Comprehension of a response to Jasmin Roberts (a killjoy)

Sara Ahmed easily sums up the nature of injustice tensions by centering the idea that in order to ignore a problem, you label those speaking up on issues as the issue themselves. An example of this would be claiming that any discourse concerning negative impacts of racism becomes the problem, rather than addressing the culture, politics and economics that perpetuate the issue. In becoming this problem, you threaten the ideas of those who have decided to shift the problem onto you and ignore their responsibility within it. You become a killjoy by removing yourself from the designated place that society had carved out for you and “You are unseated by the table of happiness. . . When you are unseated, you can even get in the way of those who are seated, those who want more than anything to keep their seats. To threaten the loss of the seat can be to kill the joy of the seated.” Being this killjoy seems to label oneself as the one who provides the context of unhappiness and sustains it which is where “they disturb the very fantasy that happiness can be found in certain places. . . our [feminist] failure to be happy is read as sabotaging the happiness of others.” In summarizing how a killjoy is perceived as being both the unhappy person and an inflictor of this unhappy felling upon others, Ahmed states “My point here would be that feminists are read as being unhappy, such that situations of conflict, violence, and power are read as about the unhappiness of feminists, rather than being what feminists are unhappy about.”

Ahmed also explores the concept of a second layer of killjoys being present within the feminist community. In expression of one’s anger, stereotypes can arise and intersectional issues outside of the identity of being a woman can become home to conflict for another who can feel under attack as anger “is what threatens the social bond” rather than the cause of the anger. In Jasmin Roberts “For White Poets” she discusses taking the stage after a “white woman ally” has “berated” other white people in a fashion as such “words words words, diversity, words, apology, minority, cultural appropriation, words, police brutality, words, she’s talking about racism, she’s talking to white people about white people… she says white people without an ounce of genuine contempt… she tells them they’ve been bad and they snap in agreement, subject: black people, verb, violent action, generic adverb, preposition, interjection, adjective, more snapping and for a moment it’s like racism isn’t cool anymore ‘cuz like a white person said so” (Roberts, 0:15 – 1:13). In response to this spoken word, which definitely holds a tone of anger, a white, male poet responds with the following “OK, so here’s my thoughts on this. I’m not the kind of guy that gets easily offended by everything or ‘triggered’ or whatever but some things in this poem annoyed me…  I’ve never seen a video complaining about people who try to combat racism. I think Roberts intentionally misunderstands the motivation of white poets who try to combat racism through poetry; is it so hard to believe they just want racism to stop? I also couldn’t help getting offended when she said ‘isn’t that just like a white person’.  This is a stereotype she uses to create effect. Rap music may have been widely founded by black people, but it isn’t a crime against a black culture if a black [he meant white person] person raps, especially if they’re as good at is as Macklemore is.” Throughout this entire comment by Matt Sowerby Poetry, he has unconsciously ignored every aspect of the spoken word- the claim for allyship while plainly overlooking his own language in cultural appropriation and white guilt. He felt the need to become defensive even though he’s not typically that “kind of guy” which I believe is attributed to the angry tone held by Roberts, who embodies the stereotypical “angry black woman” even with her “reasonable, thoughtful arguments”. Matt finds these arguments to be “dismissed as anger (which of course empties anger of its own reason)” and thus in the tone of anger, Roberts “response becomes read as the confirmation of evidence” that she is also unreasonable. Ahmed describes this process as “You become entangled with what you are angry about because you are angry about how they have entangled you in your anger. In becoming angry about that entanglement, you confirm their commitment to your anger as the truth “behind” your speech, which is what blocks your anger, stops it from getting through. You are blocked by not getting through.”

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Do you recall ever being a killjoy, and what construct were you exposing in being a killjoy?
2. Was the tone of the speaker directly affecting your ability to comprehend her story and in such affliction, could you align yourself with some of Matt’s claims?