Passionate Argument or Emotional Blackmail? Investigating the Role of Emotions in Public Deliberation

Abstract

Since the feminist critique of deliberative democracy’s valorisation of reasoned argumentation, the field has increasingly recognised the value of impassioned claim-making in facilitating empathy and understanding. This development, however, is not without its problems. Emotional expression can perpetuate hierarchies in speech, considering the uneven distribution of emotional capital in the public sphere. Classical critiques against emotions remain, for they can distort rather than clarify the issues at stake. This panel discusses papers that investigate the role of emotions in public deliberation. Theoretical and empirical papers are presented that engage existing debates and provoke new lines of enquiry.