Affect and Public – difference between theories

Theories of affect and public differ significantly as their foundations are rooted in different philosophical frameworks. Affect theory focuses on the role of emotions, highlighting how feelings shape individual behavior and their contribution in the society. In contrast, the Public Sphere theory, particularly as developed by Habermas, emphasize on rational and critical discourse. While affect in media accentuates the role of emotions, social learning, culture, history, and politics in the conduct of human bodies and their interaction within, and among each other, public sphere places the society in a bubble of rationality. According to Habermas, the public sphere is, “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed. Access is guaranteed to all citizens” (Habermas.1989.p136). It came into being with the creation and rise of a new bourgeoisie class, and establishment of public spaces, in this case the coffeehouses, which provided for an alternative space for discussions and started a process of rational and critical debates for participants, the public. Emerging in the eighteen centuries, from the need to separate personal and the political/public realms, partly in response to religious orthodoxy, the public sphere acted as a platform critical debate and diverse ideas. As a result, the public sphere became a platform for diverse perspectives and intellectual debates, laying the groundwork for modern democratic societies. Habermas’s conceptualization of the public sphere, which stands apart, is debated in the essay parallel to ideas of affect theory as conceived by Lauren Berlant, Brian Massumi, and Sara Ahmed. I argue that both, affect and public, are intertwined in terms of the digital society in which we exist today and cannot be studied independently, a further scope for assimilation is suggested taking ideas from Fraser and Papacharissi, supported by examples found in the contemporary world.

Berlant’s seminal work, Cruel Optimism, commenting on affective attachment, notes that “political emotions are responses to prospects for change: fidelity to those responses is optimistic, even if the affects are dark.” (Berlant.2012.p121). These emotions, tied to hopes for change are the ‘affective investments’ that not only shapes our independent behavior but also impacts the collection action within a public sphere. For Berlant, our ‘binding to the political’ comes ‘neither by policy nor ideology but the affect of feeling political together.” The statement finds evidence in multiple collective actions such digital activism, campaigns, and protests, stressing on the importance of the affect theory.

A deeper understanding into their divergence as well as a room for reconciliation of affect and the theory of the public can be found in two major critiques of the public sphere. One, the exclusion of multiple voices and identities; second, the assumption that deliberative democracy exists in harmony with the rational public sphere. The conversations centered in a coffeehouse raise a question on who had access to those elite spaces, and who held the power in those conversations. Narratives throughout the past tells us that it was the privileged upper-class men who were the speaker as well as the audience, making the public sphere a biased and limited space, not guaranteeing access to all, as imagined by Habermas. Fraser proposes the idea of ‘counter public spaces’ which emerged due to the impediments of the public sphere, these are the,“parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counter discourses, which in turn permit them to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs.” (Fraser.1997.p. 81). Feminist and the Subaltern counter public sphere are two segments formed by the isolated voices of the public sphere. These counter-publics are not simply a site of resistance but are promoters of democracy. They allow communities to form their discourse, and also adds to the convergence of emotion and reason, as these discourses often stem from affect. For instance, a social movement for reproductive rights involves the emotion of agency over own body and calls for a rational justice, which is to have the power to make that choice.

The counter public spaces, for the marginalized, emerge as a collective response to the exclusion they face in the mainstream public sphere. Papacharissi notes that, “for marginalized cultures, affective statements are part of performing identities that otherwise become further repressed.” (Papacharissi.2014). The affective statements here are a direct part of identities, hinting towards a relationship between affect and identity. Protests, social movements on ground and through social media are the result of ‘affective attunement’ within communities, who are disappointed or share a disagreement with the debates of the public sphere. Digital and social media networks, through affect, enable counterpublics and movements to influence public discourse today, reinforcing that two are not distinct, but rather interconnected. One of the most recent examples of social media leading discourse in the public sphere is its engagement and documentation of the war in Gaza. The representation and awareness through the social media campaigns like the ‘#FreePalestine‘ hashtag, and the boycott movement, led to an affective solidarity within the public through the personal narratives of victims of the conflict who were otherwise denied a voice. A sentiment analysis shows of social media presents us with a digital manifestation of a public sphere, with contesting opinions and debates in the form of comments and Instagram stories. (Chalise.2024).

Commonly accepted notion that the public sphere is made up of individuals who, through rational discourse, form a collective will, undermines the singularity and distinctiveness of each individual. Habermas, though derived from the idea of Kant, is more drawn to the speech and interaction of individuals in debates, not the thoughts within. Deliberative democracy also in its invention demands that political discussions should be based on rational and fair debates among citizens aiming for the collective good, assuming all citizens to be equipped with logical reasoning. However, Stuart Hall provides us with a more nuanced argument that deliberation inherently involves passion, so political ideas cannot be purely detached from emotions. The alliance should be recognized as it is to breakdown the dichotomy between reason and passion, as their split is what fosters systematic inequalities and exclusion in the first place. (Hall.2007). In Hall’s perception allows us to rethink the structural errors in the dialogue around democracy and deliberation.

Aristotle in his book Rhetoric, mentions that politicians appeal to us through reason, feeling, and our conception of ourselves. His comment highlights an existing relationship between affect and politics, suggesting that the conflict between affect and the public sphere has not remained static since their inception. Sara Ahmed in ‘The cultural politics of emotions’, critiques the historical ignorance of emotions, “the Darwinian model of emotions suggests that emotions are not only ‘beneath’ but ‘behind’ the man/human, as a sign of an earlier and more primitive time.”(Ahmed.2014.p3). However, Papacharissi argues that emotions were not neglected throughout history; rather, efforts have been made for a holistic understanding. Summarizing the argument she asserts, “Plato emphasizing that reason should rule the psyche, Aristotle understanding humans as rational animals, and the Stoics later proposing more stark forms of self-control so as to overcome destructive emotions. It would appear that the Ancient Greeks highlight the distance between emotion and reason, but a careful reader of their work will also observe that they are keen on not dismissing emotion in favor of reason, but rather in finding ways to interpret emotions by using reason toward the advancement of general well-being and happiness.” (Papacharissi.2014). The shift from emotions to rationality, for scholars, however, came with the need to break the monopoly of monarchies and churches which had a control over public through affective deliberation, “it became essential for scholars to prioritize reason and rationalization as means of intellectual empowerment and greater enlightenment.” (Papacharissi.2014). For Habermas the conception of a public sphere also emerged to break free from religious orthodoxy and pave way for an age of reasoning. The ongoing back-and-forth in understanding emotions and their role in affect, how they influence individuals and their participation in society suggests that a broader context that includes power, authority and politics. In the twenty first century, affective turn- shift in social sciences towards the mechanism of emotions, is leading the trend towards emotions and its recruitment in the politics, moving towards a unique concept of ‘passionate politics’.

Democracy inherently assumes the freedom of thought and hence believes in the process of dialogue and reasoning for the greater good. The world however shows conflicting examples. Massumi’s words, “affect holds a key to rethinking postmodern power after ideology”, echo in power and politics as witnessed today. (Massumi.1995.p22). Elections in supposedly the largest democracy of the world, India, in the past decade, have been driven by more emotional resonance rather than by rational deliberation. Gudavarthy notes in his book the changing discourse of Indian politics, mentioning the current Prime Minister of India, noting that, “The brand of Narendra Modi lies in its ability to connect to latent emotions and everyday ethics”. (Gudavarthy.2023.p9). The bedrock of last three consecutive elections in India for the right-wing part is the image of their leader, Narender Modi, which rests solely on his affective resonance to the people. Globally, as the world shifts towards the right, popular sentiments are the guiding force behind. Trump’s victory in the US elections stands as another critical example of the same. “In today’s world the Right is justifiably mobilising emotions and striking a chord with a majority, but that is necessarily illiberal in nature and producing ethics that are blatantly majoritarian.” (Gudavarthy.2023.p2). This makes it urgent to acknowledge the conversation around emotions and affect in the public sphere, and the possibility of their co-dependency.

Public sphere conceived in a logical environment, also fails to recognize the causes that leads debates and forces behind the social change. Primary emotions, Love and Anger, are ignored in conversation when these are the guiding forces exhibiting opinions. Love, as approached by Bell Hooks is a transformatory forces that can heal social divisions. Reading her book, “Communion- a Woman’s search for love”, a female reader is urged to claim self-love as a guiding force towards feminism. Hook’s idea to reclaim love as a chosen emotion, not as an obligation, by a woman, indicates the power and agency love as an emotion holds in the society. Solidarity, a power driving force towards social action can be understood stemming from compassion and love. Srinivasan highlights another emotion, anger, as a disavowed reaction in the society. Contending on the thought that victims of injustice should not be angry as doing so would be counterproductive, she believes that such claims construct a hidden form of justice and labels it as ‘affective injustice’. Victims of gendered discrimination, violence, racism, does not find a voice or an outlet in the public sphere, their anger is widely mischaracterized by many, “the misogynist dismisses a woman’s anger by calling her shrill or strident; the racist dismisses the black person’s anger by calling him a thug or an animal.” (Srinivasan.2017). Dismissal of these intense emotions that shapes the fabric of many movements, society or even nations, often tells an incomplete story. Social movements in the past few years, such as the ‘Me too’ movement have originated as an outlet of anger and injustice, and a call for justice in the public sphere, shaping the conversation for the future as well.

The exclusion of feelings is a problematic behavior in politics, but the capitalization on the same emotions also has to be acknowledged. Emotions when employed in the capitalist system, participate in the economy and hence also the public sphere. The feminist critique of the Public Sphere provides us insight into the dismissal of affect as a factor influencing the public, while at the same time, its selective employment in labor. Ahmed expands on the association of emptions with femininity ,”emotions are associated with women, who are represented as ‘closer’ to nature, ruled by appetite, and less able to transcend the body through thought, will and judgement.” (Ahmed.2014.p3). From the evidence put forward by her, the exclusion of women from the public sphere can be associated with the fact that women are labelled as emotional beings by the society, and hence are stripped away of the possibility of being rational, subjective, and intellectual. But when faced with an opportunity of capitalizing on emotional labour, the label of emotional beings’ metamorphoses into an obligation to work, “women are supposed to do work because they are natural nurturers and are eager to please; after all they’ve been doing uncompensated childcare, elder care, and housework since time immemorial.”(Tokumitsu.2014). This profitable strategy of equating working with the sense of love by the concept of ‘Love what you do, do what you love’, is driving the capitalist system, which largely structures the discourse of the public today. Massumi, referring to the non-specialist audience and their participation in the system, say stock market, stresses on, “the ability of affect to produce an economic effect more swiftly and surely than economics itself means that affect in itself is a real condition, an intrinsic variable of the late-capitalist system, infrastructural as a factory.” (Massumi.1995.p24). Trump launching a cryptocurrency after being elected as the President of US, and its soaring in value because of his popularity and ‘mood’ of the traders, provides an excellent example of how affect triggers the current economy. (Hayward.2025). Hence to assume that emotions are not already a stakeholder in the public sphere is to be oblivious to the encompassing existence.

Habermas, noticing a decline in the public sphere during the nineteenth century, reasons that “with the interweaving of the public and private realm, not only do the political authorities assume certain functions in the sphere of commodity exchange and social labour, but conversely social powers now assume political functions. This leads to a kind of “refeudalization” of the public sphere.”(Habermas.1974.p54). The blurring of boundaries between the public and the private results in an increased concentration of power in the hands of the state, undermining the agency of the public sphere. The growing influence of state in the lives of citizen is now more profound than ever with censorship, regulation laws, growing surveillance, and state intervention. India’s ban on 321 apps from China, including popular gaming app, ‘PubG’, and social media app ‘Tiktok’, echoes the state intervention in the personal choices of the public. (Reuters.2022). The Public Sphere, originally created to differentiate in the private and public realms also crumbles today in the face of laws crafted by the state that affects individuals in both realms. The state increasingly demands control and access over public through censored content production and consumption, internet and social media regulation. Australia’s ban on children under 16 from using social media is another alarming example highlighting the power of the state on its citizens. (Ritchie.2024). Laws, such as those governing abortion rights, maternity leave, and menstrual leave are often debated and constructed by the state drawing from the public discourse. This public discourse, which is majorly conformed of men, excludes the excludes the very people the laws directly impact, women. Hook’s argument that ‘personal is political, speaks the urgency to approach the intersection between personal experiences of individuals and the broader societal framework they exist in. This intersectionality cannot be comprehended without the focus on what constructs personal, hence the reduced gap between personal and politics make conversations centered around feelings, bodies, and their interaction, an important consideration.

Affect, as Papacharissi suggests, is not an instinct, rather is socially and culturally constructed through experiences in history. The historical and social context of affect makes its existence crucial in the public sphere. Though appearing as two different domains of study, both the theories in practicality are in fact connected. Affect, guided through feelings, emotions, and experience, and the public sphere resting upon by rationality and critical deliberation, promotes reaction in the other. Both notions can inform and enrich each other as their existence is not independent of the other. In the formation of a public sphere, a collective identity cannot be imagined without considering and reconciling the multiplicity of identities and differences among participants, the individuals. There is a compulsory requirement for an interaction of the two specially in a digital age. Speaking in favor of the convergence of affect and reason, Papacharissi talks about ‘affective attunement’ being powered by sentiment-driven modalities, which “do not favor emotion over reason”, but in fact, strives a balance between the two. “Affective attunement permits people to feel their way into politics.” (Papacharissi.2014). The statement and the concept of affective attunement allows us to visualize a harmony between the two ideas. Fraser’s framework of counter public spaces also illustrates on how emotion driven activism is a part of the broader democratic debate, suggesting further scope for inclusivity. Social media has proved to be an alternative space and a digital successor of the coffeehouses in terms of nurturing discussions and starting debates. The rising trends and cases of digital activism and emotional politics are testaments in themselves that affect and reason, in a way, already co-exist. There is, however, a need for further assimilation for theoretical clarity. The acknowledgement of affect in shaping public discourse, and the ability of that discourse to produce an affective response is the way forward in their reconciliation. The coming together of both ideas is not a combat to establish supremacy of one over the other, but a positive sum game, where one can enhance the credibility and applicability of the other. Emotional resonance along with rational deliberation, socially as well as politically, will foster a more inclusive and a meaningful public sphere. An inclusive and a resourceful public sphere is both a necessity and a demand for the collective growth of individuals and the society in which they live.