Tears, Twitter, Toxicity: Emotions in Politics

07/12/2024

Tenley Fuentes Lema (she/her) discusses the role that emotions do, and should play within UK politics

Article Image

Image by Harry Shum

By Tenley Fuentes Lema

Barack Obama, Theresa May, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Matt Hancock are all political figures who have - or at least tried to - cry in public.

Some tears, like Obama’s in response to the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre where twenty six people were murdered in an elementary school, are accepted as signs of compassion. Others however, as Matt Hancock will remember, are rejected outright by the public and the opposition as crocodile tears: ‘fake’ and ‘desperate’.

Displays of emotion, or their intentional absence, are undoubtedly used as a political tool to influence the public, and we must question the role that they play. In fact, these displays of emotion within politics are often used to their advantage, or their unintentional disadvantage. A well-timed tear when it is clear a politician is genuinely moved may be an unintended moment of political brilliance.

Some politicians, particularly in the last couple of months have recognised the power of emotions and have utilised these emotions to further their causes. Nigel Farage and the Southport attacks exemplify this chain of reasoning.

The devastation that the Southport community felt as three young girls were murdered would have typically led to a strengthening of the community and calls to bring justice for the girls.

Instead, rumours began to spread. The attacker was incorrectly named as “Ali al-Shakati”, and research by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue found that “by 3pm the day after the attack, the false name had received over 30,000 mentions on X alone from over 18,000 unique accounts.”

The centre of this attack quickly turned into a discussion around immigration - one of many divisive topics. These topics cause many of us to have an initial emotional response to them and this knee-jerk reaction from far right supporters encouraged the spread of misinformation.

Anger around the situation leads to a far easier acceptance of misinformation. Combined with an algorithm showing users the content they interact with the most, and a bias towards extreme content, there is an overall push in right wing content and echo-chambers.

Yet, despite these factors, polling by Savanta has shown that over 51 percent of those surveyed blamed Nigel Farage for these events. This is because politicians play a critical role in the direction of the public's anger; which is why it is so crucial we are aware of emotions within politics. We must be wary of ensuring they are not the sole driving force behind engagement so that effective conversations are still held.

Although this example of emotions in politics highlights the negative aspect, it is still incredibly important that we embrace emotions in politics. They are, after all, intrinsically linked. It seems entirely reasonable that factors that impact someone’s life, and are then debated and dissected, can lead to intense emotion and this is not bad. Passion fuels many activists and politicians and can lead to impactful and positive change that goes beyond performative activism.

Our understanding of emotions and comfortability in discussing them, particularly in topics like mental health, has progressed. A public perception survey by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy found that 79 percent of men agree it is more socially acceptable to discuss mental health in 2022 compared to 2017.

This overall trend however, has had its hitches such as the popularisation of Andrew Tate which contributed to a resurgence in toxic masculinity.  For the most part, Andrew Tate’s supporters and those who agree with ‘the sorts of things he says’ are in the minority, according to a 2023 YouGov poll. Toxic masculinity directly impacts discussions of emotions especially in relation to mental health for men, but also views on women and their emotions.

Despite Tate’s popularity, Parliament seems to be more open to discussions around mental health. Elliot Colburn, the ex-MP for Carshalton and Wallington, opened up earlier this year about his attempt to take his own life and received support from all sides of the chamber. For politicians, discussing their emotions and vulnerabilities is a bold act. A stumble in their words could quite quickly be turned into a weakness which can be used against them at any given moment.

The high standard becomes even more obfuscated if you are a woman. Women MPs, particularly from ethnic minority backgrounds, experience vile hate regardless of their actions, in a way men MPs do not. For example, research by Amnesty in 2017 found that white women MPs receive, on average, 92 abuse tweets per MP across the research period. Ethnic minority women MPs receive a higher percentage of abuse, with Dianne Abbot receiving the highest amount of abuse. These women experience this hate regardless of their political alignment and they are treated differently by some of the public in relation to their emotions held to an unattainable standard.

Emotions are involved in every aspect of political life. The public’s emotions may be manipulated by politicians who know all too well how overwhelming emotions can be a barrier to constructive political communication. Alongside this aspect, is the emotions of our MPs, which are perceived by the public. These have, and hopefully continue to be, discussed and make politics a space where emotions are discussed. However, we must be aware and actively focus on ensuring emotions are not used as a weapon and tackle the abuse women MPs face.