Political polarization is often explained by emotions. Not only are emotions widely exploited
as a political strategy, e.g., by populist parties, but furthermore, points of view are often
discredited as based on mere emotion as opposed to so-called “rational” thought. The goal of
this dissertation is to present a more constructive reflection on emotions in public discourse,
focusing on normative dissents.
Political discourse can be understood as an effort of participants to avoid being redescribed, i.e.
avoid the situation where other participants describe them and argue against them on the basis
of the resulting redescriptions. Strategies of redescription limit the other’s possibilities to reply
to a presented argument, as well as the chances of a mutual understanding. Such a way of
arguing is problematic for both political and moral reasons, harming both the redescribed other
and the democratic process through increased polarization. Some aspects of this have already
been discussed as Epistemic Injustice or Political Gaslighting.
I propose to look at political debate as a dialogue and a result of a creative process rather than
the mere exchange of self-enclosed logical arguments. Looking at debates merely as a series of
arguments participants construct and exchange risks falling into redescriptive patterns. In
centering around the avoidance of being redescribed on the one hand, and the value of dialogue
on the other, this dissertation argues that the idea that with language, discourse, as well as our
stories of who we are and what our lives are supposed to be about, always remain open-ended,
is useful to see political debate and moral argument as a creative process.
I connect the work of Martha Nussbaum and Richard Rorty to Walt Whitman and his idea of
the subject ‘containing multitudes’. As a result, understanding the linguistic means by which
individuals interact with the world and others as mere tools will be presented as a key idea in a
pragmatist discussion of the problem of redescription and dialogue, and of the emotionalization
and polarization of public debate that can result from them. An approach to dealing with
polarization and redescription starts by seeing oneself as open-ended.
To define oneself as something, then, is merely a tool to be able to keep living one’s life
according to that very description. Democratic participation becomes about becoming one’s
own, full person and about keeping, rather than being kept from, evolving. To come to be
oneself implies to maintain positive relationships towards others, based on mutual recognition
rather than redescriptions or categorizations of them. The final chapter will propose some
preliminary criteria to evaluate arguments along the lines discussed in this project.

HORIZON 2020-funded research project. International collaboration between 8 different universities, including the University of Iceland. Research and publiaction, organization of the project’s research seminar as part of its internal quality control mechanism. Coordination tasks, conference presentations, research and publication.