I'll add a couple things that support your argument from fields I've been involved with.
As a Communication Studies professor, I engage the tension between logic and emotions quite a bit. The origins of our field goes back to debates between Plato and Aristotle on the value / danger of rhetoric. Plato believed we need to be rational, and that emotions are bad. The best people -- the philosopher-kings -- learned how to control emotion and let logic dominate (he used the metaphor of the charioteer with two horses, one spirited/emotion focuses, and the other logical, the best charioteers controlled the former). Aristotle, Plato's student, disagreed, and I'm with Aristotle. He saw logic and emotion more like a ying and a yang, rather than an either or. Just like you argue at the beginning of your post, sometimes we should be angry, or scared, or feel guilt. Acting on emotions can be reasonable. Yes, emotions can be take advantage of, and at some point they become toxic to decision-making, but the opposite also exists (trying to make decisions with no emotion whatsoever is problematic, as modern brain science has taught us. So the question becomes -- surprise suprise -- moderation. And making tough distinctions between more reasonable uses of emotion and the abuse of them.
Fast forward to more modern social science perspectives on negative emotions, and particularly on fear (likely the most researched emotion in the persuasion literature). You again get it quite right. One of my undergraduate professors -- a key influence on convencing me to go to grad school and ultimately become a professor -- did alot of research on fear appeal. Her name is Kim Witte. She talks about how negative emotions like fear give us a negative feeling, and we are motivated to act to get rid of the feeling. Conflict profiteers give us an exaggerated sense of fear and direct people in problematic ways (like scapegoating immigrants). Other fear appeals -- incluiding some legit ones like practicing safe sex -- may trigger maladaptive strategies like avoidance. Kim talked about the difference between "fear control" and "danger control." Fear control are behaviors to address the fear, danger control are behaviors to address the actual danger. So your essay is essentially making that distinction. Dangers can be real, and fear can be justifed, manufactured, and/or exaggerated.
One last point that seems relevant. A key aspect of people being more likely to go into danger control rather than fear control is having a sense of efficacy. They have to believe their efforts will work. Efficacy can be split into self-efficacy (can I do this?) and solution efficacy (will it make a difference). Your post does this well, by providing tangible, doable steps to take. (In my grad school days, I remember the most powerful example was how hard it was to convince people to get tested for AIDS before there were any good treatments for it. With no sense of efficacy, people were highly motivated to avoid the messages not engage them).
And to link my two thoughts. Aristotle basically captured the need for efficacy when he talked about emotional appeals 2,000 years ago. In the early days of persuasion research, the assumption was the that more fear, the more people will change their behavior (think drunk driving, or safe sex, or not dismantling safety features on farm equipment). But it was clear some fear appeals backfired, because too much fear without efficacy sent people into fear control rather than danger control. Eventually the social scientists figured out what Aristotle knew way back then...
I appreciate your capturing the complexity of fear in today’s shock and awe political and cultural environment. Your proactive solutions including 1) supporting “intermediate institutions” that buffer the state and individuals (libraries, museums, community orgs), and 2) sharing personal stories with legislators, are crucial to preventing further divisive policies. Suppressing fear is not an option, but connecting with other advocates and activists in solidarity to make change is required to maintain our freedom as Americans.
Nicely done, Lauren.
I'll add a couple things that support your argument from fields I've been involved with.
As a Communication Studies professor, I engage the tension between logic and emotions quite a bit. The origins of our field goes back to debates between Plato and Aristotle on the value / danger of rhetoric. Plato believed we need to be rational, and that emotions are bad. The best people -- the philosopher-kings -- learned how to control emotion and let logic dominate (he used the metaphor of the charioteer with two horses, one spirited/emotion focuses, and the other logical, the best charioteers controlled the former). Aristotle, Plato's student, disagreed, and I'm with Aristotle. He saw logic and emotion more like a ying and a yang, rather than an either or. Just like you argue at the beginning of your post, sometimes we should be angry, or scared, or feel guilt. Acting on emotions can be reasonable. Yes, emotions can be take advantage of, and at some point they become toxic to decision-making, but the opposite also exists (trying to make decisions with no emotion whatsoever is problematic, as modern brain science has taught us. So the question becomes -- surprise suprise -- moderation. And making tough distinctions between more reasonable uses of emotion and the abuse of them.
Fast forward to more modern social science perspectives on negative emotions, and particularly on fear (likely the most researched emotion in the persuasion literature). You again get it quite right. One of my undergraduate professors -- a key influence on convencing me to go to grad school and ultimately become a professor -- did alot of research on fear appeal. Her name is Kim Witte. She talks about how negative emotions like fear give us a negative feeling, and we are motivated to act to get rid of the feeling. Conflict profiteers give us an exaggerated sense of fear and direct people in problematic ways (like scapegoating immigrants). Other fear appeals -- incluiding some legit ones like practicing safe sex -- may trigger maladaptive strategies like avoidance. Kim talked about the difference between "fear control" and "danger control." Fear control are behaviors to address the fear, danger control are behaviors to address the actual danger. So your essay is essentially making that distinction. Dangers can be real, and fear can be justifed, manufactured, and/or exaggerated.
One last point that seems relevant. A key aspect of people being more likely to go into danger control rather than fear control is having a sense of efficacy. They have to believe their efforts will work. Efficacy can be split into self-efficacy (can I do this?) and solution efficacy (will it make a difference). Your post does this well, by providing tangible, doable steps to take. (In my grad school days, I remember the most powerful example was how hard it was to convince people to get tested for AIDS before there were any good treatments for it. With no sense of efficacy, people were highly motivated to avoid the messages not engage them).
And to link my two thoughts. Aristotle basically captured the need for efficacy when he talked about emotional appeals 2,000 years ago. In the early days of persuasion research, the assumption was the that more fear, the more people will change their behavior (think drunk driving, or safe sex, or not dismantling safety features on farm equipment). But it was clear some fear appeals backfired, because too much fear without efficacy sent people into fear control rather than danger control. Eventually the social scientists figured out what Aristotle knew way back then...
I appreciate your capturing the complexity of fear in today’s shock and awe political and cultural environment. Your proactive solutions including 1) supporting “intermediate institutions” that buffer the state and individuals (libraries, museums, community orgs), and 2) sharing personal stories with legislators, are crucial to preventing further divisive policies. Suppressing fear is not an option, but connecting with other advocates and activists in solidarity to make change is required to maintain our freedom as Americans.