Over the past two decades, national and transnational educational policies and agendas in Europe have focused on CE in response to societal and political challenges in our globalized, multicultural society (Loobuyck, 2020; Joris, 2021), such as the digital transformation, global migration flows, the climate crisis, etc. In this current context, ‘good’ democratic citizenship and CE have become conceptualised and promoted in terms of democratic competence(s) enabling citizens to respond effectively to the ever changing demands and opportunities posed to them by democratic societies (Council of Europe, 2018). This competence-based approach to CE has become particularly relevant in the face of the perception that youth are become increasingly politically apathetic or alienated (Keating & Janmaat, 2016; Dahl et al., 2018; Freitas et al., 2018). Generally, attention is paid to CE in terms of what young people (not yet) know, do, can, or are not (yet) willing to do in relation to the ideals of democracy and citizenship the adult generation has put forward (Hooghe & Smets, 2013).

Both within and outside of the walls of schools and classrooms however, our democracies include ‘flesh-and-blood people’, who not only think, reason or apply their ‘‘toolkit of psychological resources’ or competences (Council of Europe, 2018); but also feel things (Backer, 2017). Starting from this assumption, the current dominance of a competence-based discourse of CE is called into question for being rationalist and individualistic, because it relies on an Habermasian (1998), rational-deliberative and cognitive or disaffected model of citizenship and CE. Insights from political philosophy and psychology suggest that political emotions are central to people’s actual political engagement (Demertzis, 2014; Nussbaum, 2013; Knight Abowitz & Mamlok, 2019), are experiences that can be ascribed to bodies that are ‘socialized’, interact and exist together with others (Zembylas, 2007b) and should therefore be considered essential components of political and democratic life and be given a place within democratic CE (Zembylas, 2018).  

Additionally, when the importance of political emotions in CE is acknowledged, the focus tends to be on conflictual emotions and political identities. Such agonistic approaches emphasize disagreements and the potential of anger and conflict for political action and transformative change through CE (Yacek, 2019), for instance by ‘learning to disagree’ and adversarial position-taking (Knight-Abowitz & Mamlok, 2021). Leiviskä and Pyy (2021) and Yacek (2019), however, indicate how focusing on such an understanding of the nature of the political in CE might lead to relations between different societal groups becoming increasingly conflictual; in a broader democratic culture which is already perceived as divided and polarized (Leiviskä & Pyy, 2021). Focusing on negative emotions such as conflict, differences, angers and fear in CE risks to only deepen and solidify such tendencies, and increase feelings of apathy and closed-mindedness towards the experiences of those considered ‘others’ (Yacek, 2019). They therefore turn to the existing (political) literature on constructive political emotions (Nussbaum, 2013; Leiviskä & Pyy, 2021).

This constructive approach to political emotions has been connected to CE theoretically, but appears to have not yet been translated to an actual educational-theoretical framework of CE. This research project therefore aims to develop such a framework, providing answers to the following three research questions:

 1. How do political emotions relate to other, cognitive’ dimensions of competence-based models for CE (knowledge, skills, values, attitudes) and how can they be embedded and fostered within a holistic framework for CE?

2. How do negative political emotions relate to constructive political emotions, and how can both be linked to theoretical and conceptual approaches of CE?

3. How can pedagogic classroom and school practices foster youth’s constructive political emotions through CE?

In this contribution, I will develop an educational-theoretical framework of political emotions in CE, that both acknowledges political emotions and connects them to ‘cognitive’ aspects of CE, theoretically explores the relation between negative and constructive political emotions, and explores how CE practices in schools might play a role in fostering constructive political emotions. As part of a larger project that aims to construct an educational theoretical perspective of the role of political emotions in CE from the ground up, this contribution presents the procedures and results of the first phase of a qualitative, constructivist grounded theory (CGT) approach to political emotions in CE. The overall aim is to develop a middle-range theory, grounded in and fitting for the collected data (which will include classroom observations, teacher interviews and student focus groups) to generate relevant, applicable and useful analytic explanations (Thornberg and Keane, 2022) of the role of political emotions in CE in schools. CGT and its explanations build on the assumption that social reality (including the political emotions of youth) is continually constructed in everyday social interactions and interpretations within and between individuals, groups and communities (Thornberg & Keane, 2022). Grounded theory is particularly suitable for exploring phenomena of which little is known to date, such as the role of political emotions in CE practices, or how CE practices can foster constructive political emotions; and therefore requires flexible means of inquiry, specifically regarding data collection and analysis (McCreaddie & Payne, 2010). This research project builds on the concrete research design and core features of CGT listed by Thornberg and Keane (2022), and this contribution discusses the results of first phase of this CGT project: the initial literature study. Its main aim is to map the existing body of knowledge, concepts, approaches, and knowledge gaps of political emotions in/and citizenship education in schools, in order to further refine and sharpen the research questions (Thornberg & Keane, 2022).

In this contribution, I will discuss: 2) a comparison of theoretical approaches of political emotions in different disciplines (sociology, psychology, political philosophy) 1) existing conceptual frameworks of CE, their theoretical and philosophical foundations and the role (or absence) of (political) emotions therein: the importance of both developmental and cultural perspectives 3) The relations and differences between agonistic and constructive political emotions, and their role(s) in CE Finally, I will present the conceptual (and analytical) framework of this research project, resulting form this initial literature study. This will be based on the results of situating the three interests mentioned above in existing political, psychological, and sociological literature, and combining these with insights from existing educational theories on CE. These will include pedagogical practice theory (Kemmis et al., 2014) and other educational-theoretical approaches of (the nature of) classroom and school practices. I will also discuss how this framework can and will serve as the foundation for the future phases of this research project.

Backer, D. I. (2017). The Critique of Deliberative Discussion. Democracy & Education, 25(1), 1-6 Council of Europe (2018). Reference framework of competences for democratic culture. Volume 1: Context, concepts and models. Council of Europe Publishing. Dahl, V., Amnå, E., Banaji,S., Landberg, M., Šerek J., Ribeiro, N., Beilmann, M., Pavlopoulos, V. & Zani, B. (2018). Apathy or alienation? Political passivity among youths across eight European Union countries. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15(3), 284-301 Demertzis, N. (2014). Political Emotions. In: Nesbitt-Larking, P., Kinnvall, C., Capelos, T., Dekker, H. (eds). The Palgrave Handbook of Global Political Psychology. Palgrave Studies in Political Psychology Series. Palgrave Macmillan. Freitas, M., Howard, C. & Tosca, G. (2018). Millennial dialogue on Europe. Shaping the new EU agenda. Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) Habermas (1998). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. The MIT Press. Hooghe, M. & Smets, K. (2013). Jongeren en politiek in verandering. Res Publica 55(1), 5-9. Joris, M. (2021). Burgers in de maak? Burgerschapsvorming op school anders bekeken. Pedagogische Studiën, 98(3), 221-235 Keating, A. & Janmaat, J.G. (2016). Education Through Citizenship at School: Do School Activities Have a Lasting Impact on Youth Political Engagement? Parliamentary Affairs 69, 409–429 Knight abowitz, K. & Mamlok, D. (2019). #Neveragainmsd student activism: lessons for agonist political education in an age of democratic crisis. Educational Theory, 70(6), 731-748 Loobuyck, P. (2020). The policy shift towards citizenship education in Flanders. How can it be explained? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53(1), 65-82 Leiviskä, A. & Pyy, I. (2021). The unproductiveness of political conflict in education: A Nussbaumian alternative to agonistic citizenship education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 55, 577-588 McCreaddie, M. & Payne, S. (2010). Evolving Grounded Theory Methodology: Towards a discursive approach. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 781–793 Nussbaum, M. (2013). Political emotions: why love matters for justice. Harvard University Press. Thornberg & Keane, 2022. Designing Grounded Theory Studies. In Flick, U. (ed). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Design, 452-466. Sage Publications Yacek, D. (2019). Should anger be encouraged in the classroom? Political education, closed mindedness, and civic epiphany. Educational Theory, 69(4), 421-4 Zembylas, M. (2007b). Theory and methodology in researching emotions in education. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(1), 57-72 Zembylas (2018): Political Emotions in the Classroom. How Affective Citizenship Education Illuminates the Debate Between Agonists and Deliberators. Democracy & Education, 26(1), 1-5