Grasping the Role of Emotions in IR via Qualitative Content Analysis and Visual Analysis

  • Sybille Reinke de Buitrago
Part of the Palgrave Studies in International Relations book series (PSIR)


The chapter addresses the role emotions play in discursive constructions of self and other in International Relations. It offers a case study of US constructions of Iran in security policy discourse, focusing in particular on the developments leading up to and following right after the 2015 nuclear agreement. In applying a qualitative content analysis of US policy and strategy documents, and a visual analysis of US media cartoons picturing Iran, the Iranian leadership, and US-Iranian relations, the chapter examines how emotions contribute to the US representation of Iran and to the shaping of US security policy towards Iran. This contribution thereby highlights emotions as an important factor for discourse and behaviour in IR.


  1. Agnew, J., & Muscarà, L. (2012). Making Political Geography. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, S. (2004). The Cultural Politics of Emotion. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, L. (2015, August 28). Alexander Announces Opposition to President Obama’s Nuclear Agreement with Iran. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from
  4. Andersen, R. S., Vuori, J. A., & Guillaume, X. (2015). Chromatology of Security: Introducing Colours to Visual Security Studies. Security Dialogue, 46(5), 440–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baudrilliard, J. (2002). Screened Out. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  6. Behnke, J., Baur, N., & Behnke, N. (2006). Empirische Methoden der Politikwissenschaft. Paderborn: Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh.Google Scholar
  7. Beinart, P. (2015, July 14). Why the Iran Deal Makes Obama’s Critics So Angry. The Atlantic. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from
  8. Bleiker, R. (2009). Aesthetics and World Politics. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bleiker, R., & Hutchison, E. (2008). Fear No More: Emotions and World Politics. Review of International Studies, 34, 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2005). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation (3rd ed.). Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Bronfen, E. (2006). Reality Check. Image Affects and Cultural Memory. Differences, 17(1), 20–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burr, R. (2015, August 5). Burr on Iran Deal: American People Aren’t Buying into Bad Deal. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from
  13. Cordesman, A. (2014). U.S. Strategy and Added Sanctions on Iran: The Role of the Administration and Congress in a ‘Good Cop, Bad Cop’ Approach. Washington, DC: CSIS.Google Scholar
  14. Crawford, N. (2000). The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotion and Emotional Relationships. International Security, 24(2), 116–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dodds, K. (2007). Steve Bell’s Eye: Cartoons, Geopolitics and the Visualization of the ‘War on Terror’. Security Dialogue, 38(2), 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dodds, K. (2010). Popular Geopolitics and Cartoons: Representing Power Relations, Repetition and Resistance. Critical African Studies, 2(4), 1–19.Google Scholar
  17. Fierke, K. (2012). Political Self-Sacrifice: Agency, Body and Emotion in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher, M. (2013, September 24). Obama’s Speech to the United National on Syria, Iran and War. The Washington Post. Retrieved January 3, 2016, from
  19. Flick, U. (2003). Triangulation in der qualitativen Forschung. In U. Flick, E. v. Kardoff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch (pp. 309–318). Reinbek: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Foden, G. (2015). Obama’s Fuzzy Pink Line. Cartoon. Retrieved May 25, 2016, from
  21. Gladstone, R. (2013, January 10). Iran Finding Some Ways to Evade Sanctions, Treasury Department Says. International New York Times. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from
  22. Haidt, J. (2013). The Righteous Mind. Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  23. Hansen, L. (2006). Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Hansen, L. (2011). Theorizing the Image for Security Studies. Visual Securitization and the Muhammad Cartoon Crisis. European Journal of International Relations, 17(1), 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen, L. (2015). How Images Make World Politics: International Icons and the Case of Abu Ghraib. Review of International Studies, 41(2), 263–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harré, R., & Sammut, G. (2013). What Lies Between? In G. Sammut, P. Daanen, & F. M. Moghaddam (Eds.), Understanding Self and Others: Explorations in Intersubjectivity and Interobjectivity (pp. 15–30). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Hatch, O. (2015a, June 22). Hatch: The Stakes Are Too High to Act as If Iran Is a Trustworthy Partner. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from
  28. Hatch, O. (2015b, September 15). Why the Iran Deal Makes War More Likely. The Washington Times. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from
  29. Holland, J. (2007). Emotions and Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10(3), 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holland, J. (2014). The Elusive Essence of Evil: Constructing Otherness in the Coalition of the Willing. In D. Pisoiu (Ed.), Arguing Counter-Terrorism. New Perspectives (pp. 201–220). Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Hughes, R. (2007). Through the Looking Blast: Geopolitics and Visual Culture. Geography Compass, 1(5), 976–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hutchison, E., & Bleiker, R. (2014). Theorizing Emotions in World Politics. International Theory, 6(3), 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. IPU/DCAF. (2005). Parlamentarische Aufsicht über den Sicherheitssektor: Prinzipien, Mechanismen und Praktiken. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union and Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.Google Scholar
  34. Kerry, J. (2014, February 1). U.S. Speech at Munich Conference on Security, Diplomacy Issues. Retrieved January 3, 2016, from
  35. Koterba, J. (2015). Cartoon. The Choices Program, Teaching with the News, The Iran Nuclear Deal. Under Link: Political Cartoons Powerpoint, Brown University, Providence, RI. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from
  36. Kroenig, M. (2012). Time to Attack Iran. Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option. Foreign Affairs, 91(1), 76–86. Retrieved January 3, 2016, from
  37. Lane, S. (2015, July 14). Ted Cruz and John Cornyn Are Not Happy with Iran Deal. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from
  38. Leep, M. C. (2010). The Affective Production of Others: United States Policy Towards the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Cooperation and Conflict, 45(3), 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacDonald, F., Dodds, K., & Hughes, R. (Eds.). (2010). Observant States: Geopolitics and Visual Culture. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  40. Manzo, K. (2012). Earthworks: The Geopolitical Visions of Climate Change Cartoons. Political Geography, 31(8), 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mascaro, L. (2015, July 14). The Talking – And Arguing – Points of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from
  42. May, V. (2013). Connecting Self to Society. Belonging in a Changing World. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken (8th ed.). Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag.Google Scholar
  44. McKee, R. (2015). Cartoon. The Choices Program, Teaching with the News, The Iran Nuclear Deal. Under Link: Political Cartoons Powerpoint, Brown University, Providence, RI. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from
  45. Neumann, I. B. (Ed.). (1999). Uses of the Other. “The East” in European Identity Formation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Obama, B. (2013, November 23). Statement by the President on First Step Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program. The White House. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from
  47. Reinke de Buitrago, S. (2014). Jihadist Terrorism in Europe: What Role for Media? In D. Pisoiu (Ed.), Arguing Counterterrorism: New Perspectives (pp. 160–180). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Reinke de Buitrago, S. (2016). The Role of Emotions in US Security Policy Towards Iran. Global Affairs, 2(2), 155–164. Scholar
  49. Sasley, B. (2011). Theorizing States’ Emotions. International Studies Review, 13(3), 452–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schumer, C. (2015, September 15). Iran Won’t Change Its Ways Under This Deal. The Washington Times. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from
  51. Smith, A. D. (1991). National Identity. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  52. U.S. Department of State. (2012). Country Reports on Terrorism 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State.Google Scholar
  53. U.S. Department of State. (2014). Country Reports on Terrorism 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State.Google Scholar
  54. Ulbert, C. (2005). Konstruktivistische Analysen der internationalen Politik: Theoretische Ansätze und methodische Herangehensweisen. In C. Ulbert & C. Weller (Eds.), Konstruktivistische Analysen der internationalen Politik (pp. 9–34). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. USIP. (2011, November 22). Speech by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon. Retrieved January 3, 2016, from
  56. Vaidyanathan, R. (2015, July 16). Iran-US Relations: Nine Cartoons Tell the Story. Cartoon by G. Varvel. BBC News, Washington, DC. Retrieved January 2016, from
  57. Varvel, G. (2015). Cartoon, US-Iran Framework. The Week. Retrieved May 11, 2016, from
  58. Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran. (2012). The Iran Project. New York. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from
  59. White House. (2013). National Security Strategy. Retrieved January 3, 2016, from
  60. White House. (2015a, July 14). Statement by the President on Iran. Retrieved January 3, 2016, from
  61. White House. (2015b, August 5). Remarks by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal. Washington, DC: American University. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from
  62. White, R. K. (1984). Fearful Warriors: A Psychological Profile of U.S.-Soviet Relations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  63. White, R. K. (1998). American Acts of Force: Results and Misperceptions. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 4(2), 93–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wolf, R. (2011). Respect and Disrespect in International Politics: The Significance of Status Recognition. International Theory, 3(1), 105–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wolf, R. (2012). Der ‘emotional turn’ in den IB: Plädoyer für eine theoretische Überwindung methodischer Engführung. Zeitschrift für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, 5(4), 605–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sybille Reinke de Buitrago
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy, University of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Peace and TheologyHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations