What are the analytical strengths and potential limitations of using fictional narratives from an “unhappy archive,” such as the novel The Well of Loneliness or the film Bend It Like Beckham, to build a philosophical argument about social pressures?

Ahmed critiques both classical philosophy and contemporary positive psychology. What continuities does Ahmed identify between these seemingly distinct traditions of thought about the good life, and what does tracing these continuities contribute to her broader critique of happiness?

What is the relationship between shared orientations toward “happy objects” and the emergence of the “affect alien”?

What is the distinction between a “happy queer” and a “happily queer” subject? Using examples from the text, analyze the political significance Ahmed gives to this distinction.

In what ways do the concepts of the “affect alien” and the “feminist killjoy” overlap, and where do they diverge?

Ahmed critiques the idea of “conditional happiness,” particularly in her analysis of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s vision for women. How does this concept operate across the different gendered, queer, and migrant contexts that Ahmed examines?

Ahmed engages with the “anti-social turn” in queer theory, particularly Lee Edelman’s No Future. How does Ahmed’s final proposal for a politics of “hap” and contingency respond to Edelman’s embrace of negativity?

What role does Ursula Le Guin’s short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” play in Ahmed’s critique of collective happiness?