The idea that protesters' emotional involvement is related to the language they use has been widely accepted since the mid-20th century. By comparing the language used by these movements to similar but less successful ones, they discovered that the use of certain moral terms was correlated with greater solidarity among members of the movement and increased support from outside allies. Specifically, activists who invoked terms like "human rights" and "equality" were more likely to achieve their goals than those who focused on other types of language. The authors suggest that this is because these moral concepts are more universal and easier for people to relate to, leading to greater collective empathy and action. This finding has implications for how protest leaders can shape public perceptions and build coalitions across different groups.
One way that leaders can use morality to influence collective emotion and cohesion is through framing their cause as a struggle against an unjust system or institution.
Environmentalist activists often describe their fight as one against corporate greed or political corruption. This frames the issue as something larger than just climate change, making it more relatable to a broader audience and building a sense of shared purpose. Similarly, civil rights activists have historically used moral language to criticize systems of oppression and injustice. They frame issues like police brutality and racism as systemic problems that require systemic solutions, rather than individual failures. This helps mobilize people who may not otherwise be directly affected by these issues, as well as creating a sense of solidarity among those who are.
Another way that moral language can influence emotions is by emphasizing the importance of shared values. Leaders who invoke values like compassion, fairness, and justice are more likely to create a sense of community among their followers. These values transcend specific identities or interests, allowing members from diverse backgrounds to come together around a common goal. Moreover, when activists highlight the harms caused by systems of oppression, they create a shared understanding of why these changes are necessary. By emphasizing the human cost of injustice, they can generate sympathy and support from people outside their movement.
The study suggests that how protest leaders choose to frame their causes has a significant impact on public perception and response. It also raises questions about how we understand collective action and social cohesion. Do all movements need to use morality to succeed? Are some forms of activism inherently more effective than others? And what role does emotion play in motivating people to take action?
The study's findings suggest that the use of certain moral terms can help build coalitions and increase support for social change.
It also points to the complex interplay between language and identity. As the authors note, "moral discourse is not neutral; it carries with it powerful symbolic meanings." Leaders must carefully consider how they present their cause, avoiding rhetorical traps that could undermine their message.
This research provides insights into how language can shape public opinion and mobilize people towards social justice.
How does the moral language used by protest leaders influence collective emotion and social cohesion?
The moral language used by protest leaders can have a significant impact on the collective emotions and social cohesion of those involved in the movement. The tone and words chosen can create an atmosphere of solidarity and unity among participants, making them feel like they are part of something larger than themselves. This sense of belonging and purpose can inspire people to continue their participation in the movement and take action to achieve its goals.