such widespread feeling of political irresponsibility and impu-
nity exacerbates the expression of violent emotions. This is the topic of
Laura Luz Silva’s chapter in this collection. “The Efficacy of Anger:
Recognition and Retribution” is an engaging defense of the moral value
of anger in fighting social injustice and seeking recognition. Silva makes
her case against Martha Nussbaum’s reasoned attack on the feasibility of
anger for moral and political life, by examining the action-driven benefits
of an extremely destructive feeling that can, however, serve the purpose of
a radical wish to change the status quo and improve the life conditions of
an unfavoured group or single individual. The essay defends this shift in
the interpretation of the main features of anger and its efficacy for moral
life by analysing its underlying motive: seeking recognition.
The present climate of political polarisation and widespread mistrust
in public institutions and political agents may equally arouse new forms
of popular humor. Javier Gil and Sergio Brea’s contribution offers a criti-
cal approach to new manifestations of a political sense of humor based on
expressions of moral tribalism. The authors have a keen interest in the
unstable socio-political effects of a shared sense of humor, wisely claiming
that “any politically centered approach has to take into account these
views and explore the idea that laughing at each other—with malice and
benevolence—may both facilitate the democratic engagement and
endanger the mutual coexistence”. In a wide-­scope analysis of new forms
of political and anti-political expression available to almost everyone
nowadays—be it social media, sitcoms, cartoons, web-series and movies
or popular novels—Gil and Brea defend that such digital forums for
political debate can only serve democracy if they manage to preserve or
reinstate the hiatus between political emotions and facts, rather than con-
tributing to supplant the latter.
The portrayal of emotional shocks is not always objective but often
dependent on a series of social and political biases which are in turn per-
petuated by media outlets all over the world. In his chapter about nega-
tivity in contemporary journalism, João Almeida addresses this situation,
xxii Introduction: Thou Shall not Believe in Fairies

describing the role of the media in the emotional response of societies to

the present and to post-enlightenment promises of progress. In his exam-
ination, he acknowledges the contradictory position of the media which
“praises material and technological progresses while at the same time
delights itself in presenting a decaying world”. This stance, he argues,
oscillates between a conservative mindset focused on objectivity defended
by the school of Walter Lippmann, and a progressive angle with a desire
to change the world for the better inspired by John Dewey’s pragmatism.
Almeida alerts to the risks of having what he considers the fundamental
notions related to modern citizenship, such as res publica, free speech, or
individual rights, directly mediated by the journalistic class. As he
explains, media’s conduct can be somewhat dishonest when portraying
the positive evolution of democratic capitalist systems for wanting to
paint the worst possible picture. While it often focuses on showing a
decline in civil and economic betterments, such as poverty, economic
inequality or social mobility, the truth is, Almeida notes “ that, in relative
and proportional terms, most of those indicators have in fact been
improving”. This shows a clear conflict with what the author sees as a
self-proclaimed objectivist ethics, and highlights the long dispute Almeida
identifies between objectivity and interpretation in journalism.
The search for the real is often associated with a confrontation with the
traumatic. Increasingly, the dissemination of shocking images is a testa-
ment to memory and remembrance. It is also, we dare add, an expected
proof of existence. In her chapter about trauma photography, Hannah
Bacon insightfully describes the attitude shift concerning the way in
which people interact with emotionally charged images and what she
calls the fantasy of witnessing. There is, she notes, a rising preoccupation
“to look at our own looking, to witness the desire to witness” that trans-
forms the framing of photographs into both interpretative and represen-
tative acts. In this thought-­provoking chapter, Bacon explores the human
fascination with trauma and victimhood seen through a variety of means
(be it the evening news, films, talk shows, or others), and ponders on the
dangers of this dissemination to an anesthetisation of feeling due to the
repetition of shock. Dwelling into the notion of trauma discourse, she
discusses the risk of viewing shocking images in order to prove our moral
superiority: “it satisfies this vicarious and perverse itch [for] morally
 Introduction: Thou Shall not Believe in Fairies xxiii

elevating cathartic desire in a way that appropriates the pain of the other
without motivating the viewer to alleviate it”. By comparing Judith Butler
and Susan Sontag’s contrasting perspectives regarding the use of shocking
images (the former defending their viewing, the latter opposing it), Bacon
argues that both arguments miss the point in that they fail to recognise
that images are only necessary to make trauma real to those who are not
firsthand experiencing these traumas. Her thesis acknowledges those
traumas as real beyond the “performance and fantasy of vicarious wit-
nessing”, which does not entail political action and is thus insufficient.
Instead, she defends a way of seeing shocking realities that allows the
witness to act and “honestly see their own privileged vantage without
appropriating the pain of the other”.
In a rather similar vein and making much from a quasi-sociological
reading of gender issues in contemporary Indian society, Shuhita
Bhattacharjee deploys a careful analysis of three well-known Indian web
series: The Case of Delhi Crime, Made in Heaven, and Judgement Day.
Bhattacharjee’s theme is violence directed against women, and how crim-
inal behavior committed against an unprotected group in modern India
can be sanctioned by a deeply conservative political structure. Her
impressive analysis of one of the few available critical weapons against the
ancient caste system and its politicised exercise—a powerful movie indus-
try—leaves plain as day the hypocrisy of contemporary Indian society
(specifically in what regards such pressing issues as violation).
Bhattacharjee’s text cleverly addresses the topic of gender violence by
reporting equally violent sketches from the three series picked up for
critical scrutiny. The visual treatment of bodily violence made against
women suddenly brings to front stage the shocking impact of forms of
social behavior that an ancient power structure refuses to punish.
Continuing the focus on unprotected, vulnerable groups, the follow-
ing chapter by Sara Silva explores how the sense of smell is intimately
linked to our emotions and morals in the context of the refugee crisis. As
a species, we make use of scents to make decisions, judge pleasant and
unpleasant situations, and avoid dangerous environments. Historically,
however, as Silva notes, smell has always been somewhat overlooked in
favour of other senses, in particular vision or hearing. In her essay, Silva
revitalises the value of this particular sense by presenting a history of its
xxiv Introduction: Thou Shall not Believe in Fairies

evolution and a fresh take on its importance in the context of large-scale

migration and refugee influx. Presenting smell as a “sign of identity, sta-
tus, and social class”, Silva explores the negative framing of the foreign by
focusing on how these particular outgroups are “especially vulnerable to
contempt and hate behaviours because of the scents associated with their
existence”, establishing a relationship between olfaction and prejudice.
The topic of civic violence—or, better yet, of the systematic exercise of
violence made against civilians living in a disputed shared territory—has
become dramatically commonplace in this calamitous twentieth-first
century. This is the starting point for Oded Na’aman’s instigating medita-
tion on the relevance of the human capacity to be shocked for our moral
life. Our susceptibility to shock is the mark of a sane moral performance
as well as of an important openness to the potentially thorny—even cha-
otic—features of a shared human life. The author takes Benjamin’s notion
of “aura” and deploys it in several readings of both fictional and real-life
situations, in which a reasonable awareness of the moral meaning of sur-
rounding events (especially another’s suffering) is a key condition of per-
sonal responsiveness, and even of mental health. The capacity to be
shocked is all the more important for us, the author argues, because we
can experience its failure as the beginning of a deep moral flaw. Thus, the
true moral significance of shock reveals itself in the disturbing effects of a
personal incapacity to suffer such a thing.
The experience of a moral shock and its aftermath is indeed mysteri-
ous. As an instigating topic for reflection, especially in the strange
moment the world is facing today, this topic can be addressed with con-
trasting tools and deliver equally different conclusions. Honoring the
organising theme of this volume and trying to figure out the potential
ethical gain behind a shocking incident, Ana Falcato discusses the rela-
tion between emotional shock and moral conversion. The essay uses a
crossed methodology of analysis, linking phenomenology and moral
approaches to negative emotions, in an effort to describe the potentially
decisive impact of a moral shock on one’s convictions and even life-
changing decisions. The importance of an emotional shock, the essay
defends, can also be assessed in the way it helps to understand the back-
ground of the specific shocking episode. For that end, analytically sepa-
rating shock from the close experience of surprise is a key conceptual
exercise.
 Introduction: Thou Shall not Believe in Fairies xxv

At times, we are surprised by experiences of disorientation. Getting

lost allows us to devise strategies to either reassess our orientation, or
engage in exploration. To do so, one must be connected to the surround-
ing environment, either through our bodies or with the help of technol-
ogy. In their chapter, Pablo Fernandez and Roberto Casati show what
happens when this connection is weakened or severed. They discuss how
disorientation transforms our perception of the world by focusing on the
role emotions play in distributed cognitive processes such as queuing or
navigating, through the lens of a situated approach to emotions. As the
authors explain, “situated approaches to emotion offer an alternative to a
long tradition of considering emotions as purely internal states or pro-
cesses. In contrast to such a tradition, situated approaches consider emo-
tions as forms of skilful engagement with the world that are both
scaffolded by and dynamically coupled to the environment”. While argu-
ing for a phenomenology of disorientation, Fernández and Casati dem-
onstrate how affective states help regulate cognitive processes by syncing
the different elements of a distributed cognitive system, be it in humans
or artefacts. Using the example of the practice of an Alaskan Eskimo
community of shaming individuals who got lost in the wild, the authors
show how emotional regulation occurs both synchronically (in the
unfolding of the emotion itself, such as anger at being shamed) and dia-
chronically (in the process of acquiring an emotional repertoire, e.g., the
emotion of shame promoting the learning of navigational skills).
The volume finishes with a reflection about a moment of social turbu-
lence and emotional upheaval that demands a reassessment of the mean-
ing of life as a whole. An original effort to rethink the human condition
in existential terms is offered by Nicolas de Warren in his chapter about
Clarice Lispector’s The Passion According to G.H. De Warren wisely reads
Lispector’s story as an ontological fable about our situation in the world.
Contrary to what Heideggerians use to preach, Lispector—with other
twentieth-century philosophers and writers, like Emil Cioran—rightly
allegorises the gratuity of our rootedness in the world as a struggle against
the drama of having been born. The meaning of this ontological excess
can be disclosed to us in such a trivial episode as meeting a cockroach in
a closet. The nauseating overtones expressed in Lispector’s fable comes to
xxvi Introduction: Thou Shall not Believe in Fairies

show the keenness of our “personal” stories with the natural, disgusting
stuff making up animal life in all its splendor.
This collection of essays is an expressive attempt to better understand
what happened to the world in recent (and not so recent) years. While
the dangers and ruptures brought about by globalisation began to be
anticipated several decades ago, few prophets of our time could have
imagined the twists and turns of the dire political, economical, environ-
mental, and sanitary crises with which we are currently presented. This
widespread feeling of fear and fracture may well be the post-slumbering
reaction of a generation accustomed to comfort. Be it as it may, current
circumstances deserve and demand the effort of a deep, mature reflection.
This book is our modest contribute to this challenge.

Ana Falcato
Sara Graça da Silva

References
Haidt J. 2003. Elevation and the Positive Psychology of Morality. In Flourishing:
Positive Psychology and the Life Well-Lived, ed. C.L. Keyes and J. Haidt,
275–289. Washington, DC: The American Psychological Association.
Haidt, Jonathan, and Joseph, Craig. 2008. The Moral Mind: How Five Sets of
Innate Intuitions Guide the Development of Many Culture-­Specific Virtues,
and Perhaps Even Modules. The Innate Mind, Volume 3, Foundations and
the Future, 3.
Lispector, C. 2012. The Passion According to G.H. New York: New Directions.
Kurzban, Robert. 2011. Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the
Modular Mind. Princeton University Press.
Schechtman, M. 2014. Staying Alive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Tiffany Watt. 2018. Schadenfreude: The Joy of Another’s Misfortune. UK:
Profile; US: Little, Brown.
Vermue, M., Meleady, R., and Seger, C.R. 2019. Member-to-Member
Generalisation in Trust Behaviour: How Do Prior Experiences Inform
Prosocial Behaviour Towards Novel Ingroup and Outgroup Members?.
Current Psychology 38: 1003–1020. h
­ ttps://doi.org/10.1007/
s12144-019-00289-8.
 Emotion and Political Polarization
Jesse Prinz

Political polarization is a major source of conflict in democratic societies,

and there is evidence that it is on the rise. Polarization has been most
actively studied by political scientists, but it also raises psychological
questions about the underlying mechanisms, historical questions about
causes, and normative questions about whether and when polarization is
problematic. This chapter will touch on all of these issues, but through a
specific lens: the role of emotions. By focusing on emotions, we can bet-
ter understand the psychological bases of our political divisions.
I will begin with a characterization of polarization, reviewing research
on its increase over time. I then turn to three different ways emotions
contribute: affective outlook, ideology, and identity. I will argue that the
first two factors are explanatorily inadequate on their own; identity plays
a pivotal role. I will conclude with some speculation about causes of
polarization, some of its consequences, and an assessment of whether it
should be a matter of serious concern.

J. Prinz (*)
City University of New York, New York, NY, USA
e-mail: jesse@subcortex.com

© The Author(s) 2021 1

A. Falcato, S. Graça da Silva (eds.), The Politics of Emotional Shockwaves,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56021-8_1
2 J. Prinz

1 The Nature of Polarization

1.1 What Is Political Polarization?

Political polarization is difficult to define in a neutral way, because some

initially appealing definitions bring in controversial commitments.
Polarization clearly involves some kind of division between groups, but
not all group divisions are polarized; there is no polarization dividing
butchers and bakers, for example. It is tempting to define polarization in
terms of ideological division, but it presupposes that ideology is essential,
and that, we will see, can been challenged. One might opt for a more
neutral approach and define polarization in terms of negative attitudes;
two groups are polarized if they harbor mutual animus. This may, in fact,
be true of polarized groups, but, for the purposes of this chapter, that
makes emotional division true by definition, rather than treating emo-
tions as a possible mechanism underlying a phenomenon that can be
characterized in some other way. An appeal to animus is also too broad
when it comes to political polarization. There are groups who dislike each
other (e.g., mods and rockers in 1960s England), without necessarily
dividing on political lines.
I will opt here for the following working definition. Two groups are
polarized if they regard the boundary between them as both political and
oppositional. “Political” here is intentionally vague. In most cases, politi-
cal polarization involves political party affiliation, but it need not. For
example, in transnational cases, we can talk about a political divide
between two countries, ignoring domestic party divisions. There can also
be regional differences within a party (e.g., Southern and Northern
Democrats in the US during the 1960s). A political divide can involve
party affiliation, ideology, platform, local obligations that could impact
voting patterns, and even choice of candidates within a party. Some
divides are intersectional, such as the regional case, as well as divisions of
class, ethnicity, and religion, which can contribute to political factioniza-
tion. These latter divisions need to be political, but they begin to count
as such when they become determinants of such factors as platform refer-
ences, party alliances, or voting behavior.
 Emotion and Political Polarization 3

To call a boundary “oppositional” is also intentionally vague. Politically

polarized groups may favor policies that are antithetical (e.g., for and
against legal abortion), but they need not be. There can be a perception
of division that transcends legislative incompatibility. This is evident in
cases where people show patterns of enduring party membership, such
that it would be anathema to vote for the other party’s candidate, regard-
less of platform. Polarized boundaries can also lead voters to feel that they
must pick sides—they “cannot credibly claim neutrality” (LeBas 2011).
In democracies where leading parties are ideologically close, polarizing
affiliations can still arise. The opposition is ideational, not necessarily
logical. This is sometimes captured by saying that polarization manifests
itself as an “us versus them” attitude. In polarized climates, it would seem
odd for a person to move willy nilly between two political groups.
Polarization does not preclude compromise, however; indeed, the very
word, “compromise” implies some kind of instrumental and provisional
agreement between otherwise opposed groups. Compromise implies giv-
ing something up, and, thus, any context in which that concept is opera-
tive is also one in which compromise is difficult.

1.2 Is Polarization on the Rise?

I have characterized polarization in terms of oppositional political divi-

sions between groups. The definition entails that polarization is a matter
of degree. Indeed, it can be graded along a number of dimensions. There
can be variation in the degree of perceived opposition between groups, in
the number of people who affiliate with opposed groups, on the rigidity
of those affiliations (e.g., do people vote for the same group within an
election cycle?), and the fixity over time. Some of these dimensions can
be subdivided further, or operationalized in different ways. Perceived
opposition can involve intergroup attitudes, willingness to compromise,
willingness to form alliances, and so on. Given such dimensions of varia-
tion, we can ask whether polarization has changed over time.
Some have argued that polarization is on the rise in certain parts of the
world. Much of this work has focused on party division within the US
(e.g., Abramowitz and Saunders 2008), but there is also evidence for
4 J. Prinz

increased polarization in many other nations. In a recent edited volume,

Coruthers and O’Donahue (2019) survey polarization in Poland, Turkey,
Kenya, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, Colombia, and Brazil. LeBas
(2018) looks at polarization in Kenya, Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Côte
d’Ivoire. Lynch (2016) examines rising polarization in the Arab world,
including Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Gulf countries.
In Western Europe, evidence is mixed. Polarization seems to be declin-
ing in Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (Boxell et al.
2020). In places like Germany, it is not unusual for voters to vote for
different parties. Still, many European countries have seen an accelerat-
ing growth in right-wing extremism. Right-wing parties have seen a dra-
matic upswing in the number of seats held in the EU parliament, while
centrist parties have experienced a steady decline. Left-leaning Green par-
ties have also grown rapidly. Looking at Germany, again, we can see
Greens and the Alternativ für Deutschland (two polarized parties) gain-
ing ground, as centrist seats slip away.
In what follows, I will focus on the situation in the US, though I will
also retain a global perspective, because I hope to show that the situation
in North America does not always generalize to the rest of the world. In
order to understand polarization, it is important to look beyond party
divisions in any one country.
The claim that polarization is escalating in the US is somewhat conten-
tious. Fiorina (2017) has been an outspoken skeptic, noting that party
membership numbers have been stable for decades, and that the majority
of American voters are not party affiliated; according to a recent poll,
38% are independents, as compared to 31% and 28%, who are Democrats
and Republicans (Pew 2019). Still, the same poll shows that the vast
majority of independents lean towards one party, leaving only 7% who
have no preference. The number of “non-leaners” is slowly shrinking.
Overall, party membership has not changed much, but there is strik-
ing evidence for polarization of attitudes; the two main parties are grow-
ing more distant and more hostile. Donald Trump is the most divisive
president in recent history: the gap between Democrats and Republicans
on his approval ratings is unprecedented, with Barack Obama close
behind, followed by George W. Bush (Jones 2019). Since the 1990s,
Democrats have gotten more liberal and Republicans more conservative;
 Emotion and Political Polarization 5

the gap between their views on policies has tripled (Pew 2014). For exam-
ple, in 1994, Democrats and Republicans were equally opposed to immi-
grants; now there is a 20-point spread. Likewise, there was only a 10-point
difference in their stance on strict environmental laws; now the gap is 35
points. Bishop and Cushing (2008) show another sign of polarization:
Since the 1970s, the number of American living in “landside counties”
has doubled; thus, over 60% of the population lives in politically homog-
enous communities, where one party reliably wins elections by margins
higher than 20 points.
Polarization often takes on an emotional cast. There has also been a
dramatic increase in negative sentiments between the two major parties.
This is what political scientists call “affective polarization” (Iyengar et al.
2012; Kimball et al. 2018). Some studies use “feeling thermometers” to
ask how voters feel about political parties. Between 1964 and 2012, there
was about a 30% increase in the number of voters who have very warm
feelings toward their own party; meanwhile, very cold feelings towards
the opposed party quadrupled (Pew 2016). In 1964, only about 12% of
partisans felt very cold towards the opposition, and now about half do,
and nearly 80% feel some degree of coldness. Similarly, between 1994
and 2016, the number of Democrats reporting “very unfavorable” atti-
tudes towards Republicans has grown from 16% to 55%; Republicans
condemnation of Democrats has similarly climbed from 17% to 58%
(ibid.). This trend is continuing. Between 2016 and 2019, both
Republicans and Democrats came to see members of the other party as
more close-minded, unintelligent, and immoral, and 78% say that parti-
san divisions are growing (Pew 2019).
It is difficult to pin down the cause of these divisions. Party differences
grew when Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act sending
Southern Democrats to the Republican Party, but much of the division is
more recent. One key factor is changing demographics. Cultural and eth-
nic diversity is on the rise, and white voters in smaller communities who
feel like their way of life and access to power is under threat.
The demographic analysis parallels a plausible explanation of European
polarization: there, the rise of right-wing nationalism has been linked to
the rising tide of immigration. Similarly, in Côte d’Ivoire, polarization is
being fuelled by conflicts between migrants and indigenes. But, as we will
6 J. Prinz

see below, polarization may have many causes, and its causes may vary
from place to place. For now, the key point is that polarization is real and
rising in some places. Our next task is to explore the underlying
psychology.

2 Polarization and Emotion

2.1 Affective Outlook

I turn now to the main theme of this chapter: the role of emotions in
polarization. We have already seen that political divisions are accompa-
nied by negative feelings. Polling data tells us that these attitudes exist,
and psychological research can deepen our understanding. Various lines
of investigation implicate a number of emotional processes. Emotions do
not tell us the whole story, of course, but they play key roles, and examin-
ing these can teach us something about the psychological mechanisms
that sustain polarization.
The first topic I want to consider can be captured by the phrase “affec-
tive outlook.” It is sometimes suggested that the two major parties in the
US differ in their emotional dispositions. According to this idea, mem-
bers of each party tend to react to things somewhat differently, and this
emotional divide could be related to different perspectives and concerns,
thus contributing to division. It is unclear how far these patterns extend
to other national contexts, but, before raising that question, let’s look at
the American divide.
Some researchers claim to show that American conservatives are more
prone to fear than liberals (see Jost and Amodio 2012, for review). They
show greater physiological responses to threatening stimuli, like spiders
and wounds, a stronger startle reflex, and they have larger amygdala vol-
umes on average (Oxley et al. 2008). Dodd et al. (2012) found that con-
servatives fixate faster and longer on negative stimuli. Heightened fear
may also have implications for trust. Conservatives often seem less trust-
ing than liberals. Among the negative adjectives most often used in
Donald Trump’s twitter feed, we find: fake, crooked, dishonest, phony,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 German,
Russian, etc.
S p e c i a l n o t e s : The man
poses as a gentleman of great
distinction. Adopts a new role
every other day. Wears an
eyeglass. Always accompanied by
a young man—name unknown.
Charged with robbery.
A reward of 1000 pounds sterling
will be paid for the arrest of this
man.
Headquarters—Scotland Yard.
L o n d o n , 1st October 1908.
Police Inspector,
H o r n y.
[Inhoud]
Roman-Boekhandel voorheen A. Eichler
Fransch,
Duitsch,
Russisch enz.
enz.
Bijzondere kenteekenen:
Het optreden van den man
kenmerkt zich door bijzonder
goede manieren. Telkens een
ander uiterlijk. Draagt een
monocle. Is in gezelschap van een
jongeman, wiens naam onbekend.
Moet worden aangehouden als
dief. Voor zijn aanhouding betalen
wij een prijs van 1000 pond
sterling.
Het Hoofdbureau van Politie
Scotland-Yard.
L o n d e n , 1. Oktober 1908.
Inspecteur van Politie
(get.) H o r n y .
Singel 236—Amsterdam.
 Inhoudsopgave

I. EEN OUDE KENNIS. 1

II. EEN SCHURKACHTIG VOORSTEL. 5
III. HET VULKAAN-EILAND. 9
IV. RAFFLES WORDT PROCURATIEHOUDER. 15
V. HET VERRAAD. 19
VI. BEDROGEN. 24
 Colofon
Beschikbaarheid

Dit eBoek is voor kosteloos gebruik door iedereen overal, met vrijwel
geen beperkingen van welke soort dan ook. U mag het kopiëren,
weggeven of hergebruiken onder de voorwaarden van de Project
Gutenberg Licentie in dit eBoek of on-line op www.gutenberg.org ↗️.

Dit eBoek is geproduceerd door het on-line gedistribueerd

correctieteam op www.pgdp.net ↗️.

Metadata

Titel: Lord Lister No.

25: De
bankdirecteur
Auteur: Theo von Info
Blankensee https://viaf.org/viaf/8133268/
[Pseudoniem van
Mathias Blank
(1881–1928)]
Auteur: Kurt Matull Info
(1872–1930?) https://viaf.org/viaf/56770919/
Aanmaakdatum 2023-09-14
bestand: 19:29:47 UTC
Taal: Nederlands
(Spelling De
Vries-Te Winkel)
Oorspronkelijke [1911]
uitgiftedatum:
Trefwoorden: Detective and
mystery stories --
 Periodicals
Dime novels --
Periodicals

Codering

Dit boek is weergegeven in oorspronkelijke schrijfwijze. Afgebroken

woorden aan het einde van de regel zijn stilzwijgend hersteld.
Kennelijke zetfouten in het origineel zijn verbeterd. Deze
verbeteringen zijn aangegeven in de colofon aan het einde van dit
boek.

Documentgeschiedenis

2023-09-12 Begonnen.

Verbeteringen

De volgende verbeteringen zijn aangebracht in de tekst:

Bladzijde Bron Verbetering Bewerkingsafstand

1 Garick- Garrick-
Theater Theater 1
Passim. [Niet in
bron] „ 1
2 [Niet in
bron] „„ 2
3, 3, 33 [Niet in
bron] . 1
5, 8, 10,
21, 21, Mac
27 Intosh McIntosh 2
Passim. Mc. Intosh McIntosh 2
5 antwoorde antwoordde 1
5 ”, ,” 2
Passim. mr. Mr. 1
6 Garrick Garrick-
theater theater 1
8, 10, 10,
17, 27 Mc Intosh McIntosh 1
13 intuitie intuïtie 1/0
14 ” „ 2
18, 19, Lincoln Lincoln-
25 Bank Bank 1
18 [Niet in
bron] ” 1
19 Schotland Scotland 1
20 milioenen millioenen 1
21, 21,
21, 21,
21, 22 Intosh McIntosh 2
22 mijn mij 1
24 Lincoln- Lincoln-
bank Bank 1
26 leefd beleefd 2
27 alleen zat zat alleen 8
27 hingt hing 1
27 ” [Verwijderd] 1
30 Jack Jacq 1
31 [Niet in
bron] en 3
31 knarstte knarste 1
33 Sinclair Raffles 7
33 Inspekteur Inspecteur 1
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LORD LISTER
NO. 0025: DE BANKDIRECTEUR ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the

United States and most other parts of the world at no
cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may
copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the
Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or
online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the
country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.