Humiliation has become one of the most potent yet least examined forces in contemporary politics. From viral moments of public shaming to the language of “national humiliation” mobilized by governments, the experience of being demeaned-individually or collectively-now shapes voter behavior, populist movements, and even foreign policy. “Driven to Their Knees: Humiliation in Contemporary Politics,” a project based at King’s College London, sets out to understand how this powerful emotion is weaponized, managed, and resisted in today’s political arena.
Drawing on insights from political science, psychology, history, and media studies, the research investigates how humiliation is produced, staged, and circulated: in parliamentary debates and protest movements, in online culture wars and diplomatic stand-offs. It asks who gets humiliated, by whom, and to what end-and what happens when the desire to avenge or reverse that humiliation becomes a driver of political action.In an age when wounded pride and public embarrassment can rapidly escalate into crisis, this work offers a timely lens on the emotional undercurrents that are reshaping democratic life at home and power relations abroad.
Exposing the new politics of shame How humiliation shapes campaigns leaders and public trust
Once confined to whispered scandals and backroom briefings, shame has become a deliberate campaign instrument, weaponised in attack ads, viral memes and orchestrated pile-ons. Instead of persuading voters with policy, strategists now calibrate public humiliation to discredit opponents, provoke outrage and generate the kind of emotional shock that cuts through saturated news feeds. Targeted clips-looped gaffes, awkward gestures, private messages ripped from context-are repackaged as moral proof that a rival is unfit for office, encouraging citizens not merely to disagree but to ridicule. This shift has redefined what it means to lead in public: candidates train for antagonistic interviews as if preparing for trial by combat, while interaction teams specialise in anticipating, deflecting or even pre‑emptively staging moments of contrition.
- Leaders are coached to perform vulnerability without appearing weak.
- Parties design narratives that normalise shaming as “holding power to account”.
- Voters learn to judge authenticity through spectacles of apology and exposure.
| Shaming Tool | Main Target | Intended Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Viral clip | Candidate image | Lasting ridicule |
| Hashtag storm | Party brand | Public distancing |
| Forced apology | Leader credibility | Submission on record |
At the same time, citizens witnessing this constant choreography of disgrace become wary of the entire political class. When every misstep is framed as a moral failure and every apology as a tactic, public trust erodes, not only in individual figures but in the idea that politics can be anything other than a theater of ritual humiliation. People begin to suspect that leaders act less from conviction than from fear of the next public shaming, and that policy choices are shaped by what will look defensible in a hostile media cycle rather than what is substantively right. In this surroundings, the line between accountability and cruelty blurs, leaving voters caught between a desire to see powerful figures answer for their actions and a growing recognition that a politics sustained by humiliation may ultimately diminish democratic life itself.
From viral takedowns to cancel culture The emotional economy driving voters to extremes
In a political landscape mediated by quote-tweets,stitched videos and viral clapbacks,public life increasingly resembles a gladiatorial arena where the prize is not persuasion but public degradation of the opponent. Shaming once confined to late-night satire or the opinion pages now unfolds in real time, with millions acting as judge and jury. This emotional economy rewards content that triggers outrage, envy or glee at another’s downfall. It is less about policy disagreement and more about spectacle: who is exposed,who is ridiculed,who is forced into a tearful apology video. The result is a feedback loop in which the most humiliating moments are amplified, replayed and memed, turning politics into a game of ritualised downfall.
- Humiliation as currency: Likes and shares accrue to those who can most brutally puncture an opponent’s status.
- Belonging through attack: Users signal loyalty to their “side” by participating in pile-ons and boycotts.
- Moral purity tests: Minor missteps are framed as proof of deep moral corruption.
| Trigger | Emotional Payoff | Political Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Viral insult or gaffe | Mocking relief | Dehumanises opponents |
| Mass boycott call | Moral righteousness | Silences nuance |
| Public apology video | Vengeful satisfaction | Encourages harder lines |
These cycles of exposure and expulsion push voters toward more absolutist identities.To avoid becoming the next target, people retreat into echo chambers where they are less likely to be challenged-and more likely to be radicalised. When humiliation becomes the dominant language of politics, compromise looks like weakness and empathy risks social punishment. The fear of being cast out, unfollowed or publicly shamed hardens positions, encouraging leaders who promise protection through aggression. What emerges is a politics less concerned with solving shared problems than with ensuring that someone else is always on their knees.
Inside institutions of power How parties media and platforms weaponise humiliation
In the backrooms of party headquarters, humiliation is not a by-product of politics; it is a strategy file. Whips leak demeaning anecdotes about wavering MPs to tabloids, speechwriters craft jokes designed to reduce opponents to punchlines, and digital officers track which clips of a rival’s gaffe generate the most derisive comments. Modern campaign arsenals now include teams dedicated to engineering “gotcha” moments that can be endlessly replayed on rolling news and short‑form video feeds.In this choreography of embarrassment, key actors include:
- Party strategists who script ridicule into debate lines and campaign ads.
- Media editors who select the most degrading frames and headlines for maximum impact.
- Platform algorithms that reward mocking content with visibility and ad revenue.
| Actor | Tool | Intended Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Parties | Attack clips | Discredit rivals |
| Newsrooms | Humiliating headlines | Capture attention |
| Platforms | Engagement algorithms | Amplify outrage |
Humiliation thrives where attention is currency. Commercial media and social platforms convert public shaming into clicks, data and advertising, creating powerful incentives to keep the cycle spinning.Politicians quickly learn that being the humiliator is safer than being the humiliated,reinforcing a style of politics in which derision substitutes for debate and complex disagreement is flattened into meme‑ready moments of failure. This economy of disgrace is sustained by:
- Visual repetition – looping images of a stumble or misspoken line until it defines a career.
- Coordinated pile‑ons – orchestrated waves of ridicule from party activists and influencers.
- Sanitised obligation – platforms framing humiliation as “user behavior” rather than a product of their design.
Rebuilding dignity in public life Practical steps for politicians journalists and citizens
Restoring respect to the political sphere demands more than calls for civility; it requires recalibrating how power is spoken about, scrutinised and shared. Elected officials can begin by replacing performative outrage with accountable clarity: publishing clear decision-making rationales,establishing autonomous ethics audits,and submitting to citizen assemblies on high-stakes issues such as policing,welfare and immigration. Journalists, meanwhile, can prioritise harm-aware reporting that exposes wrongdoing without indulging in character assassination or ridicule. This means separating a person’s dignity from the criticism of their actions, and resisting click-driven narratives that turn complex lives into gladiatorial entertainment. Small editorial choices-what photo is used, which quote is amplified, how a headline frames disagreement-often determine whether a story informs or humiliates.
- Politicians: host regular town-hall forums focused on listening rather than messaging; adopt codes rejecting dehumanising language; respond to online abuse by de-escalating, not mirroring hostility.
- Journalists: implement newsroom guidelines on reporting shame-sensitive topics; provide right-of-reply as standard; foreground structural causes over personal failings.
- Citizens: challenge humiliation-based memes and dog-whistles in everyday conversation; support media that values depth over derision; engage in cross-party community projects that rehumanise “the other side”.
| Role | Destructive Habit | Dignity-Centred Alternative |
|---|---|---|
| Politician | Name-calling in debates | Critique ideas, not identity |
| Journalist | Shaming headlines | Context-rich, neutral framing |
| Citizen | Mocking in comment threads | Fact-based, courteous replies |
To Conclude
humiliation in contemporary politics is not a marginal phenomenon or a rhetorical flourish, but a structuring force in how power is claimed, contested and experienced. As the discussions at King’s College London made clear, it shapes the narratives leaders tell about themselves, the stories citizens tell about their grievances, and the ways states project strength or display vulnerability on the world stage.
Understanding humiliation-who deploys it, who suffers it, and how it is indeed mediated-offers a window into some of the most volatile dynamics of our time, from populist insurgencies to culture wars and international stand-offs. It is indeed also a reminder that political life is lived not only through institutions and interests, but through emotions and symbols that can mobilise, divide or reconcile.
Recognising this does not make humiliation any less perilous. But it does make it more difficult to ignore. If today’s politics is repeatedly driving people to their knees, the challenge for scholars, practitioners and citizens alike is to decide what will happen when they stand up again-and on what terms they will choose to face one another.
