Between empathy and national interest: societies dilemma in the face of international crises

In the digital age, geographical distances no longer limit political and emotional interactions within societies. Thanks to social networks, international events, no matter how far away, are now constantly present in the public space. Images, short videos, and narratives circulating in the digital world are capable of sparking vast waves of emotion and solidarity in societies that are not directly involved in these conflicts.

However, this reactivity, while stemming from a legitimate human impulse, raises an essential question: the relationship between collective emotion and the logic of the state in conducting international relations.

Foreign policy, as emphasized by the realist theorist of international relations Hans Morgenthau, is not primarily based on moral impulses or emotional reactions, but on a central principle: national interest.

States operate in a complex international environment structured by power balances, alliances, as well as security and economic considerations. Therefore, decisions made in this domain generally respond to long-term strategic calculations rather than immediate emotional reactions.

However, societies do not always perceive the world through this strategic prism. Individuals live within multiple networks of belonging, as recent works designate under the concept of transnational identities. An individual can feel linked to religious, civilizational, or ideological spaces that transcend national borders. This plurality of affiliations explains why some international causes acquire strong emotional resonance in public discourse.

In many cases, these causes transform into what political sociologists call symbolic mobilization. External affairs then cease to be a mere distant political event and become a moral symbol through which individuals express their values or worldview.

Social networks play a central role in this dynamic. These platforms operate according to what media studies term the attention economy, where content competes to capture users’ interest. In this environment, emotionally charged messages often spread faster than nuanced analyses or in-depth discussions. Striking images and oversimplified slogans have a much greater capacity for dissemination than technical files on public policies or economic issues.

This can result in what some network science researchers qualify as the illusion of majority: intense activity of a relatively small group of users can give the impression that a particular opinion dominates society as a whole, while social reality is often much more diversified and nuanced.

Furthermore, the digital space contributes to establishing a certain dissociation between the virtual and the real. On social networks, political positions are frequently built upon images, slogans, and immediate actions, while state action exists in a different universe, structured by institutions, the economy, and international alliances. When these two registers merge in collective perception, political positions may emerge in the digital space without fully reflecting the constraints and complexities faced by the state in reality.

Philosopher and sociologist Jean Baudrillard described a dimension of this phenomenon through the notion of hyperreality, where media representations and symbolic images sometimes become more present and influential than reality itself. In such situations, individuals are more likely to react to a simplified representation of the conflict than its political and strategic complexity.

From another angle, contemporary research in strategic communication shows that collective emotions circulating in the digital space can sometimes become a ground for influence and direction. Current conflicts unfold not only in military or diplomatic spheres but also in the informational and cognitive space. In these spaces, certain actors – internal or external – may seek to exploit the emotional waves aroused by certain causes to steer public discourse or amplify certain narratives through informational manipulations or influence strategies.

This does not mean that all empathy towards an international cause results from manipulation. Solidarity with the suffering of peoples stems from a fundamental human sentiment. However, these works highlight that collective emotions can sometimes become one element among others in the power struggles that traverse the informational space.

Therefore, it becomes essential to distinguish between legitimate moral empathy towards human causes worldwide and the transformation of these causes into decisive political positions within internal societal debates. International affairs cannot be approached in the same logic as immediate symbolic affiliations, as they involve complex relationships between states, economic interests, security, and strategic considerations.

Politically mature societies are not those that ignore what happens beyond their borders but those that know how to interact with the world through analysis and understanding. Empathy towards human causes must be accompanied by the ability to grasp the nature and complexity of international relations.

That is why managing this phenomenon does not involve restricting expression or devaluing human solidarity, but strengthening political culture and digital literacy within society. Understanding the mechanisms of information circulation on social networks and being able to distinguish between emotion and analysis help maintain a healthy balance in public discourse.

In a world where information circulates at an increasing speed and narratives multiply, the real challenge for contemporary societies lies in reconciling human sensitivity towards global suffering with the strategic lucidity required to defend national interests. It is within this balance that a public discourse can be constructed that is both open to the world and loyal to its national references.