Affinity and the affective turn in understanding political cohesion

Abstract

This article explores the diverse phenomena of contemporary political collectives, ranging from traditional labour unions and parties to right-wing movements and fluid formations like Occupy Wall Street and Fridays for Future, through the lens of political cohesion. I argue that current debates are characterized by a conceptual divide: while classical theories of solidarity emphasize cognitive processes, shared values and stable identities, the recent ‘affective turn’ introduces affinity to highlight relational connectivity and affective fluidity. Central to this article is a critical reflection on the vitalist foundations of affinity theory (for example, Day and Beasley-Murray). I expose a significant analytical shortcoming in these approaches: the ontological treatment of affects as autonomous, pre-social entities. This ‘vitalist trap’ fails to account for the political ambivalence of affects, as seen in the rise of right-wing nationalism, and obscures the mechanisms by which affective intensities translate into sustained political action. To bridge this gap, I propose a multidimensional framework based on Hemmings’s concept of ‘affective solidarity’. I contend that affects and cognitions, affinity and solidarity, are constitutively intertwined. While ‘affective dissonance’ (Hemmings) serves as a necessary catalyst for mobilization, cognitive organization is essential to channel these intensities towards specific political goals. This integrated perspective shifts the focus towards ‘metastable’ forms of cohesion, providing a robust analytical tool to understand both the institutional stability of traditional movements and the precarious dynamism of contemporary collective formation in an increasingly volatile political landscape.