Ever get that weird, heavy feeling when you walk into a room where everyone just stopped arguing? You can’t see the tension. You can’t touch it. But it’s there, sticking to the walls and the people like some kind of invisible sap.
This is basically what Sara Ahmed is talking about.
When her book The Cultural Politics of Emotion dropped back in 2004, it kinda flipped the script on how we think about our feelings. Most of us grew up believing emotions are these private, internal things—little nuggets of "me" buried deep inside. You feel sad; it's your sadness. You feel angry; it's your fire.
Ahmed says: "Hold on a second."
She argues that emotions aren't actually in us at all. They aren't in the objects we look at, either. Instead, they happen in the "in-between." They are social. They are political. And honestly, they’re the reason why some people get to feel like they belong while others are made to feel like "strangers" before they even open their mouths.
The Myth of the "Inside-Out" Feeling
We usually think of emotions like a fountain. Something happens inside, and it pours out into the world. Or we think of them like an infection—someone else is angry, and you "catch" it.
Ahmed thinks both of these ideas are a bit off.
She suggests that emotions are what actually create the boundaries of our bodies and our societies. Think about the word "disgust." If you see something "disgusting," you pull back. That physical movement—that away-ness—is what defines where you end and the "gross" thing begins.
By repeating these movements over and over, we start to build "walls" around who we are.
It’s not just about you and a moldy sandwich, though. It’s about how nations do this. When a politician or a news outlet talks about a group of people as a "threat" or a "drain," they are using fear and disgust to draw a line. They’re saying, "This is us (the safe, good people), and that is them (the scary, bad people)."
The emotion is the tool used to build the fence.
✨ Don't miss: Weather Forecast Calumet MI: What Most People Get Wrong About Keweenaw Winters
Why Some Things are "Sticky"
This is probably Ahmed’s most famous idea. She talks about "stickiness."
Some words, images, and ideas just seem to attract certain feelings. They become saturated. Take the word "terrorist" or "immigrant." In the cultural landscape, these words have had so much fear and suspicion rubbed into them over decades that they’ve become incredibly sticky.
When those words get attached to a specific body—say, a person of color in an airport—the "fear" sticks to that person instantly.
It doesn’t matter if that individual is the nicest person on earth. The "affective economy" (that’s the academic term she uses) has already pre-loaded that interaction with tension. The emotion circulates like money. It moves from one person to another, gaining value and "heat" as it goes.
The Economy of Hate
Hate doesn't just sit still. It slides.
Ahmed points out how hate speech often works by "sideways" moves. A narrative might start by complaining about lost jobs, then slide to "foreigners," then slide to "threats to our way of life."
Each slide makes the "sticky" association stronger.
Eventually, you don't even need the full argument anymore. Just seeing a certain face or hearing a certain accent triggers the whole web of feelings. It’s like a shortcut for the brain, but a devastating one for the people on the receiving end.
The Problem with "Happy Objects"
We all want to be happy, right?
Well, Ahmed has some thoughts on that too. In her later work, which grows out of the Cultural Politics of Emotion, she talks about "happy objects." These are things we are told will make us happy: a big wedding, a promotion, a straight family, a "normal" life.
🔗 Read more: January 14, 2026: Why This Wednesday Actually Matters More Than You Think
The problem? These objects act as a script.
If you follow the script, you get to be "in." You’re part of the happy crowd. But if you find that these things don't make you happy—or if you’re a "feminist killjoy" who points out the problems in the room—you become the problem.
You aren't just unhappy; you are seen as ruining the happiness of others.
She uses the example of a family dinner. Everyone is sitting around, laughing at a joke that’s actually kinda sexist or racist. If you point it out, you are the one who made the room tense. Not the joke. You.
By refusing to let the "happy object" (the peaceful dinner) stay smooth, you become "sticky" with bad vibes.
Pain and the "National Body"
Ahmed also looks at how nations use pain to bond.
When a country experiences a tragedy, there is a massive push for everyone to feel the same grief. This "collective skin" makes people feel like they are part of one big, hurting body.
But there's a catch.
Whose pain counts?
She notices that we are often asked to feel "shame" or "pity" for certain groups, but only in a way that makes the person feeling the pity feel like a "good person."
💡 You might also like: Black Red Wing Shoes: Why the Heritage Flex Still Wins in 2026
If a nation apologizes for past wrongs (like the Treatment of Aboriginal children in Australia, which she analyzes), it can sometimes be a way of "moving on" too quickly. The apology becomes a "happy object" that lets the nation feel good about itself again, without actually changing the structures that caused the pain in the first place.
How to Actually Use This
Reading Sara Ahmed isn't just about winning an argument in a grad school seminar. It’s about noticing the "weather" of the world around you.
Once you see how emotions are being used to "stick" labels onto people, you can't unsee it.
Pay attention to the "Slide"
Next time you're watching the news or scrolling through a heated thread, look for the slide. When does an argument about policy turn into an emotional "vibe" about a certain group? Catching that transition is the first step to not getting sucked into the "affective economy."
Own the "Killjoy" moment
If you’re the one who feels "wrong" in a room, remember that the tension might not be coming from you. You might just be the one reflecting the tension that was already there. Being a "feminist killjoy" isn't about being miserable; it's about refusing to polish a "happy object" that's actually causing harm.
Watch your own "Stickiness"
We all have things that trigger us instantly. Ahmed’s work asks us to look at why those things are sticky for us. What history is attached to that feeling? Is that fear actually yours, or is it something you've picked up from the "circulation" of the culture around you?
Honestly, emotions are messy.
They’re complicated, they’re loud, and they’re often used as weapons. But by understanding that they are cultural and political, we can start to untangle ourselves from the scripts we never asked to follow.
Next Steps for You
- Observe a "Public" Emotion: Pick a current event. Instead of asking "Is this good or bad?", ask "What is this emotion doing? Who is it pulling together, and who is it pushing away?"
- Audit Your "Happy Objects": Write down three things you feel "supposed" to be happy about. Do they actually bring you joy, or are you just trying to avoid being the "killjoy"?
- Track the "Stickiness": The next time you feel a strong flash of disgust or fear toward a stranger, pause. Ask yourself: "What words or images have made this person 'sticky' in my mind before I even met them?"