The sociology of resentment

By Artchil B. Fernandez

Resentment is a powerful political tool. The return to US presidency of Donald Trump once again demonstrated the power of resentment as a pathway to power.
The sociology of resentment is a sub-field of sociology of emotion.

The rise of populist authoritarianism in recent decades, with Trump 2.0 once again drew attention to the sociology of resentment. Sociologists Daniel Bell, Seymour Martin Lipset, Richard Hofstadter, Talcott Parsons and David Riesman used the concept of resentment to explain the rise of the far-right in post-World War II America.

The recent re-emergence of authoritarian populism led many scholars to revisit the sociology of resentment.

The works of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and German sociologist and phenomenologist Max Scheler form the foundation of the sociology of resentment as well that of Adam Smith and Soren Kierkegaard. Nietzsche used and popularized the French word ressentiment which for him captured the essence of resentment.

“Nietzsche states that resentment is the internalized reaction of powerlessness in an oppressive society in which one has not succeeded” (de Sousa Santos, 2024).

According to de Sousa Santos (2024) resentment for Max Scheler, “is a feeling of hatred that results from a certain type of interpersonal relationship; it signals a disorganization of society and a deep crisis of values; it is manifested by a certain perversion of values that leads to a false view of the world.”

What breeds resentment? Resentment has a material basis, residing in the structure of society. Unlike Nietzsche who took a moral, cultural, and psychological view of resentment, Scheler rooted it in the structuring of social, political, and economic relationships.

A sociological perspective of resentment is a critique of modernity, modern society, liberalism, and liberal democracy. There is a huge gap between the premise and promise of liberalism, liberal democracy, and modernity.

Resentment is “the fruit of modern democracy with its ideals of equality and social mobility” (Oudenampsen, 2028). In reality “equality” remains elusive in modern, liberal democratic society marked by severe inequality.

“Precisely the gap between the formal equality of citizens in modern democracies and the natural substantive inequalities that remain forms an unrelenting source of ressentiment, since people are unequal by nature” (Oudenampsen, 2028).

Tocqueville made a similar assessment of America during his visit in the 19th century. “The fact must not be concealed that democratic institutions develop the sentiment of envy in the human heart to a very high degree, not so much because they offer each person the means to become equal to others, but because these means constantly fail those who use them. Democratic institutions awaken and flatter the passion for equality without ever being able to satisfy it entirely” (Tocqueville, 2010 [1840]).

In short, “the manifestation of resentment can more exactly be the result of the contradiction between the development of these egalitarianisms and the continuation of inequality, along with the incapacity (in the absence of individual and collective ways) to overcome social disparity” (Tomelleri, 2013) Scheler argued. It is in the economic sphere where liberalism and liberal democracy failed.

Equality exists in the political sphere where people have political rights like voting. In the economic domain, there is no equality as wealth is concentrated in the hands of the elite while the masses struggle to make ends meet.

Recent development shows the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” has widened. In the United States (US), the top 10 percent of the households owns 67 percent of total household wealth.

In the Philippines, World Bank report reveals “the top 1 percent of earners together captures 17 percent of national income, with only 14 percent being shared by the bottom 50 percent” (WB, 2022). UBS Global Wealth Report (2023) shows the world’s richest 1 percent owned 47.5 percent of entire world’s wealth.

Inequality fuels the resentment of the populace which populists and demagogues tap and exploit. Resentment feeds the grievances, fear, and anxiety of the masses which are harnessed by populist movements like the Nazis in Germany and Mussolini’s National Fascist Party in Italy in the 1920s. National Socialism according to Dutch critic and essayist Menno ter Braak is a movement driven by ressentiment. Resentment also fuels

The MAGA movement of Trump as well as Dutertismo in the Philippines.
Resentment as a tool for power is ancient. In the old Roman Republic resentment of the plebeians against the patricians was exploited by firebrands like the Gracchi brothers and shrewd politicians like Sulla and Julius Caesar to become dictators.

The French Revolution was also propelled by resentment as well as the rise of fascism in the early 20th century.

Resentment produces a phenomenon Gramsci called Caesarism or Bonapartism – the rise strongmen (dictators, tyrants, autocrats, and authoritarians). Societies rife with resentment usually suffer tragic consequences. The old Roman Republic died, transformed into the Roman Empire. The French Revolution did not usher in liberty, fraternity, and equality but paved the way for Napoleon Bonaparte to be an emperor.

Resentment destroyed the Weimar Republic with Hitler becoming the Fuhrer of Germany while Mussolini was declared Italy’s Il Duce (Supreme Leader).

What is America’s trajectory with the triumph Trump and the MAGA movement in the recent election? It is too early to tell if America will follow the past trajectories or tread a different track.

With the victory of resentment and grievance politics, liberal democracy and liberalism in the US are on the ropes. The future of democracy in America hangs in the balance. Will the Americans suffer the fate of the Germans in the 1930s or prevent the eventual demise of their democracy?

Difficult the future is to see.