In an article, the director of the Plaza Publica Project argues that it is necessary to “track” feelings in order to understand how they evolve in a way that complements the evaluation of the government and voting intentions.
“It is not love that unites us, but amazement. That is why I love her so much…” said Jorge Luis Borges in 1964, a precursor in identifying this collective feeling of love and hate as both a driving force and an obstacle. The phrase is a good metaphor for the feelings of most Brazilians toward politicians, defined by otherness, by what we are not or do not want to be.
Politics is the realm of emotions. Finding rational answers to every question asked by quantitative electoral polls is a fantasy; it is often looking at the surface without delving into the heart of the matter. This does not mean that criticism is absolutely necessary to make a decision. However, the focus is on emotions. On how we feel about public events and politicians.
It is a well-known truth in communication that people can tell us part of what they feel and think, given the inherent limitations of language: we can only say what we can name, and we put into words only part of what we think and feel.
Plaza Publica was born out of this discomfort, out of the feeling that we needed to understand in depth the emotions that define and structure politics. We use the best qualitative techniques available to capture what cannot be said. We need to track emotions, understand how they evolve in a way that complements the evaluation of the government and voting intentions. We need to have a systematic approach to this evaluation. Is the incumbent showing signs of fatigue? What are the textures that explain the quantitative data?
For over 30 years, market research has used “Emotional Science” models that capture emotional territories using sophisticated techniques in both collection and analysis. From implicit tests to “force” people to make opposite assessments, to analytical frames based on Jungian psychology that allow feelings to be mapped. However, they always start from theoretical premises and models, which are then tested in reality for brands and services. They are used by large corporations, with different decision-making logic than in politics, closer to that of a family business, almost run by the owner. The model designed to measure emotions in Brazilian politics is based on respondents’ verbalizations. The conceptualization comes later.
Angry rhetoric engages, divides, and makes people take sides. It is more difficult to move and persuade the undecided, to produce meaningful effects on this more “moderate” audience, which today cannot find a natural candidate, is tired of polarization, but cannot escape it. It is like a car that is stuck, wants to get out, but spins in the mud.
They recognize politics as a tool to transform people’s lives, which today are experienced with disenchantment. No one believes enthusiastically that this can be achieved. There is a lack of certainty about who can lead this transformation. No candidate inspires passion. Everyone is swimming in waters of uncertainty.
Our mapping of emotions represents an affective cartography at the start of this pre-election year. Four territories of affections in politics: Hope/Euphoria/Disappointment/Aversion. We used 40 images/cards with drawings and figures, of which 8 define the analysis. Lula, as expected, has the greatest emotional appeal. Bolsonaro navigates waters of aversion. Tarcísio has lukewarm affections, close to a tightrope walker with pendulum movements. Michelle Bolsonaro has greater emotional potential compared to Tarcísio.
Are we shaken more by feelings of collective construction, or do we prioritize maximizing our individual position? Does the feeling of revenge and punishment prevail, or are we guided by the search for an ideal/inspiration? What will we have in 2026? Will there be a new alternative for these undecided voters, one that will generate positive affect? Or will we have more love and Borgian astonishment?