Overemotionalisation

When discontent citizens withdraw from politics—in research, we describe this situation as affective disconnect—the political environment itself can grow more emotional. That’s because affective disconnect creates a void, a potential social demand for moral-political emotions that populist and extremist political entrepreneurs exploit. Evidence suggests that affective disconnect triggers negative emotions towards the government, which can, in turn, drive populist sentiments forward.

MORES uses the term “overemotionalisation” to suggest that political actors’ strategic manipulation of emotions can lead to situations that jeopardise the values and practices of liberal democracy. This can result in a profound political polarisation, where competing political identities create deep divisions within the community. Consequently, the level of hostility between these political camps can escalate to the point where institutional functioning and decision-making become severely compromised.

An example of overemotionalisation is when political actors strategically use “morality politics” to reinforce political identities. Consider policies on abortion, end-of-life decisions, transgender issues, immigration, genetic engineering, and climate change—these topics often raise moral dilemmas and strong emotions.

Some actors exploit these topics politically not to find workable policy solutions, but rather to stir up moral emotions like pride, anger, or contempt and shape political identities. The policy practice of illiberal governments offers compelling evidence of this phenomenon.

MORES argues that it is crucial to reflect on the two extremes seen in the political uses of moral emotions. Ignoring them risks disconnecting citizens from democratic politics. Exaggerating them undermines social dialogue and deliberation, creating deep societal divides and eventually blocking meaningful policymaking. In different ways, both extremes have potentially negative impacts on democracy.

FURTHER READING:

Abadi, D., Bertlich, T., Duyvendak, J. W., & Fischer, A. (2024). Populism Versus Nativism: Socio-Economic, Socio-Cultural, and Emotional Predictors. American Behavioral Scientist, 69(4), 423-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241240336

Abadi, D., Willem van Prooijen, J., Krouwel, A., & Fischer, A. H. (2024). Anti-establishment sentiments: realistic and symbolic threat appraisals predict populist attitudes and conspiracy mentality. Cognition and Emotion, 38(8), 1246–1260. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2360584

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.

Engeli, I., Green-Pedersen, C., & Larsen, L. T. (2012). Morality politics in Western Europe: Parties, agendas and policy choices. Springer.

Foa, R. S., & Mounk, Y. (2017). The signs of deconsolidation. Journal of Democracy, 28(1), 5-15.

Mettler, S. (2018). The government-citizen disconnect. Russell Sage Foundation.

Reckwitz, A. (2021). The end of illusions: Politics, economy, and culture in late modernity. John Wiley & Sons.