When geopolitics is dominated by emotions – Polytechnique Insights

Long perceived with distrust and considered foreign to any scientific rigor, emotions have remained on the fringes of geopolitical analyses. However, their structuring role in the behavior of States continues to grow, as evidenced by international news since the beginning of the 2020s. Without falling into the pitfall of “Imperialism of emotions”, the research of geopoeticologist DomiÂnique MoïÂsi has demonstrated for two decades the need to consider the dimensions affective and emotional as keys to reading the contemporary world.

If emotions have gradually imposed themselves as an object of analysis in your work, what was the starting point?

DomiÂnique MoïÂsi. The starting point of my research to understand the role of emotions is found in my work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By taking part in numerous dialogues since the mid-1980s, on the Israeli side in Tel Aviv and on the Palestinian side in Jerusalem, a conclusion was necessary. The territorial and security dimensions were not enough to explain such a long conflict. A subjective and emotional element blurred the dialogue.

Indeed, a superiority complex and a culture of resentment linked to the Shoah shine through on the Israeli side. Conversely, on the Palestinian side, a complex of inferiority and a culture of humiliation dominated. Identifying these collective emotions proved essential for understanding all the tensions and issues. It quickly became apparent that this reading framework went beyond the sole framework of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Since the end of the 2000s, you have attributed dominant emotions, such as hope, fear, humiliation, to regions of the world. What does this emotional mapping reveal?

In 2008, three dominant emotions in the world reflected three distinct relationships to the key concept of trust. In Asia, driven by economic progress and the integration of China into global trade, the hope of a better future constituted the main expression of this confidence. Conversely, in the West, a negative emotion, that of fear, dominated. Confidence in the future was eroding in the aftermath of an unprecedented financial crisis, with the awareness that the difficulties will be greater the day after. Finally, in the Arab-Muslim world, the feeling of humiliation had destroyed confidence in the future. This whole was characterized by a glorious, even magnified, past, having given way to a painful present and a horizon perceived as non-existent. Nearly two decades later, the thesis seems to be verified. The place of Asia has strengthened, the West is no longer the central actor it was, while humiliation remains an essential key to reading the Arab-Muslim world.

Although emotions are inherent in human nature, does the 2020 decade mark their triumph in the history of international relations?

Emotions are indeed inherent to the human species, but some reveal the best in Man, while others augur the worst. Since 2022, negative emotions seem to have taken over positive emotions.

Three key dates help us understand this evolution. On February 24, 2022, the war in Ukraine, now in its fifth year and which demonstrated Russia’s inability to prevail; October 7, 2023 and the Gaza war which continues to transform the geopolitical balances in the Middle East; on November 5, 2024 which marks the return of Donald Trump to the head of the United States. A return which marks the transition from a country carrying a principle of order to a logic of disorder. In each of these situations, negative emotions played a major role and must be integrated into the analysis grids in order to understand the chaos that is coming.

Donald Trump was carried to the White House by a culture of fear. Fear of the immigrant, fear of the other in general, fear of decline… The American President is not only contradictory in his choices, even incoherent, he is irrational. Imposing war on customs tariffs on his allies largely backfired. As for VlaÂdiÂmir PouÂtine, his decisions are fueled by a desire for revenge on the West, but also by the fear of seeing on its borders a democratic country turned towards Europe and its values.

Have new technologies favored governance based on emotions to the detriment of rationality?

Artificial intelligence has modified certain rules of the game on the international scene. This technology transforms the art of war and reduces the gap between “the weak” and “the strong”. The Russian army has still not obtained the victory it hoped for against the Ukrainian forces. More recently, Iran managed to put the American administration in difficulty by maintaining the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Furthermore, in an ever more polarized world, social networks play an infinitely more important role, amplified by artificial intelligence. Their use, combined with technological developments, has greatly strengthened the influence of emotions on public debates. The more divided a society is, the more technological tools fuel these emotions, which become more intense and difficult to control.

From emotion to passion, have we taken the plunge?

Emotion is a strong term, but passion is even stronger. The biggest difference is in their timing. Emotion is intended to be brief while passion is long-term. More perilous, the latter, when activated in a systematic way, distances us collectively from the reason.

This phenomenon is observed in several theaters. For example, faced with the rise in power of China, the United States would need its allies. However, the White House has often opted for the opposite attitude by humiliating them on various occasions. Still facing Beijing, Moscow would need support from the West, the long-term strategic threat being located in the East. By choosing the opposite, the risk of being vassalized by China increases. Finally, Israel, which has never needed allies so much, has isolated itself diplomatically while destroying its soft power since 2023. In decision-making, passion has triumphed over all other strategic consideration.

In this context, will governing according to rational principles remain possible in the future?

Recent examples, in Hungary or Moldova, remind us that we have a duty to hope. In no case should we resign ourselves to the rise of populism, which systematically mobilizes the negative emotions of citizens. Emmanuel Kant called for moral clarity, I would add ethical common sense. Moral clarity and good ethical sense thus constitute essential responses to the rise of negative passions.

Comments collected by Alicia Piveteau