In the digital age, geographical distances no longer limit political and emotional interaction within societies. Thanks to social networks, international events, no matter how far apart, are now constantly present in the public sphere. Images, short videos, and stories circulating in the digital world are capable of triggering vast waves of emotions and solidarity in societies not directly involved in these conflicts.
However, this reactivity, while stemming from legitimate human impulses, raises an essential question: the relation between collective emotion and the logic of the state in conducting international relations.
Foreign policy, as highlighted by the realist theorist of international relations Hans Morgenthau, is not primarily based on moral impulses or emotional reactions, but on a central principle: national interest.
States operate in a complex international environment structured by power balances, alliances, as well as security and economic considerations. Therefore, decisions made in this domain generally align with long-term strategic calculations rather than immediate emotional reactions.
Societies, however, may not always perceive the world through this strategic prism. Individuals live within multiple belonging networks, known in recent studies as transnational identities. An individual may feel connected to religious, civilizational, or ideological spaces that transcend national borders. This diversity of affiliations explains why some international causes gain strong emotional resonance in public discourse.
In many cases, these causes evolve into what political sociologists term symbolic mobilization. International issues cease to be mere distant political events and become moral symbols through which individuals express their values or worldviews.
Social networks play a central role in this dynamic. These platforms operate according to what media studies call the attention economy, where emotionally charged content often spreads faster than nuanced analyses or in-depth discussions. Striking images and simplistic slogans have a greater propagation capacity than technical files related to public policies or economic issues.
This can lead to what some network science researchers describe as the illusion of majority: intense activity by a relatively small group of users may create the impression that a particular opinion dominates society, even though social reality is often much more diverse and nuanced.
Furthermore, the digital space contributes to a certain dissociation between the virtual and the real. On social networks, political positions are often constructed based on images, slogans, and immediate actions, while state action operates in a different realm, structured by institutions, the economy, and international alliances. When these two registers merge in collective perception, political positions may emerge in the digital space without fully reflecting the constraints and complexities the state faces in reality.
Philosopher and sociologist Jean Baudrillard described a dimension of this phenomenon through the notion of hyperreality, where mediated representations and symbolic images sometimes become more present and influential than actual reality. In these situations, individuals tend to react more to a simplified representation of conflict than to its political and strategic complexity.
From another perspective, contemporary research in strategic communication shows that collective emotions circulating in the digital space can sometimes become a field of influence and direction. Current conflicts unfold not only in military or diplomatic spheres but also in the informational and cognitive space. In these spaces, internal or external actors may seek to exploit emotional waves generated by certain causes to steer public discourse or amplify certain narratives through informational manipulations or influence strategies.
This does not imply that all forms of empathy towards international causes result from manipulation. Solidarity with the suffering of people stems from a fundamental human sentiment. However, these studies suggest that collective emotions can sometimes become one element among others in the influence struggles pervading the informational space.
Therefore, it becomes necessary to distinguish between legitimate moral empathy towards global causes and the transformation of these causes into decisive political positions within internal societal debates. International affairs cannot be approached the same way as immediate symbolic affiliations, as they involve complex relationships among states, economic, security, and strategic interests.
Politically mature societies are not those that ignore what happens beyond their borders, but those that know how to engage with the world through analysis and understanding. Empathy towards human causes must be accompanied by an ability to grasp the nature and complexity of international relations.
Hence, managing this phenomenon entails not restricting expression or devaluing human solidarity, but enhancing political culture and digital literacy within society. Understanding the mechanisms of information flow on social networks and discerning between emotion and analysis help preserve a healthy balance in public discourse.
In a world where information circulates rapidly and narratives multiply, the real challenge for contemporary societies lies in reconciling human sensitivity towards the world’s suffering with the strategic lucidity required to defend national interests. It is within this balance that a public debate can be constructed that is both open to the world and faithful to national landmarks.
