Fear, Commemoration and Affective Polarization: Local Reception of Nationalist Memory Politics in Serbia

This paper examines the role of fear in the production of affective polarization through nationalist commemorative discourses in contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Montenegro. Drawing on extensive qualitative fieldwork, including in-depth interviews and participant observation, it adopts a political anthropology perspective to analyse how state-sponsored memory politics shape emotional boundaries between perceived in-groups and out-groups, and how individuals emotionally negotiate these narratives in relation to their own memories and lived experiences. While research on affective polarization has predominantly focused on partisan hostility and electoral competition, often relying on quantitative approaches, this study brings a qualitative, micro-level perspective by examining how affective polarization is produced and negotiated through memory politics and collective emotions. I argue that fear functions as a key emotional mechanism through which commemorative narratives of past violence and victimhood contribute to affective polarization by reinforcing moral distinctions, perceptions of existential threat, and emotional alignment with the national in-group. Empirically, the paper shows that these narratives do not generate homogeneous emotional responses. Instead, they produce differentiated forms of affective polarization, ranging from emotional internalisation and moralisation of fear to selective endorsement, emotional distancing, and political disenchantment. The study further identifies a set of explanatory factors that help account for why fear-based emotions are mobilised among some individuals but not others. By foregrounding everyday experiences and bottom-up emotional negotiations, this paper shifts the focus from elite discourse to the micro-level reception of nationalist memory politics, giving voice to those who live with, reinterpret, or contest these narratives in their daily lives. In doing so, it contributes to comparative debates on affective polarization by highlighting the role of memory politics and emotions beyond electoral and partisan contexts.