Weaponized Hope

I don't like the word hope, and I'll tell you exactly why. At some point, I stopped and actually thought about what the word implies. What I found was that doubt is embedded in hope. They occupy the same space. You don't hope for what you already know will happen. You hope for what you're not sure of. So built into the very act of hoping is the admission that you're uncertain. The wanting and the doubting are inseparable. Once I saw that, the word stopped feeling like a safe one to use.

It isn’t just a semantic complaint. The linguistic problem reflects a psychological one. When you hope, you’re holding two opposing positions simultaneously: the belief that things can get better, and the doubt that they actually will. In psychology, this state is called ambivalence. Ambivalence is not indifference. People often confuse the two. Indifference is an absence of feeling. Ambivalence is the presence of two opposing feelings or beliefs at the same time, directed at the same object. A person who is ambivalent isn’t choosing between two positions. They’re holding both of them at once, which makes genuine movement in either direction very difficult, because any action you take toward one position feels like a betrayal of the other. Ambivalence produces stagnation when it’s left unexamined and unresolved.

And this is exactly what passive hope produces. You want change, but you doubt it’ll come. You want to act, but you’re not fully committed because part of you doesn’t believe the action will matter. You want to leave behind what isn’t working, but you’re not willing to fully release it because you haven’t resolved whether it could still improve. So you remain in between. In between taking action and staying still. In between demanding change and accepting the current conditions. In between the life you want and the life you have. That in-between state isn’t a neutral place. It’s a place where time passes and nothing fundamentally shifts, not because change was impossible, but because the internal conflict prevented you from committing your full energy in any direction.

Now, I’m not dismissing hope entirely. When some people say they have hope, what they’re actually describing is something closer to faith. Not religious faith necessarily, but the more general sense of it: a settled belief in a positive outcome, a trust that things will improve, a confidence in the goodness of what’s coming. That’s not ambivalence. That’s conviction. And if that’s what people mean when they say hope, then we’ve simply chosen the wrong word for the thing. The word hope carries too much doubt in it to accurately describe faith, because faith doesn’t waver the way hope does. But that’s a linguistic limitation we’re probably stuck with, so I’ll work within it.

If I place hope on a spectrum of psychological states, with despair at one end and complete fulfillment at the other, it lands somewhere in the middle. The far end of despair is characterized by the complete absence of any belief that things can improve. It’s not just sadness. It’s the cognitive conclusion that better is not possible, that the conditions of your life are fixed and no action you take can alter them. Outrage sits slightly above it, because outrage at least implies that the person still believes a different outcome is possible and is reacting to the violation of that expectation. Pain and grief occupy a broad range depending on their source and their duration. Contentment is closer to the positive end, a state of genuine satisfaction with present conditions. And at the far end, you have what Eastern philosophical traditions have called nirvana, a state of complete inner peace and fulfillment that no external condition can disturb, the total absence of suffering rather than the ongoing effort to manage it.

Hope sits somewhere in the lower to middle range of that spectrum. And sitting there is better than sitting in despair, outrage, or sustained grief. If you’re in a state of genuine hope, you haven’t given up. You still believe improvement is possible. That matters psychologically, because a person in despair has often lost the will to do the very things that would improve their situation. The research on learned helplessness, developed by psychologist Martin Seligman, documents this clearly: when people repeatedly experience outcomes they can’t control, they stop attempting to change their circumstances even when control becomes available to them. Hope is, in part, the refusal to reach that conclusion. So when I say hope is necessary, I mean it. Not as a final destination, but as a necessary psychological condition for anyone who intends to move toward something better.

At the same time, there’s a reason hope is the first emotion institutions try to cultivate in you. If they can keep you in this state, they don’t need to do anything else. Hope has always been weaponized. That’s not hyperbole, and it’s not cynicism. It’s the documented behavior of governments, institutions, corporations, and political parties across centuries and cultures. They’ve understood something about human psychology that the general public is slower to examine: people who are hopeful are compliant. A person in genuine despair might revolt. A person in outrage might organize. But a person who’s hoping, who’s waiting for promised change to arrive, tends to stay in place. They give the system time. They remain manageable, which is exactly what those systems need them to be.

Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign is one of the clearest recent examples of this dynamic. The campaign was built on a single word: Hope. It worked precisely because hope is emotionally resonant and substantively empty at the same time. It doesn’t require a specific policy position. It doesn’t require a detailed plan. It requires only that the audience feel a particular way about the future. And when people feel that way, they’re far more willing to offer their consent without closely examining what they’re actually consenting to.

Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again” was another hope-construction in the same architecture, just pointed backward toward an imagined past instead of forward toward a promised future. “Let’s Make America Great Again” was a term used by Ronald Reagan in his 1980 presidential campaign.

This isn’t a partisan observation. It’s structural. Every modern campaign that has moved a population has done so by selling them hope, because hope is the only emotional posture that produces compliance and participation simultaneously. Fear produces flight. Outrage produces resistance. Hope produces voters, donors, and patient citizens, exactly the population those in power require.

And the targeting is specific. Obama’s “Hope” was marketed primarily to liberals, young voters, and especially Black Americans, framing representation as liberation. MAGA is marketed to white Americans nostalgic for a past that has never existed in any honest relation to democracy or human dignity, framing demographic restoration as national renewal. These aren’t competing strategies. They’re the same strategy aimed at different audiences, the same architecture of weaponized hope, calibrated by demographic. I traced part of this in my essay, “Black Power Was Replaced With Black Excellence”, where I wrote about how the Black community was maneuvered out of collective political organization and into individual achievement within institutions designed to exclude them. The mechanism described there is the same mechanism operating here, just from a different angle. What “Make America Great Again” actually points back toward and the policy record that gives that nostalgia its content, will be the subject of my next essay where I can break it down completely. For now, the central point is that hope, as institutions sell it, is always demographically tailored, and that tailoring is what makes it effective.

This is the larger system inside which hope gets weaponized. The information environment you live inside is not neutral. It has been filtered before it reaches you. What gets covered, who gets treated as credible, which perspectives are positioned as reasonable and which as extreme, these are decisions made by people whose commercial and political interests shape the answers. The filtering doesn't need to be conspiratorial to be systematic. It happens through ordinary pressures: who pays for advertising, who controls access to officials, who can punish a publication by withdrawing support. The result is that you form opinions inside boundaries you didn't set, and you feel you did so independently, because the limits were drawn before the conversation began.

Hope is one of the most effective tools in that process because it operates not through fear or direct coercion but through aspiration. You’re not being told to comply. You’re being invited to believe. And because the invitation feels positive, you don’t scrutinize it the way you’d scrutinize a threat. Your guard comes down. Your critical thinking softens. You want the thing they’re selling to be real, and that wanting, that desire interferes with your ability to evaluate whether it actually is real.

The deeper problem is that people aren’t thinking carefully about what they’re surrendering when they accept that invitation. They’re trading specific, concrete demands for a general emotional condition. And in doing so, they’re giving their consent to a process they don’t fully understand, one that may be stripping them of rights, resources, or autonomy in ways that take years to become fully visible. What they have in the meantime is a promise, delivered by someone who has offered no concrete accounting of how that promise will be fulfilled, what it will cost, or who will bear that cost. The promise alone is enough to keep them waiting. And that waiting is precisely what the system requires of them.

Because hope without action is not a strategy. It’s a placeholder. When institutions sell you hope without telling you what it’s going to cost or what it’s going to require of you, they haven’t given you anything. They’ve taken something from you. They’ve taken the energy you might have spent organizing, demanding, or making different choices, and redirected it into waiting on them. That’s the transaction, and it’s almost never made explicit, because if it were, far fewer people would agree to it.

This is exactly why those in power invest so heavily in selling hope rather than delivering it. A population that believes the system is basically working in their favor, or will soon, doesn’t push back. They don’t organize collective pressure. They don’t withdraw their labor, their money, their participation, or their legitimacy from systems that are exploiting them. They keep going. They keep consuming. They keep producing. And the machinery that benefits from their compliance continues to operate without disruption.

The most important thing to understand here is that ordinary people are genuinely the most powerful force in any social arrangement. History has demonstrated this repeatedly. When populations actually withdraw their consent and participation from systems that oppress them, those systems struggle to sustain themselves. This is why the primary strategy of institutional power is not military force. Military force is expensive, unpredictable, and often galvanizes opposition rather than suppressing it. The primary strategy is psychological: convince the people that they are powerless. Convince them that the forces shaping their lives are too large, too entrenched, and too complex for ordinary people to meaningfully affect. And if you can layer hope on top of that manufactured powerlessness, if you can give them just enough optimism about a future they’re not actively building to keep them from acting in the present, you’ve neutralized the most significant threat to your power without ever confronting it directly.

We are that force. The thing institutions invest the most in keeping us from seeing is exactly this, that the consent we’ve been giving is the only thing making the arrangement work. We have been kept hopeful because hope keeps us in place. We have been told the systems shaping our lives are too large and too complex to affect because the systems require us to believe that. The opposite is true. They depend on us. They can’t operate without our participation, our labor, our money, our attention, or our belief in their legitimacy. The moment we see the mechanism clearly, we have already begun to disrupt it. The recognition itself is the first act of withdrawal. Once you understand it in those terms, passive hope stops looking like a virtue and starts looking like a successfully installed limitation.

But I don’t think the weaponization of hope discredits what hope actually is when it hasn’t been distorted. If hope is understood as a position on a spectrum, not a destination but a transitional state, a psychological condition you move through on your way toward something you’re actively building, then it’s not passive at all. It’s the recognition that better is possible combined with the decision to act on that recognition. That version of hope isn’t about waiting. It’s the refusal to accept your current conditions as permanent while you do the work of changing them.

In that sense, hope isn’t a political act. A political act is directed outward toward systems, parties, elections, and institutions. Political hope is the version that’s been weaponized, the kind that asks you to place your faith in structures that have repeatedly demonstrated their indifference to your actual interests. What I’m describing operates at a different level entirely. It’s a personal decision, made by the individual, about what kind of life they’re going to build and what they’re willing to leave behind in order to build it. That’s a spiritual act. And by spiritual I don’t mean religious. I mean that it operates at the level of your core orientation toward your own life, your fundamental beliefs about your agency and your worth, completely independent of any external authority validating or recognizing it.

Healing from mass manipulation isn’t primarily a political project, though it may have political consequences. It begins with the refusal to locate your sense of possibility in systems that have given you every reason to distrust them. It begins with the recognition that waiting for institutions to deliver the conditions you need to live well is itself a form of passivity that serves those institutions far more than it serves you. And it becomes real when you decide to act on what you know now, with what you have now, in the direction of what you actually need, without waiting for circumstances to become favorable enough to justify the attempt.

That might mean leaving. It might mean relocating, removing yourself from an environment that’s been actively working against your wellbeing, in order to build your life somewhere that’s capable of supporting it. That’s not defeat and it’s not retreat. It’s an accurate assessment of your conditions followed by an appropriate response to them. If the environment you’re in is consistently making your life smaller, the rational and necessary response is to find or create an environment that doesn’t. Remaining out of loyalty to a place or a system that doesn’t recognize your value isn’t principled. It’s costly in ways that compound over time.

I’m not interested in orienting my life around the next election cycle, waiting to see which candidate will move things incrementally in a slightly less harmful direction while the underlying power arrangements remain exactly as they are. I’m not interested in spending four years in a state of hoping while decisions are made above me and handed down as though my consent to them had already been given. I’m not willing to keep locating my possibility in a system that has shown me, clearly and repeatedly, that its interests and mine are not aligned.

I’m going to live now. I’m going to build now. I’m going to make the decisions that improve my actual life today, not because the conditions are perfect or because I have permission, but because waiting for either of those things is itself a choice, and it’s not one I’m making. That’s what real hope looks like when it’s been reclaimed from the people who turned it into a management tool. It’s not passive. It’s not patient in the sense of sitting still. It’s the decision every exile and every migrant has already made with their feet: to act on your own behalf without waiting for external conditions to grant you permission. You can’t build a better future later if you’re not willing to start building it now.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

My name is Saipher Zureti. I am a visual artist and writer. All of the calligraphy in my essays is my original artwork, created specifically for the writing it accompanies.

This Substack is a body of philosophical essays on manipulation, identity, psychology, and the systems that shape how we see ourselves and each other. The essays build on each other deliberately. Each one extends, complicates, or deepens what came before, because these subjects cannot be understood in isolation from one another.

If you want to continue reading and thinking through these systems with me, please subscribe. Thank you for being here.

Until next time, Namaste.

Read this essay on Black Radical Reflections →
Back to the catalogue