Making Human Rights Emotional: A Research Agenda to Recover Shame in “Naming and Shaming”

Abstract

Shame is an emotion that is the cornerstone of International Relations (IR) human rights scholarship but remains undertheorized from an explicitly emotional perspective. Given the dubious and unsettled efficacy of human rights "naming and shaming" campaigns, in this article, we outline the theoretical and methodological contours of a research agenda designed (1) to uncover the emotional content of naming and shaming and (2) to pay greater attention to how nonstate actors, especially human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), evoke and experience shame, thus engaging in "emotional diplomacy." Drawing on theories of emotions in IR and political psychology, we present a thicker account of shame by highlighting the individual and social origins of shame, discussing different varieties of shame, and by distinguishing between emotions that are often conflated with shame. We end with a discussion of the methodological tools suitable for pursuing this agenda, using examples of prominent human rights NGOs.

Methodological Challenges in the Study of Emotions in Politics and How to Deal With Them

“…4, 5; Mercer, ) allowing for the study of political emotions both as involuntary and as a potential resource for strategic political activity. The study of emotions in security politics and diplomacy thus concerns the political role of a range of emotional expressions such as feelings of national belonging (Ariely, ), trust/distrust between rival sides in political negotiations and conflicts (Bilgic, Hoogensen Gjørv, & Wilcock, ; Keys & Yorke, ), morality, traumas, and enthusiasm associated with acts of war and torture (Adisonmez, ; Eberle & Daniel, ; Edney‐Browne, ; Hall & Ross, ; Houck, McFarland, Machia, & Conway, ), friendships (van Hoef & O'Connor, ), empathy (Baker, ), and shame (Ilgit & Prakash, ).…”

“…The research methodology is thus one emphasizing emotions among political and societal groupings and how collective constructions by means of “othering” of certain societal groups (immigrants) creates ingroup trust, but ultimately insecurity, towards the distrusted outgroup, which in turn is stigmatized in the process. Adisonmez (), Hall and Ross (), Houck et al (), and Ilgit and Prakash () all occupy the middle ground on the continuum more evenly balancing emotional agency and structure. Ilgit and Prakash (), for instance, employs a methodology allowing for the study of both the agency of NGOs in human rights “shaming” (typically directed towards states) and the extent to which the shame evoked externally is internally embedded in NGOs' organizational culture.…”

“…Adisonmez (), Hall and Ross (), Houck et al (), and Ilgit and Prakash () all occupy the middle ground on the continuum more evenly balancing emotional agency and structure. Ilgit and Prakash (), for instance, employs a methodology allowing for the study of both the agency of NGOs in human rights “shaming” (typically directed towards states) and the extent to which the shame evoked externally is internally embedded in NGOs' organizational culture. In that sense the research methodology is one directed at the study of the interrelationship between emotional agency (e.g., imagined national agency, diplomacy, political elites) and emotions as embedded in organizational cultures and popular and elite discourse.…”

“…The research represented in this issue is all located between the two ideal typical end positions on the continuum. A number of contributions (Ariely, ; Eberle & Daniel, ; Edney‐Browne, ; Hall & Ross, ; Ilgit & Prakash, ; Keys & Yorke, ) are illustrative of research positioned towards the “emotion” end of the continuum. Eberle and Daniel (), for instance, elevates “nonrepresentational affects” associated with the body to an elaborate discursive methodology emphasizing how affects in Czech narratives on “Russian hybrid warfare” are expressed in discursive “sticking points” (valued signifiers, fantasies, and biographical narratives) and impact Czech security politics.…”

Studying Emotions in Security and Diplomacy: Where We Are Now and Challenges Ahead

“…The contributors of this special issue have dealt with emotions in at least one of the three ways in which we conceptualized emotions namely, as (1) frames that shape interpersonal diplomatic relations (Baker, ; van Hoef & O'Connor, ; Keys & Yorke, ), (2) as key tools that are used as part of the statecraft's toolbox (Bilgic et al, ; Eberle & Daniel, ; Hall & Ross, ; Houck et al, ; Ilgit & Prakash, ), and (3) as formative/productive dynamics with real effects on human beings (Adisonmez, ; Ariely, ; Edney‐Browne, ; Hall & Ross, )—that, in turn, often construct and maintain conflicts.…”