Moralizing in public debates

Although public moral discourse has always been present in the European tradition, in recent years fight between good and evil become the centre point of the political dispute (Lovin, 2021). Political messages nowadays are less explicit about conflicting interests, rather they focus on the moral implications of political actions (Grubbs et al., 2019). Much of contemporary political rhetoric is about purification and claims for moral leadership (Rhode, 2006). Moralizing is one of the key components of the political interactions both at the local, national, and international levels, but can take different forms depending on the contexts in which it occurs. Even though the literature on morality in politics is rich with publications describing the philosophical (Brink, 1997) and psychological foundations (Davidson et al., 2003), its communicative features need refreshed academic attention. This workshop contributes to the academic discussion on moralization in political communication, in particular, on its relevance for the increasingly conflictual politics in Europe. Dworkin (2003) distinguishes between ethics and morality by arguing that ethics includes common convictions about which kinds of lives are good or bad for people, while morality includes principles about how the ruling elite should treat citizens. Further, moralization means “the acquisition of moral qualities by objects and activities that were previously morally neutral” (Rozin, 2010: 380). The objects and activities do not have intrinsic moral qualities but are determined by the character of the arguments used in the debate (Rebecca et al., 2019). Moralization always has collective and communicative aspects: the shared ethical foundations are the robust predictor of political behaviour. The morality-based value judgments are not compatible with public deliberation as being often intolerant to disagreements. A high level of moralization leads to a conflict of absolutes, increasing hostility, stigmatization, and decreasing chances of political compromises (e.g. Yosida, 2020). This is also one of the key features of populism (Ruzza, 2020). However, morality is inevitable in democracies and useful for mobilization. Moralizing messages simplify the complexities of the political domain and encourage the citizens to view the legislative election as a moral decision. If politicians can convince that, they are the moral choice and the other candidate is the immoral choice, then they can increase the participation that stems from moral conviction. Moralization is promoted by exchanges of ideas about social values and norms, still, we need a more nuanced understanding of why and how political actors and ordinary citizens communicate about politics in a moral light. The workshop is also inspired by the study of the affective side of moralizing rhetoric. Researches support the claim that a diverse packet of emotions such as anger, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, and pride play an essential role in moral cognition (Haidt, 2003). The expressions of moral emotions undoubtedly matter, yet it is rather an undiscovered field in political communication studies. The workshop’s goal is to fill this gap, building on the premise that morally justified manner of speaking and the rise of antagonistic interactions in politics are very much interconnected.