Beyond rationality: what happens when emotion drives geopolitics?

Long viewed with sus­pi­cion and con­sidered incom­pat­ible with sci­entif­ic rigour, emo­tions have been side­lined when it comes to geo­pol­it­ic­al ana­lys­is. Yet their role in shap­ing the beha­viour of states con­tin­ues to grow, as we have seen with recent inter­na­tion­al events since the early 2020s. Without fall­ing into the trap of “emo­tion­al imper­i­al­ism”, the research of geo­pol­it­ic­al schol­ar Domi­n­ique Moïsi has demon­strated over the past two dec­ades the need to con­sider the affect­ive and emo­tion­al dimen­sions in our under­stand­ing of the con­tem­por­ary world.

Domi­n­ique Moïsi. The start­ing point for my research into the role of emo­tions lies in my work on the Israeli-Palestini­an con­flict. Hav­ing taken part in numer­ous dia­logues since the mid-1980s, on both the Israeli side in Tel Aviv and the Palestini­an side in Jer­u­s­alem, one con­clu­sion became clear. The ter­rit­ori­al and secur­ity dimen­sions were not enough to explain such a long-run­ning con­flict. As such, it was clear that a sub­ject­ive and emo­tion­al ele­ment was cloud­ing the dialogue.

This can be seen in the form of a superi­or­ity com­plex, and a cul­ture of resent­ment linked to the Holo­caust on the Israeli side. Con­versely, on the Palestini­an side, an inferi­or­ity com­plex and a cul­ture of humi­li­ation pre­vail. Identi­fy­ing these col­lect­ive emo­tions proved essen­tial to under­stand­ing the full range of ten­sions and issues at stake. It soon became appar­ent that this frame­work exten­ded bey­ond the scope of the Israeli-Palestini­an con­flict alone.

In 2008, three dom­in­ant emo­tions across the world reflec­ted three dis­tinct rela­tion­ships with the key concept of trust. In Asia, driv­en by eco­nom­ic growth and China’s integ­ra­tion into glob­al trade, the hope for a bet­ter future was the primary expres­sion of this trust. Con­versely, in the West a neg­at­ive emo­tion dom­in­ated: fear. Con­fid­ence in the future was erod­ing in the wake of an unpre­ced­en­ted fin­an­cial crisis, with the real­isa­tion that the dif­fi­culties would be even great­er the day after. Finally, in the Arab-Muslim world, a sense of humi­li­ation had des­troyed con­fid­ence in the future. This region was char­ac­ter­ised by a glor­i­ous, even glor­i­fied, past, which had giv­en way to a pain­ful present and a future per­ceived as non-existent.

Nearly two dec­ades later, this thes­is appears to have been borne out. Asia’s pos­i­tion has strengthened, the West is no longer the cent­ral play­er it once was, and humi­li­ation remains a key lens through which to under­stand the Arab-Muslim world.

Emo­tions are indeed inher­ent to human beings, but some reveal the best in human­ity, whilst oth­ers por­tend the worst. Since 2022, neg­at­ive emo­tions seem to have taken pre­ced­ence over pos­it­ive ones. Three key dates help to explain this shift. 

On 24^th Feb­ru­ary 2022 the war in Ukraine, now in its fifth year, demon­strated Russia’s inab­il­ity to pre­vail; on 7^th Octo­ber 2023 the war in Gaza began, which con­tin­ues to reshape the geo­pol­it­ic­al bal­ance in the Middle East; and 5^th Novem­ber 2024, mark­ing Don­ald Trump’s return to office in the United States. A return that sig­nals the shift from a coun­try uphold­ing a prin­ciple of order to a cul­ture of dis­order. In each of these situ­ations, neg­at­ive emo­tions have played a major role and must be incor­por­ated into ana­lyt­ic­al frame­works in order to under­stand the chaos that lies ahead.

Don­ald Trump was pro­pelled into the White House by a cul­ture of fear. Fear of immig­rants, fear of “the oth­er” in gen­er­al, fear of decline… The US Pres­id­ent is not merely con­tra­dict­ory or inco­her­ent in his choices – he is irra­tion­al, impos­ing a tar­iff war on his allies that has largely back­fired on him. As for Vladi­mir Putin, his decisions are driv­en by a desire for revenge against the West, but also by the fear of see­ing a demo­crat­ic coun­try on his bor­ders that is ori­ented towards Europe and its values.

Arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence has changed some of the rules of the game on the inter­na­tion­al stage. This tech­no­logy is trans­form­ing the art of war and nar­row­ing the gap between “the weak” and “the strong”. For example, the Rus­si­an army has still not achieved the vic­tory it had hoped for against Ukrain­i­an forces. More recently, Iran has man­aged to put the US admin­is­tra­tion in a dif­fi­cult pos­i­tion by main­tain­ing the block­ade of the Strait of Hormuz. 

Fur­ther­more, in an increas­ingly polar­ised world, social media plays an infin­itely more sig­ni­fic­ant role, amp­li­fied by arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence. Its use, com­bined with tech­no­lo­gic­al devel­op­ments, has greatly strengthened the influ­ence of emo­tions on pub­lic debate. The more divided a soci­ety is, the more tech­no­lo­gic­al tools fuel these emo­tions, which become more intense and dif­fi­cult to control.

Emo­tion is a power­ful term, but pas­sion is even more so. The main dif­fer­ence lies in their dur­a­tion. Emo­tion is meant to be fleet­ing, where­as pas­sion is long-last­ing. The lat­ter is more dan­ger­ous, and when activ­ated sys­tem­at­ic­ally, it dis­tances us col­lect­ively from reason. 

This phe­nomen­on can be observed in sev­er­al con­texts. For example, faced with China’s rise to power, the United States would need its allies. Yet the White House has often opted for the oppos­ite approach, humi­li­at­ing them on sev­er­al occa­sions. Again, regard­ing Beijing, Moscow would need the West’s sup­port, as the long-term stra­tegic threat lies to the East. By choos­ing the oppos­ite course, the risk of becom­ing a vas­sal state of China increases. Finally, Israel, which has nev­er needed allies more, has isol­ated itself dip­lo­mat­ic­ally whilst des­troy­ing its soft power since 2023. In decision-mak­ing, pas­sion has tri­umphed over all oth­er stra­tegic considerations.

Recent examples, in Hun­gary or Mol­dova, remind us that we have a duty to hope. Under no cir­cum­stances must we resign ourselves to the rise of pop­u­lism, which sys­tem­at­ic­ally stirs up neg­at­ive emo­tions among cit­izens. Immanuel Kant called for mor­al clar­ity; I would add eth­ic­al com­mon sense to that. Mor­al clar­ity and eth­ic­al com­mon sense are thus essen­tial responses to the rise of neg­at­ive passions.

Interview by Alicia Piveteau