The Application And Impact Of Emotions in Politics

By Dr. Anna Rostomyan and Dr. Monika Klein

Emotions play a significant role in political decision-making. In this hypothesis, the authors suggest that emotions, such as anger, hatred, fear, love, admiration, joy, delight, awe, and hope, play a crucial role in shaping political opinions and decisions. This article illustrates interdisciplinary research on the significance of emotions in politics. The results of our empirical analysis are based on an online cross-cultural quantitative survey analysis.

1. Introduction

While discussing the prominence of emotions in politics, it might seem trivial to touch upon this topic, since it is now generally accepted that emotions enter into all spheres of human activity, even intermingling with the higher cognitive processes, which greatly influence our thinking abilities and decision-making processes.

In the present geopolitical landscape marked by brinkmanship and populist rhetoric, the significance of this scholarly approach is evident. It is essential to examine the concept of “celebrity politics”, the portrayal of politicians as distinct “personae”, and the communication methods and emotions that underlie these issues. This investigation is critical for gaining a deeper understanding of the current political scenario. The significance of basic emotions to individualization applies to studies of political leaders and elites (Berenskoetter & Van Hoef, 2017; Van Hoef, 2018) and of citizens, increasingly characterized as self-actualizing, informal, and affective, that can have a great impact on the audience (Beck, Giddens, & Lash, 1994; Bennett, 2008; Loader, Vromen, & Xenos, 2014).

Moreover, although formerly the role of emotions in politics was accepted and commonplace, during the years of human evolution it tended to be disregarded and overlooked. Nonetheless, we can truly state that academics and politicians have shown a new interest in the significance of emotions in politics during the last decade. This discussion brings us to the times of ancient Greece right back to Aristotle, Seneca, and Plato, where there was a tight relation between emotions and political discourse, narrative and rhetoric in front of the larger public, where the orator tried to gain the positive disposition of the audience by means of their speech.

Cicero pointed out that very often the decision of those who decide greatly depends on the level of emotionality of the speaker.

There has been much debate even since the ancient times on how emotions influence reason and whether our decisions are linked with emotions. In the Rhetoric, Aristotle (1932) argues that rhetoric gives its user the best chance of convincing the listeners when it uses certain language units to have an impact on the audience, reviving the scene in front of the listeners’ eyes. Cicero placed a greater emphasis upon the emotive language applied in terms of achieving the desired emotional impact on the audience. He pointed to the fact that very often the decision of those who decide greatly depends on the level of emotionality of the speaker.  This was mainly related to rhetoric, where the speakers by means of applying emotional language reach their desired impact on the audience. By this, he does not claim that it is a disadvantage and should thus be avoided. On the contrary, he even recommends that:

“Men take a decision oftener through feeling than through fact or law. They are moved by evidence of character in the speaker and in his client. The only way to rebut feeling is by feeling.” (Cicero 1895:178)

We may thus come to think that clinging just to the mere dry facts is not always the right thing to do, nor is it right to be driven by an abundance of emotions. Those who decide should not be distracted by the emotional speech of the speakers or, at the other extreme, totally ignore their emotions, but should strive to find the happy medium of the combination of logical and emotive evidence. The present article, thus, discusses the significance of emotions in politics, their impact on the listeners, and the power of politicians appropriately applying emotions in their demeanour to reach a positive influence on the general public.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Classification of Emotions and Various Theories

The list of feelings, emotions, and physical and mental reactions to external stimuli that we associate with the term “emotion” is almost infinite. Therefore, before speaking about the classification of emotions, we should dive into the essence of them and the subsequent processes therein. N. Demertzis (2013, p. 4) claims that whether approached as an interpersonal state, a process, cultural construct, subjective experience, syndrome or disposition, emotion is thought to mainly be composed of five distinct elements, namely:

1. activation of key body systems and action readiness towards something,
2. appraisal of situational stimuli, relational contexts and objects,
3. overt or inhibited expression through facial, vocal and paralinguistic movements,
4. culturally provided linguistic labels of one or more of the first three elements,
5. socially constructed rules on which emotions should be experienced and expressed (Demertzis, 2013:4).

In their book Politics and the Emotions (2012), P. Hoggett and S. Thompson assert that emotions are felt, so that it follows that they involve feelings – a generalized state of being that influences one’s attitudes, perceptions, interpretative power and, finally, behaviours and actions. According to this viewpoint, people are moved by their very own emotions, as well as the emotions of others. This suggests that if a politician wants to succeed in getting elected, they should try their best to emotionally “move” the public.

In this connection, it should be noted that Paul Ekman (1994) differentiated several “basic” emotions which can be found in our everyday routine depending on the stimuli we perceive across cultures and situations; he identified the six basic emotions as anger, surprise, disgust, enjoyment, fear, and sadness.

As we know, emotions do not arise by themselves but quite often have external stimulators which arouse them after outward perception. Knowing, too, that emotions can have degrees of intensity (Rostomyan, 2013), we can draw the succession of emotions which most possibly lead to political protests and become apparent in political communication.

The fear of a prosperous future may result in frustration when not able to see a solution to the situation at hand. This can result in annoyance, which will gradually ascend in the form of anger at not being able to handle the situation. This can also have the forms of rage, wrath, and agony, which are truly detected in the verbal and non-verbal manifestations of protesters shouting out vulgar words and engaging in offensive actions, as well as damaging cars and buildings. The succession of these emotions can be gradual, one succeeding the other, and may result in final protests / demonstrations. As we can truly see, politics, especially political protests, are full of intense emotions, especially negative ones. It follows that emotions are apparent in political communication and find their outward expressions in political speech by means of various verbal and non-verbal markers (Rostomyan, 2022). For instance, D. Ost (2004) claims that politics itself should be more accurately conceived in emotional terms as the “mobilization of anger”, where the anger of the masses should be managed by the political apparatus. The table below by N. Demertzis (2013) truly shows the implications of emotions in protest and their appraisals.

Demertzis (197) further states that anger, as experienced by protesters, is mainly observed in the context of actions that conform to the norms of the existing social system (such as taking part in lawful demonstration). We can also here add that anger can also be conditioned by the discontent of the crowd with the present political leader, whereas guilt, shame, and regret are some social emotions which are linked with in-group attachments, where drastic actions are implicit. As for solidarity, it forges bonds between the members of a social group and creates the feeling of togetherness, implying that together you can achieve more when all stand for one and one for all. Here, it should also be mentioned that after the protest when the emotions calm down and people re-analyze the created situation, there might be cases of disappointment and regret when the damage is perceived.

While speaking about the classification of emotions and their interrelationship with, and presence in, politics, it is noteworthy that Hoggett & Thompson (2012:8) outline the following groups of emotions and emotional states connected with morality which are evident in politics:

1. Positive moral emotions

There are a range of internal feeling states which are specifically bound up with our internal moral values and ethical lives; these can be divided between positive and negative moral emotions. Positive moral feelings, such as compassion, concern, sympathy and forgiveness, create a bond between the interactants in the process of successful political communication. Here, compassion gains prominence in politics, since politicians should have compassion towards the nation to be of support and positive guidance for the crowd towards a common goal. On their side, the voters should feel compassionate towards those whom they elect and understand that politicians are not all-powerful. Here, it is noteworthy that if voters detect a compassionate politician, they are more likely to be drawn to them.

2. Negative moral emotions

It is noteworthy that if voters detect a compassionate politician, they are more likely to be drawn to them.

By contrast, negative feelings repel us from their object. The most powerful negative moral emotions aimed at others are disgust and contempt, hatred and annoyance. Such emotional experiences may occur when the nation is dissatisfied with its political leader’s activities and, thus, even if they themselves have voted for that leader, a huge gap between them is being generated. It goes without saying that negative moral political emotions are not beneficial for the politicians. While such sentiments are directed towards another, some more common self-directed negative feelings include guilt, remorse and regret for having chosen this or that very political figure to solve the problems of the country and to represent the voice of an entire nation.

Thus, when we speak about politicians, we can state that if they become more aware of the essence of emotions and the way they can influence perception, motivation, intention, and resultant action, as well as their impact on thinking, reasoning, and decision-making, they will generally stand a better chance of gaining their desired goal. Moreover, if politicians manage to elicit positive moral emotions in the process of political communication, both parties will greatly benefit from well-being and actual better results.

2.2. The Interrelation of Emotions and Politics alongside Survey Data Analysis

The relationship between emotions and politics is demonstrated through affective polarization, which refers to the emotional attachment or detachment that individuals feel towards their political opponents in the process of two-fold political communication. This attachment can lead to a breakdown in communication and compromise, ultimately hindering democratic processes. Additionally, emotions play a significant role in political messaging, as political actors often use emotional appeals like fear, hope, and anger to gain support from people.

Emotions can be more effective than abstract concepts and data, because they are more relatable and accessible to individuals. There has been much evidence that political campaigning is winning both hearts and minds, since the voters may sometimes be directed towards a goal by their emotions ruling over their minds. As for the opinion about the pertinence of emotions in the general public, we got the following results, which go to prove that generally emotions should also be pertinent in politics as well.

Out of the 20 people questioned, 16 answered “yes” to the relevance of emotions in politics, which comes to suggest that they should be pertinent in this aspect of human activity as well, since political figures are also human beings endowed with certain emotions and feelings. Moreover, if politicians deploy emotions in political communication, they will consequently stand a better chance of influencing their audiences, since we are all not only rational but also emotional beings, also mostly governed by our internal emotional states.

When we speak about the hearts and minds of the people, we should consider them in separation as single individuals on the micro-level who together shape the macro-level of the socio-psychological society (Demertzis, 2013). T. Scheff (1990) is among the first scholars to have placed much stress, importance, and effort in developing socio-psychological analyses that tie the micro- and macro-levels of the population within a certain social circle. In this respect, it is interesting to look at the macro-level, including numerous different humans representing micro-levels, who together shape the collective intelligence and actual decision-making. In this connection, it is noteworthy that N. Demertzis (2013:17) speaks about the role of affective intelligence, which offers a new understanding of the citizen not as a political expert, but rather as a human, being part of the whole political body system. In this line of thought, humans are viewed as affective creatures whose decisions and actions are highly affected by their emotions.

As mentioned in our earlier discussion, one of the positive moral emotions present in politics is compassion, which has a humanitarian essence. According to M. Nussbaum (1996), compassion is indeed the basic social emotion which helps to keep a society going and people feeling involved. Compassion may be the real cause of Lady Diana’s success in winning the people’s hearts and becoming the “Queen of Hearts”. In an interview for the BBC, in response to the interviewer’s question concerning whether she thought she would ever become Queen, Lady Di answered that she would love to be the queen of people’s hearts. She was indeed involved in humanitarian aid, she tried to be present in people’s lives, sharing their problems, their famine, their sicknesses, their dreams, their motivations. This helped her become greatly loved by millions of people, even beyond the United Kingdom.

According to R. Overy (2004), love, admiration, and awe also play a great role in building our positive relations to something higher, whether this be a beloved political or religious leader. Studies of charisma clearly reveal the idealization of political leaders, even those of the most autocratic nature. Here, we can cite the example of the former Chancellor of Germany Dr. Angela Merkel, who, when being photographed in the same dress and being embarrassed by the journalist telling her that she was wearing the same dress 10 years ago, very courageously answered: “My job is to lead the people of Germany, not to be a fashion model.”  This goes to prove that she was devoted to her job and gained the sympathy of many Germans, sharing their everyday concerns, which consequently ensured her a six-minute standing ovation and applause on her last speech bidding farewell as the Chancellor of Germany.

People like politicians who are real, humane and approachable, and politicians who deploy emotions stand more chance of influencing public opinion.

To the question of whether a political figure should be emotionally authentic, we got the following picture, which truly reflects how ordinary people feel towards the emotional behaviour of a political leader in the process of political communication:

The results of this question from the online survey fully represent the opinion of the vast majority in the shape of 100% answering “yes” to the question on the emotional authenticity of political figures. This suggests that people like politicians who are “real”, who are humane and approachable, which promotes our hypothesis that when emotions are deployed by politicians, they stand a better chance of influencing the public opinion.  Moreover, authenticity has the ultimate chance to win votes, which can even be simply expressed by a mere genuine smile and not an artificial one.

In conclusion, we strongly believe, and our research has also shown, that politics and emotions go hand in hand. They sometimes support one another, often denoted by the display of a positive emotion like happiness through confidence, sometimes by vetoing an action.  They serve as a true “compass” in the hands of a merciful political figure who, being an emotional being, too, can understand the needs and requirements of the public and, by displaying an emotionally sound demeanour, be a role model for them.

About the Authors

Dr. Anna Rostomyan is an assistant professor, international author, researcher, editor, reviewer, speaker, translator, and certified EI coach. She received her doctorate degree with the highest grade in 2013 in cooperation between the University of Freiburg (Switzerland) and Yerevan State University (Armenia, her alma mater) within the framework of a research grant. As a world-renowned author and scholar of seven books and 50 publications worldwide, she reaches a readership of around 100 nationalities.

Dr. Monika Klein is a movie and design producer, a digital and traditional art collector. Her movies receive awards and recognition all over the world. She has written over 80 articles and books. She specializes in the economics of the creative sector, its impact on regional development, and business models of the creative and cultural sector. She knows everything about design management and service design at the microeconomic level and successfully manages diverse creative projects.

References:

1. Aristotle (1932). The Rhetoric. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

2. Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge: Polity Press

3. Bennett, W. L. (2008). “Changing citizenship in the digital age”. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online (pp. 1–24) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

4. Berenskoetter, F., & van Hoef, Y. (2017). “Friendship and foreign policy”. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Retrieved from http://politics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-429

5. Cicero (1895). De Oratore, trans. by W. B. Owen, Boston.

6. Demertzis, N. (2013). Emotions in Politics: The Affect Dimension in Political Tension. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

7. Ekman, P. (1994). The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

8. Hoggett, P. & Thompson, S. (2012). Politics and the Emotions: The affective turn in contemporary political studies. New York: Continuum International Publishing.

9. Loader, B. D., Vromen, A., & Xenos, M. A. (2014). “The net-worked young citizen: Social media, political participation and civic engagement”. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2):143-50.

10. Nussbaum, M. (1996). “Compassion: the basic social emotion”. Social Philosophy and Policy, 13 (1):27-58.

11. Ost, D. (2004). “Politics as the Mobilization of Anger”. European Journal of Social Theory, 7 (2):229-44.

12. Overy, R. (2004). The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia. London: Allen Lane.

13. Rostomyan, Anna (2013). “A Linguo-cognitive Analysis on Verbal and Non-verbal Expressions of Emotions (on the material of English)”. Dissertation. Yerevan, 120 pages.

14. Rostomyan, Anna (2022). The Ultimate Force of Emotions in Communication. Düren: Shaker Verlag.

15. Scheff, Th. J. (1990). Microsociology. Discourse, Emotion and Social Structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

16. Van Hoef, Y., & Oelsner, A. (2018). “Friendship and positive peace: Conceptualising friendship in politics and international relations”. Politics and Governance, 6(4):115-24.