Abstract
This paper explores the role of emotional discourse in contemporary forms of authoritarianism, proposing the concept of "affective authoritarianism" as a heuristic lens rather than a distinct regime type. By analyzing selected political texts from India and the United States (2014–2021), the paper identifies recurring patterns in which emotional appeals—such as fear, pride, and resentment—are used to legitimize authority and marginalize dissent. Rather than treating emotional discourse as secondary propaganda, this paper argues that affect can serve as a constitutive element in the performance and consolidation of power. While the findings are preliminary and illustrative, they underscore the need for greater scholarly attention to the emotional dimensions of political communication.
1. Introduction
Authoritarian regimes increasingly deploy emotionally resonant rhetoric—emphasizing national pride, victimhood, moral clarity, and existential threat—to shape political behavior and bolster legitimacy. This affective turn in political communication raises important questions: Can emotional discourse function as a mode of governance? How do affective appeals operate across different institutional contexts?
This paper explores these questions through the lens of affective authoritarianism, understood not as a discrete regime type but as a discursive strategy that blends emotional communication with authoritarian goals. It builds on research in political psychology, discourse theory, and authoritarian studies but seeks to meaningfully engage with their core insights.
Focusing on India and the United States, the paper conducts a close analysis of selected political speeches and public discourse between 2014 and 2021. The aim is to trace how emotional appeals—particularly fear, pride, and moral outrage—serve to personalize power, marginalize dissent, and redefine national identity. The concept of affective authoritarianism is positioned not merely as a stylistic choice but as a mechanism of governance that enlists emotions in the service of political legitimacy.
2. Conceptualizing Affective Authoritarianism
Working Definition
Affective authoritarianism refers to the use of emotionally charged political discourse to performatively consolidate power, marginalize opposition, and reframe governance as an emotionally resonant moral mission. It emphasizes emotional resonance over institutional manipulation, though the two often co-exist. This draws from affective intelligence theory (Marcus, Neuman, & MacKuen, 2000), which suggests emotions influence not only how people feel but how they process political information and evaluate authority.
Analytical Focus
Rather than treating affect as a byproduct of political communication, this paper views it as central to the symbolic construction of authority. Drawing on Laclau and Mouffe's discourse theory (2001), affective authoritarianism is approached as a hegemonic project in which emotional signifiers such as fear or pride are articulated to stabilize political meanings. "Emotionally coded language" here refers to discourse that functions performatively—generating affective investments that shape subjectivities and normalize asymmetries of power.
Relationship to Existing Concepts
- Populism relies on affect, but typically foregrounds anti-elitism and mass mobilization. Affective authoritarianism may adopt similar emotional registers while preserving elite control or technocratic centralization.
- Competitive authoritarianism focuses on institutional erosion and electoral manipulation. Affective authoritarianism, by contrast, highlights the role of symbolic and emotional legitimacy in sustaining those erosions (Levitsky & Way, 2010).
- Propaganda emphasizes manipulation of truth and information; affective discourse centers on the performative construction of affective publics through emotional narrative frames (Brader, 2006).
The concept of affective authoritarianism thus aims to synthesize insights from these literatures while highlighting the under-theorized role of emotion in the legitimation of authoritarian tendencies.
3. Literature Review
Emotions and Political Judgment
Emotions are not irrational residues but fundamental to political cognition and judgment (Marcus et al., 2000; Brader, 2006). They shape what people attend to, how they interpret events, and whom they trust. Hall and Ross (2015) emphasize that emotions like shame and pride are embedded in national identity narratives, while Ahmed (2004) explores how affect circulates in public spheres to generate collective orientations.
Political Discourse and Power
Discourse theorists such as Laclau and Mouffe (2001) argue that political identities and realities are constructed through hegemonic articulations. Fairclough (2013) adds a critical linguistic dimension. Indian political thought has similarly analyzed emotional appeals in nationalist discourse (Mehta, 1997; Varshney, 2002). Building on these, this paper argues that emotionally coded narratives—those invoking collective pride, threat, or grievance—work to suture political coalitions and render certain power arrangements affectively appealing.
4. Methodology
This paper adopts a qualitative, comparative discourse analytic approach. It focuses on select high-impact political texts that illustrate emblematic uses of affect.
Case Selection
Two cases are analyzed:
- India (2014–2021): Speeches and public discourse by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
- United States (2016–2020): Speeches, debates, and campaign materials from Donald Trump.
These were chosen for their differing institutional settings and their similar deployment of affective communication.
Text Selection and Analysis
Approximately 15 speeches or public addresses per case were selected based on their relevance to emotionally charged events (e.g., elections, national crises). Close reading was used to identify narrative structures and affective tropes.
Affective Tropes
- Fear: Construction of existential threats or internal enemies
- Pride: Celebration of national or civilizational achievements
- Resentment: Invocation of historical injustices or elite betrayal
These were treated not as discrete categories but as narrative logics—discursive scripts that organize affective meaning.
5. Findings and Comparative Case Studies
India: Civilizational Renewal and Affective Citizenship
Narendra Modi frequently invokes themes of civilizational pride, spiritual heritage, and moral rejuvenation. His discourse frames dharma (righteous duty) as a civic obligation grounded in nationalist ethics (Bhargava, 2010).
Example: In his 2019 post-Balakot speech, Modi declared, "This New India strikes terror in the hearts of its enemies." This narrative of humiliation–revenge–redemption activates collective memory and moral vindication.
Interpretation:
- Fear: Framed through cross-border terrorism and internal subversion
- Pride: Positioned India as a global power reclaiming its ancient legacy
- Moral Indignation: Discrediting dissent as betrayal of the national cause
These appeals, while emotionally effective, have also been criticized for amplifying ethno-religious polarization and narrowing pluralistic discourse (Varshney, 2002).
United States: Affective Polarization and Lost Greatness
Donald Trump's rhetorical style relied heavily on dramatized crisis and nostalgic restoration. His 2016 campaign constructed America as a nation in decay—besieged by immigration, economic decline, and elite corruption.
Example: In his Republican National Convention speech, Trump decried "American carnage" and promised to "make America great again."
Interpretation:
- Fear: Imagined invasion by immigrants and foreign threats
- Nostalgia: Romanticization of an idealized past
- Resentment: Targeted elites, globalists, and liberal institutions as moral enemies
Polling and voter data (Pew Research Center, 2017) suggest that these emotionally charged appeals deepened polarization but did not consolidate authoritarian control—highlighting institutional resistance and the limits of affective governance.
6. Discussion
Mechanisms of Affective Control
- Emotive Legitimacy: Leaders cultivate loyalty through affective identification rather than ideological coherence or procedural accountability (Marcus et al., 2000).
- Emotional Polarization: Political discourse transforms disagreement into moral antagonism, dividing the public into emotionally charged camps (Hall & Ross, 2015).
- Symbolic Amplification: Crisis events and ceremonial displays are used to stage political authority and dramatize loyalty.
Contradictions and Counterexamples
Despite its mobilizing force, affective discourse does not always yield durable legitimacy. In India, popular resistance (e.g., the farmers' protests) and judicial interventions introduced friction into emotionally charged narratives. In the U.S., emotional appeals often backfired, producing mockery, satire, and pushback through oppositional affect (Ahmed, 2004).
Cultural Specificity and Caution
Although affective strategies share structural patterns, their meaning is context-dependent. Modi's invocation of dharma draws on civilizational memory specific to South Asia. Trump's evocation of "American greatness" invokes frontier myths and white nostalgia (Fairclough, 2013). Affective authoritarianism should thus be viewed as a variable, culturally mediated practice, not a universal model.
7. Limitations and Scope Conditions
- Illustrative Design: The study is exploratory and not generalizable. The discourse samples reflect high-profile rhetoric rather than broad ideological ecosystems.
- Selection Bias: The focus on Modi and Trump overlooks regional leaders and vernacular affective expressions.
- Neglect of Counter-Affect: This study does not explore humor, satire, or irony as emotional forms of resistance.
- Insufficient Local Engagement: The analysis would benefit from deeper incorporation of Indian and U.S.-based political sociology and media studies.
- No Causal Claims: The study avoids making direct causal inferences about emotional rhetoric leading to authoritarian outcomes.
Future research should pursue mixed-methods designs, include vernacular media sources, and explore audience reception to affective appeals.
8. Conclusion and Future Research
This paper identifies affective discourse as a central yet under-theorized mechanism of political legitimation in democratic and hybrid regimes. Emotional appeals—especially fear, pride, and resentment—are not mere rhetorical flourishes but symbolic tools that perform political work: shaping identities, constructing legitimacy, and marginalizing opposition.
Contributions
- Offers a conceptual framework for analyzing emotional governance across regimes
- Advances the study of authoritarian legitimation by foregrounding affect
- Demonstrates that affective discourse operates through performance, not just content
Policy Implications
- Democratic Resilience through Affective Counter-Narratives: Civil society and independent media must develop emotionally resonant stories of solidarity, care, and pluralism to counter exclusionary rhetoric.
- Curricular Interventions: Civic education must include emotional literacy to help citizens recognize and critically assess manipulative affective appeals.
- Digital Platform Regulation: Given the algorithmic amplification of emotional content, platforms should adopt transparent emotional risk assessments and moderation policies.
- Participatory Institutions: Empowering local deliberative forums can serve as affective buffers, channeling grievance into constructive engagement.
- Support for Artistic Expression: Art, film, and satire can operate as forms of counter-affect—crucial for diversifying emotional discourse in polarized environments.
Future Research Directions
- Explore how affect circulates in digital ecologies (e.g., memes, livestreams)
- Study emotional resistance and subversive affect (e.g., satire, irony, parody)
- Investigate affective legacies in transitional justice, post-authoritarian contexts
- Examine how institutional contexts mediate affective uptake (e.g., parliamentary vs. presidential systems)
Affective authoritarianism is not simply a symptom of democratic decline—it is a modality of governance that demands scholarly and civic scrutiny.
References
- Ahmed, S. (2004). The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Routledge.
- Bhargava, R. (2010). Political secularism: Why it is needed and what can be learnt from its Indian version. Open Democracy.
- Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work. University of Chicago Press.
- Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Routledge.
- Hall, T., & Ross, A. (2015). Affective politics after 9/11. International Organization, 69(4), 847–879.
- Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Verso.
- Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.
- Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. University of Chicago Press.
- Mehta, P. B. (1997). The burden of democracy. Seminar, (464).
- Petersen, R. D. (2002). Understanding Ethnic Violence: Fear, Hatred, and Resentment in Twentieth-Century Eastern Europe. Cambridge University Press.
- Scheppele, K. L. (2018). Autocratic legalism. University of Chicago Law Review, 85(2), 545–583.
- Varshney, A. (2002). Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India. Yale University Press.
Appendix: Coding Illustrations
| Affective Trope | Example Quote | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Fear | "Enemies of the nation are within" (Modi) | Constructing threat through inner betrayal |
| Pride | "We are the oldest civilization" (Modi) | Civilizational legitimacy |
| Nostalgia | "Make America Great Again" (Trump) | Temporal loss and promised recovery |