Agneta Fischer’s farewell speech: “The emotion culture has gone too far”
Emotions are in. Sociologists speak of an “overwhelming focus on emotions” in our current culture. But there is also a downside to this, argues Agneta Fischer (67), UvA professor of emotions and affective processes, in her farewell speech. “Emotions are right for that individual at that moment.”
Agneta, last year you stepped down as dean at the University of Amsterdam, and now you’re stepping down as professor. How do you feel about that?
“I’m not sad or grumpy about it. I’ve been working towards this for a long time. Sometimes I feel a little sad, but sometimes it’s also nice that I don’t have to do it all anymore.”
That sounds very down-to-earth.
“Yes, I think I am quite down-to-earth.”
Interesting for someone who has spent his entire life researching emotions.
“Perhaps that’s a good thing. I’ve always been surprised by people who react very emotionally to things and how that comes across in conversations and actions. That’s probably where my interest in the subject came from.”
How did we end up in a culture where emotion reigns supreme?
“Before the Second World War, emotions were only allowed in public in Western countries in exceptional cases. Back then, you weren’t confronted with other people’s emotions, except when you talked about them at a birthday party. You knew nothing about the emotions of politicians, or directors, or farmers.”
“Now you are presented with the emotions of others on a daily basis. The media have played a major role in this. People are interested in the emotions of others and the media look for something that appeals. This has shifted the social norm and made it more normal to express your emotions publicly.”
Sociologists speak of an “overwhelming focus on emotions” in today’s culture. What has that brought us?
“On the one hand, I think it’s good that we are more open about our emotions and no longer have to be ashamed of them. But in my view, it also comes at a price. The emphasis on emotional well-being can mean that people are encouraged to always express their emotions and follow them at all times. And that is the crux of my argument. Emotions are right for that individual at that moment. If you are angry, the other person is wrong. If there is no social pushback, it becomes increasingly normal for people to no longer regulate their emotions in public situations.”
And what is the danger of that?
“I think my main point is that social norms are going too far and that we really need to keep an eye on our emotions. Emotions are not always a good guide. Some people sometimes say: I have a gut feeling that this person is no good. That is such a dangerous position: you block all open communication if you base your opinion on those feelings. People simply don’t like things they don’t know, and that can cause uncomfortable feelings. But ultimately, that is just a way of protecting yourself, which is not good in the long run.”
Emotions also ran high at the opening of the Academic Year about the situation in Gaza. Do emotions serve a greater purpose there?
“It really gives me a headache that all these kinds of meetings are constantly being disrupted, but in my view, something so big and incomprehensible is happening in Gaza that people are rightly emotional about it. I call these “moral emotions”: they are more intense, compelling and definitive than non-moral emotions because they concern for the general welfare of people.”
“The need to act is even stronger when it comes to moral emotions. It’s about your conscience, about who you are. And on Monday, that translated into the disruption of a ceremony. Marc Salomon (UvA professor and dean of the Amsterdam Business School, ed.) refers to them as “troublemakers” in De Telegraaf. But that is far too simplistic in my view. They are not troublemakers, but people who are concerned about the suffering of others. I think it shows their commitment.”
Agneta Fischer (Haarlem, 1958) studied psychology at Leiden University. She obtained her doctorate cum laude in 1991 under the supervision of Dutch psychologist Nico Frijda, an expert in the field of human emotion. In 1997, she became full professor at the UvA. From 2019 to 2024, Fischer was dean of the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences.
“At the same time, we have reached a point where the goal of the pro-Palestine actions seems to have completely disappeared from view. Disruptive actions are necessary to generate attention, but the situation in Gaza is now receiving worldwide attention. If you want to achieve something within the UvA, I believe you need to engage in dialogue with the board about what you could or could not do to increase pressure on the government. Right now, you are putting pressure in the wrong places: you are railing against your own university and more and more people are turning away from you. That is not the way to ultimately achieve anything, but rather a way to express your own emotions, so the activists’ goal is further away than ever.”
Emotion is also playing an increasingly important role in politics. Where could this lead?
“Various studies show that populists use more negative emotions in their campaigns. You only have to open Wilders’ X feed to see one big scare tactic. This is often accompanied by biased information based on stereotypes and prejudices about Muslims or asylum seekers. If you look at the actual numbers, for example of migrant workers and asylum seekers, or crime figures, the picture is much more nuanced. But such a negative and simplistic strategy does work: we pay more attention to negative things.”
“You can also see the shift in norms in the debates. Nowadays, you are no longer surprised when politicians get angry in the House of Commons and shout abuse at each other. Fifty years ago, this way of debating would have been unthinkable.”
As dean of the FMG faculty, how did you deal with your own emotions?
“I feel that I was mostly able to control them. But there have also been situations, particularly during the pro-Palestinian protests, where I was really pushed to my limits. I felt that I had no control over their behaviour whatsoever. What also caused me the most emotion were individual issues involving people who felt wronged or who intimidated others. I’ve had quite a few cases involving social safety, including the Laurens Buijs case, where tensions ran very high.”
“I find it fairly easy to control my work-related emotions by talking to other people about them. Sharing those kinds of experiences and hearing other people’s perspectives on the matter has really helped me to see things differently or to be confirmed in my opinion.”
