Affective Disconnect

Affective disconnect captures the emotional disconnection citizens feel from democratic politics, manifesting as alienation, distrust, and disengagement. The trends and dangers of this phenomenon, long recognised by political scientists, go beyond rational critique to encompass emotional responses such as disgust, anger, and frustration. Citizens’ disconnection stems from perceptions of powerlessness, institutional failure, and a lack of meaningful representation. Citizens may feel that politics no longer serve their values or interests, rendering it a realm of “talk without action” and creating a rift between them and political elites.

Studies show that citizens evaluate and connect with politicians based on perceived authenticity and relatability. But this connection sometimes falters, particularly when corruption scandals or technocratic governance – roughly, policymaking that prioritises expertise – reveal a lack of genuine alignment with public concerns. People become emotionally distant and less involved in politics when they feel politicians don't understand their experiences or share their values.

Emotional detachment has far-reaching consequences. For many, alienation leads to withdrawal from political processes, contributing to declining voter turnout and civic engagement. Others channel discontent into activism, which, in extreme cases, may manifest as support for populist or extremist movements that directly speak to their concerns. These dynamics undermine democracy; they either weaken its participatory foundation or foster polarisation and divisive politics.

MORES is investigating the role of moral emotions in politics, including in policymaking and policies. MORES argues it is important to reflect on two extremes of the political uses of moral emotions. One involves neglecting their moral-emotional aspects, which deepens the affective disconnect of citizens from democratic politics. The other involves overusing or exaggerating them, which both undermines social dialogue and deliberation and creates deep social divides. This exaggeration can even block meaningful policymaking. As many examples in current politics illustrate, both extremes can have, in different ways, potentially negative effects on democracy.

FURTHER READING:

Boda, Z, Medgyesi, M., Fondevill, N., Özdemir, E. (2018). Societal change and trust in institutions. Luxembourg, Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Boler, M., & Davis, E. (2018). The affective politics of the “post-truth” era: Feeling rules and networked subjectivity. Emotion, Space and Society, 27, 75-85.

Garrett, K. N., & Bankert, A. (2020). The moral roots of partisan division: How moral conviction heightens affective polarization. British Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 621-640.

Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129-146.

Jenkins, L. (2018). Why do all our feelings about politics matter? The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 20(1), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117746917

Lelkes, Y., & Westwood, S. J. (2017). The limits of partisan prejudice. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), 485-501.

Manning, N., & Holmes, M. (2014). Political emotions: A role for feelings of affinity in citizens’ (dis)engagements with electoral politics? Sociology, 48(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038513500103

Somer, M., & McCoy, J. (2018). Déjà vu? Polarization and endangered democracies in the 21st century. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 3-15.

Stoker, G., & Evans, M. (2014). The “Democracy-Politics Paradox”: The dynamics of political alienation. Democratic Theory, 1(2), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2014.010203