Search

Research in International Relations (IR) frequently confronts claims about the emotions shared by members of a group. While much attention has been devoted to the potential for affective and emotional experience beyond the individual level, IR scholars have said less about the politics of invoking popular emotion. This article addresses that gap. Specifically, we argue that between individual—and even shared—affective experience on the one hand and group‐based “popular emotion” on the other exists not mechanisms of aggregation but rather processes of framing, projection, and propagation that are deeply political. We distinguish between two tropes that commonly structure references to popular emotion: communal emotion, the idealized attribution of an authentic, unifying emotional response of “the people,” and mass emotion, a volatile and potentially dangerous mob‐like reaction, but one also susceptible to manipulation. Using the outbreak of World War I as a showcase, we demonstrate the political significance of popular emotion, including its enduring relevance for understanding contemporary populism.

This article appeals to classical realism for new insights into the role emotions play in shifting the terrain of political allegiance in global politics. Although undetected in readings emphasizing rational statecraft, realists such as Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr were centrally concerned with human emotions and their political impact. While following the intellectual currents of their time in regarding emotions as fixed impulses, these realists’ deep appreciation for the contingencies of history also led them to cast emotions as socially conditioned mechanisms of adaptation. By revisiting the texts of classical realism, this paper develops a fresh account of how emotion responds to and engenders change in the social world – in particular, change in the location of political allegiances. I then show how Morgenthau and Niebuhr applied these ideas not only to the nation-state but also to the most vexingtransnational phenomena of their time – communism and liberal internationalism. In conclusion, the paper speculates that these reflections on dynamic allegiances at the transnational level offer realists and other international relation theorists insight into the emotional appeal, adaptability, and organizational complexity of contemporary non-state movements and actors.

Affect and emotion are key elements of our lived experience as human beings but currently play little role in how we theorize actorhood in international relations. We offer six amendments for integrating affective dynamics into existing conceptions of individual-level actorhood in IR. From these amendments emerge the theoretical micro-foundations upon which we build propositions concerning potential collective-level affective dynamics and political strategies. We illustrate the analytical payoff of our proposals by examining the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. By amending existing understandings of actorhood to include human affective experience, we can integrate and make sense of a variety of psychological, social, and political consequences stemming from the attacks, both within the United States and internationally.

Over the past fifteen years, scholars in international relations (IR) have set out to understand the vexing role of emotions in international and global politics. Research on this topic runs the full gamut from studies of individual leaders to the emotions associated with states and other collectivities. The nationalist conflicts of the post–Cold War period, coupled with the dramatic terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, provide the historical context for this affective turn, but its intellectual roots extend into longer-standing scholarly interest in emotion and affect within adjacent disciplines such as psychology, social psychology, neuroscience, sociology, and cultural theory. In demanding attention to research across these many disciplines, the study of emotion in IR has proved a tough nut to crack, and more disagreement than consensus continues to be found on how to study emotion and what its politically significant effects might be. One persistent schism exists between those who approach the study of emotion through social constructivism—as an aspect or by-product of discourses, identities, and norms—and those who approach it from a psychological perspective—as a personality trait or cause of misperception and bias. Nevertheless, agreement is wide on the fundamental claim that traditional approaches to the study of international and global politics have either neglected or marginalized the role of emotions. Current research on the topic is now setting out to discern the distinctive properties of emotion and the specific impact they have in specific topical areas—from nationalism, war, and ethnic conflict to diplomacy, conflict management, and transnational advocacy.

This article reconceptualises the emotions associated with ‘anti-Americanism’ and sketches an alternative account of impassioned protest in the Middle East and South Asia. I identify two overlapping discursive images that mistake what emotions are and how they fuel political resistance: ‘Islamic anger’, which delegitimises emotional expression as a form of political agency, and ‘anti-American hatred’, which assumes that popular emotions in these regions are tied to a clear and distinct object — America. Drawing on two recent cases widely discussed in the American media, I show how the emotional quality of political resistance is used to undermine its legitimacy. Using ethnographic sources, I then offer a preliminary sketch of the normative, historical and interactive contexts of those protests. The article encourages international relations scholars to view grassroots actors as neither impulsive insurgents nor aggregations of survey data but instead complex moral agents embedded in local struggles.

A variety of constructivists have begun to address emotions in IR, viewing emotional events and memories as important dimensions to the social construction of identity. But it is not clear that constructivist tools, designed in most cases for interpreting discursive representations, are equipped to study affective phenomena. This article offers a critical assessment of constructivism’s ability to theorize affects—nonconscious and embodied emotional states—in global politics. Using as an example the ontology developed by Alexander Wendt, the article suggests that common presuppositions in orthodox constructivism in fact obstruct the study of affect and its role in social and political life. To grasp the depth, intensity, and fugitivity of emotional phenomena, constructivism needs to rethink its attachments to reflective agency, ideational processes, and symbolic meaning. Through a brief discussion of the American response to 9/11, the final section develops several propositions on the role of affect in forging political identities.

Background While there is growing evidence for the efficacy of SM to treat LBP, little is known on the mechanisms and physiologic effects of these treatments. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to determine whether SM alters the amplitude of the motor evoked potential (MEP) or the short-latency stretch reflex of the erector spinae muscles, and whether these physiologic responses depend on whether SM causes an audible joint sound. Methods We used transcranial magnetic stimulation to elicit MEPs and electromechanical tapping to elicit short-latency stretch reflexes in 10 patients with chronic LBP and 10 asymptomatic controls. Neurophysiologic outcomes were measured before and after SM. Changes in MEP and stretch reflex amplitude were examined based on patient grouping (LBP vs. controls), and whether SM caused an audible joint sound. Results SM did not alter the erector spinae MEP amplitude in patients with LBP (0.80 ± 0.33 vs. 0.80 ± 0.30 μV) or in asymptomatic controls (0.56 ± 0.09 vs. 0.57 ± 0.06 μV). Similarly, SM did not alter the erector spinae stretch reflex amplitude in patients with LBP (0.66 ± 0.12 vs. 0.66 ± 0.15 μV) or in asymptomatic controls (0.60 ± 0.09 vs. 0.55 ± 0.08 μV). Interestingly, study participants exhibiting an audible response exhibited a 20% decrease in the stretch reflex (p < 0.05). Conclusions These findings suggest that a single SM treatment does not systematically alter corticospinal or stretch reflex excitability of the erector spinae muscles (when assessed ~ 10-minutes following SM); however, they do indicate that the stretch reflex is attenuated when SM causes an audible response. This finding provides insight into the mechanisms of SM, and suggests that SM that produces an audible response may mechanistically act to decrease the sensitivity of the muscle spindles and/or the various segmental sites of the Ia reflex pathway.