The emotional dimensions of reason-giving in deliberative forums

Abstract

This study investigates the role of emotions in the context of a controversial debate surrounding criminal legislation in Brazil. While several thinkers have criticized deliberation for requiring purely rational discourse, we argue that emotion is a central component in the reasoning process. Whereas existing research on the link between justification and emotion has been theoretical, this article offers a novel analytical framework, based on correlational and content analyses, to examine how anger, indignation, fear and compassion underlay reasoned claims. This study is based on data from a morally charged debate in Brazil’s National Congress about setting the criminal responsibility age. Findings reveal that (i) emotions are not randomly distributed, but strongly correlate with the direction of argumentation; (ii) intentional objects, while not involving straightforward cognition, inform perspectives of reasoning; and (iii) these relationships appear unaffected by forum designs. This study helps to understand both personal and social levels of emotional concerns; has methodological implications for surveying emotional dynamics as a socially driven phenomenon; and offers general insights about how the imbrication of reason-giving and emotions is effectively achieved, further away from simplistic notions of rationality.