Anger Issues: Unpacking public outrage through the emotional mechanism of ressentiment

This article examines the psychological content of aversive affectivity in public debates hosted in UK media, focusing specifically on discourses of ressentiment and anger. In contemporary populist and reactionary politics, disagreements and disputes become intractable conflicts and uncivil battles between ‘good’ and ‘evil’. While scholars frequently identify anger as a prominent emotional reaction in grievance politics, the psychological content of apparent displays of anger in public and media discourses is under-researched. We adopt the theoretical framework of ressentiment as the emotional mechanism that permeates public discourses containing aversive affectivity. We pay particular attention to narratives that split the world into all-good and all-bad camps, questions of morality and legitimacy, expressions of victimhood, powerlessness, envy, shame and inefficacious anger, who receives credit or blame, the leaders and groups that serve as targets of anger and ressentiment, and orientations towards political action. Our empirical analysis spans across five years (2017-2022 and examines editorials, commentaries, letters, and opinion pieces (as expression of media and public discourse respectively, published in four major British newspapers (Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, The Times). We compare expressions of journalistic and public opinions, in the context of the European financial crisis, Brexit, covid-19, Black Lives Matter, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as well as the crises of representation in British politics including party-gate, and Boris Johnson’s resignation. We map expressions of anger and ressentiment across stories that engage with migration, the economy, health and environmental politics, military conflicts, gender and racial issues, paying particular attention to the content aversive affect, the targets of media and public outrage, and attributions of political accountability.