Emotions in politics are not new, nor are negative evaluations by sociologists. After the failures of Fascism and Communism, emotional politics were sidelined, especially in the highly polarized Netherlands. This changed during the ‘long 1960s’ with society’s informalization, merging of private and public spheres, and greater appreciation for public emotions.

In this lecture, sociologist Jan Willem Duyvendak argued that, while intended to democratize politics, this focus on ‘belonging’ can exclude minorities. Populist policies emphasize emotions, but their role in democracy remains contested amidst rising affective polarization. Given the high levels of affective polarization, have emotions in politics become an obstacle to democracy rather than an integral part of it? What emotions are good for and what they tell us.

From a psychology perspective, Agneta Fischer argued that emotions are functional and serve to affiliate with or distance ourselves from others. She critically reflected on sociological explanations of collective emotions and present a social psychological alternative. She focused on three factors that contribute to the increasing manifestation of emotions in the political realm: 1) increasing threats to our social identities, 2) the contagious nature of group-based emotions, and 3) the cultural emphasis on the non-regulation of emotions.