A Clash of Emotions: The Politics of Humiliation and Political Violence in the Middle East

Abstract

After the attacks of 9/11 Americans asked, `Why do they hate us so much?' The answer has been framed in terms of a range of `clashes', none of which has addressed emotion, which is at the centre of the question. Emotion, and particularly humiliation, has begun to be addressed within the literature of IR. Numerous scholars have highlighted the pervasiveness of a discourse of humiliation in the Middle East and its relationship to the swelling ranks of recruits who are willing to act as human bombs. The purpose of this article is to examine the emotional dynamics of this relationship. The first section undertakes a conceptual analysis of humiliation and betrayal. The second section explores how these emotions have been given coherent meaning in the narrative of Islamists from the region. This is followed by an historical analysis of how this narrative has provided a framework for giving meaning to a range of national, regional and international interactions, particularly since 1967, and has contributed to the emergence of Islam as the basis for transnational identity in what had become a highly secular region. Section three examines flaws in the logic of both militant Islamists and the US-led `War on Terrorism', arguing that both have exacerbated feelings of humiliation in the region rather than contributing to a restoration of dignity. The conclusion builds on the principle of human dignity to rethink the international approach to political violence.

Muslims’ emotions toward Americans predict support for Hezbollah and Al Qaeda for threat-specific reasons

“…As such, the sense that another group poses a material resource threat is likely to make one feel that one's group esteem has been lowered and one's group has been demeaned, posing a threat to the symbolic resource of group pride. As Muslim-dominated Arab nations on average are substantially less wealthy than the U.S. (Fund for Peace 2011), and there is a recent history of Christian nations becoming predominant over Muslims or occupying Muslim lands, many Muslim Arabs feel they are being exploited and controlled by American desires for domination, which they find demeaning and humiliating (e.g., Fattah and Fierke 2009;Kohut 2005;Little 2002; see also Berger 2014). Given the thrust of Hezbollah's resistance agenda (e.g., resistance to American domination), we expect perceptions that Americans threaten to dominate Arabs' material (e.g., economic) and symbolic resources (e.g., group esteem) to be more strongly associated with support for Hezbollah than Al Qaeda among our participants (see also Sidanius et al 2015).…”

Dealing with Al Qaeda

“…An emotion may be felt by an individual, but it can also be elevated to a social phenomenon. 4 Obliviousness to history, misreading perceptions, inability to counter misinterpretations, and being dismissive of social emotions constitute a peculiar mix for conducting public diplomacy that is certainly inadequate for countering feelings of Western imposed humiliation and betrayal.…”

Why moral commitments matter: mapping the ethics and politics of responsible and accountable global governance

“…The growing literature on the transformative role of emotive values in IR claims that a wide range of emotions matter in our critical appraisal of the moral and ethical conduct of actors (Fattah and Fierke 2009;Saurette 2006;Mercer 2005;Crawford 2000). These studies, however, are generally concerned with investigating the disruptive effects of humiliation and fear regarding terrorism.…”