The Role of Emotions in Political Analysis and Social Movement Theory
Reintegration of Emotional Frameworks in Political and Social Movement Analysis
Emotions have returned. In recent decades, emotions once at the core of studying politics have retreated into the background because they have no home in the rational, scientific, systemic, and organizational frameworks that rule academic political analysis. The trend was reversed by Goodwin, Jasper, and Polletta, who added emotions including anger, joy, outrage, fear, contempt, and love back into studies on social and political protest. The methods of cultural analysis are beneficial for examining the function of emotions in politics (Goodwin et al., 2001). Moral outrage, the embarrassment of tarnished communal identities, or the excitement of anticipating a different and better society is not inevitable reactions to events. Instead, they are linked to moral institutions, perceived rights and obligations, and knowledge of anticipated effects—all of which are influenced by culture and history. They assert that social movement analysts take emotions more seriously and want to support this development. However, not by mindlessly reviving the faulty assumptions and sentiments that distorted assessments of collective action in the 1960s. They recommend a new theoretical framework where feelings are central.
Contrasting Rational and Affective Interpretations in Political Behavior Studies
On the contrary, Gould utilizes lineage to support his claim that individuals interested in the causes of and barriers of divisive political activity must pay attention to its effect. And that is precisely where his anxiety comes in, refuting everything Goodwin, Jasper, and Polletta already said about emotions. He even referred to Le Bon, perhaps one of the pioneers of affect theory and divisive politics. Still, in the tale, Gould relates that protest, protestors, and emotion all come off poorly. Also, he claims that political emotions flow directly, predictably, and coherently after political knowledge and are almost rational in this way (Gould, 2010). The studies of Reed and Pearlman use the conception of reaching out to consumers and satisfying their needs, which would affect their emotions differently. Why do scholars have different opinions on emotions in political, economic, social, and academic research?