Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an interesting and timely topic: the relationship between ressentiment, social love, democratic solidarity, and urban space. The underlying insight is promising: ressentiment is not viewed merely as a destructive or pathological emotion, but as a potential indicator of democratic contradictions and, under certain institutional and relational conditions, as an energy that can be transformed into participation, solidarity, and practices of urban care. The idea of considering the city as “emotional infrastructure” is also useful, as it allows for linking political emotions, spatial inequalities, and possibilities for democratic cooperation. However, the text requires some revision. Sections 3 and 4 should be better integrated or distinguished, as they repeat nearly the same passages on political emotions, Nussbaum, Ahmed, Caillé, Donati, and Boltanski & Thévenot. This repetition weakens the argumentative structure and gives the impression that the paper is not yet fully polished. The section on urban space is one of the most promising, but it needs to be strengthened. Lefebvre, Secchi, and Sennett are appropriate references, but the text remains very abstract. It would be useful to add concrete examples or at least types of urban practices: neighborhood assemblies, participatory processes, inclusive public spaces, urban commons, collective care initiatives, and interventions against urban segregation. This would help demonstrate how the city is not merely a backdrop, but a genuine emotional and political infrastructure.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, I would like to thank you for your careful and insightful comments, which have allowed me to improve the article and to clarify the themes and perspectives I intended to discuss.

I have carried out the major revisions requested, expanding the bibliographical references and including in the text several relevant passages from the articles and books on which I have drawn. I have also sought to clarify more fully the social dimension of ressentiment and the role that urban space may play in either reinforcing or weakening this sentiment, potentially making it conducive to democratic change.

I sincerely apologize for the error in the previous submitted version, where one paragraph was inadvertently repeated. I have, of course, corrected this mistake and have also improved the organization of the sections and the development of the argument.

Finally, I would like to justify my decision to modify the title slightly, in order to better highlight some of the issues and arguments that I have introduced in the revised version of the article. The overall meaning and scope of the article have not been altered in any way.

For Reviewer 1:

1. There is some repetition in the text: sections 3 and 4 are identical in content!!!!

- We apologize for this error.

 

2. The paper seems to be very normatively loaded and a bit romantic, suggesting that we can foster democracy by channeling or transforming ressentiment, a crucial emotion for the democratic process, into social love, and that the city offers a great venue to foster these processes. Yet what is not so clear is how exactly this will occur as recent research in sociology of emotion show that resentment and sense of injustice, emotions, which are often mobilized in social movements do not get mobilized (for example, in platform employment in cities) because other emotions in place prevent this, such as individual feeling rules fostered by neoliberalims, lack of social trust, lack of self-confidence and shame, as well as fear or consequences (see, for example, “Why does class resentment does not transform into political action?” in Emotions and Society journal). So, I feel the argument needs a bit of complexity to avoid romanticization. How will social love foster solidarity under neoliberal conditions and increased socio-economic inequalities? What mechanisms will help to foster it? For example, how to ensure that xenophobes and the rich feel empathy/sense of care towards minoritized and racialized groups and poor and service workers? Adding some complexity to the paper may increase its originality.

- We thank the reviewer for this insightful and important comment. We agree that the previous version of the paper risked presenting the transformation of ressentiment into social love in an overly linear and normative way. In the revised manuscript, we will therefore add complexity to the argument by explicitly acknowledging the ambivalent and often blocked character of emotional mobilization under neoliberal urban conditions. In particular, we will clarify that social love should not be understood as a spontaneous moral disposition or as an automatic outcome of urban proximity, but as a fragile political and institutional achievement that requires specific mediating conditions. To address this point, we will revise the relevant section by engaging more directly with recent sociology of emotions literature on resentment, shame, fear, distrust, and neoliberal individualizing feeling rules. We will also specify the mechanisms through which social love may become politically relevant: collective practices of recognition, spaces of encounter that reduce asymmetries rather than merely celebrate diversity, institutional support for solidaristic urban practices, and policies that make interdependence visible while countering stigmatization and exclusion. This will allow us to avoid a romanticized view of the city and to present social love less as a normative solution than as a contested and difficult process, shaped by power relations, inequalities, and institutional conditions.

 

3. In terms of ressentiment, I feel the author can extend the debate by adding literature from the sociology of emotion, where a lot has been recently written on ressentiment: Demertzis, Nicolas. The political sociology of emotions: Essays on trauma and ressentiment. Routledge, 2020. Jack Barbalet has written on ressentiment; Von Scheve and Salmela have also written on this. This literature may help to improve the complexity of the argument.

- Thanks for these references. We also used them by referring to some direct passages.

 

5. Although the paper is theoretical, it would be great if these theoretical arguments were

illustrated with one or two cases to show exactly how your arguments may work in empirical reality (it does not mean you have to do your own empirical study, you can learn about these cases through other research, media and so on). Can we observe some cases that already indicate that what you offer in theory already starts to work somewhere in practice?

• We did not refer to a specific experience; rather, we better emphasized how the quality of participatory processes, starting from the provision of structured spaces and times for dialogue within the urban space, can constitute a key element capable of “translating” resentment into forms of change and the construction of new social bonds.

 

6. Usually, in theoretical papers, direct quotes and excerpts from the analyzed texts are

provided, indicating a thorough reading of the referenced texts. For some reason, I do not

see it here.

• We’ve provided direct quotes of analized texts as suggested.

 

Best Regards

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for inviting me to read the theoretical paper “Ressentiment, Social Love, and Solidarity in Democratic Societies: The Potential of Urban Space.” I find the paper very promising and pertinent, as we live in a society where fostering care and solidarity is becoming increasingly important. Overall, the argument is well-structured and clear; however, I have several suggestions for improving the paper.  

1. There is some repetition in the text: sections 3 and 4 are identical in content!!!!
2. The paper seems to be very normatively loaded and a bit romantic, suggesting that we can foster democracy by channeling or transforming ressentiment, a crucial emotion for the democratic process, into social love, and that the city offers a great venue to foster these processes. Yet what is not so clear is how exactly this will occur as recent research in sociology of emotion show that resentment and sense of injustice, emotions, which are often mobilized in social movements do not get mobilized (for example, in platform employment in cities) because  other emotions in place prevent this, such as individual feeling rules fostered by neoliberalims, lack of social trust, lack of self-confidence and shame, as well as fear or consequences (see, for example, “Why does class resentment does not transform into political action?” in Emotions and Society journal). So, I feel the argument needs a bit of complexity to avoid romanticization. How will social love foster solidarity under neoliberal conditions and increased socio-economic inequalities? What mechanisms will help to foster it? For example, how to ensure that xenophobes and the rich feel empathy/sense of care towards minoritized and racialized groups and poor and service workers? Adding some complexity to the paper may increase its originality.
3. In terms of ressentiment, I feel the author can extend the debate by adding literature from the sociology of emotion, where a lot has been recently written on ressentiment:
4. Demertzis, Nicolas. The political sociology of emotions: Essays on trauma and ressentiment. Routledge, 2020. Jack Barbalet has written on ressentiment; Von Scheve and Salmela have also written on this. This literature may help to improve the complexity of the argument.
5. Although the paper is theoretical, it would be great if these theoretical arguments were illustrated with one or two cases to show exactly how your arguments may work in empirical reality (it does not mean you have to do your own empirical study, you can learn about these cases through other research, media and so on). Can we observe some cases that already indicate that what you offer in theory already starts to work somewhere in practice?
6. Usually, in theoretical papers, direct quotes and excerpts from the analyzed texts are provided, indicating a thorough reading of the referenced texts. For some reason, I do not see it here.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, I would like to thank you for your careful and insightful comments, which have allowed me to improve the article and to clarify the themes and perspectives I intended to discuss.

I have carried out the major revisions requested, expanding the bibliographical references and including in the text several relevant passages from the articles and books on which I have drawn. I have also sought to clarify more fully the social dimension of ressentiment and the role that urban space may play in either reinforcing or weakening this sentiment, potentially making it conducive to democratic change.

I sincerely apologize for the error in the previous submitted version, where one paragraph was inadvertently repeated. I have, of course, corrected this mistake and have also improved the organization of the sections and the development of the argument.

Finally, I would like to justify my decision to modify the title slightly, in order to better highlight some of the issues and arguments that I have introduced in the revised version of the article. The overall meaning and scope of the article have not been altered in any way.

 

Reviewer 2:

The paper addresses an interesting and timely topic: the relationship between ressentiment, social love, democratic solidarity, and urban space. The underlying insight is promising: ressentiment is not viewed merely as a destructive or pathological emotion, but as a potential indicator of democratic contradictions and, under certain institutional and relational conditions, as an energy that can be transformed into participation, solidarity, and practices of urban care. The idea of considering the city as “emotional infrastructure” is also useful, as it allows for linking political emotions, spatial inequalities, and possibilities for democratic cooperation. However, the text requires some revision.

Sections 3 and 4 should be better integrated or distinguished, as they repeat nearly the same passages on political emotions, Nussbaum, Ahmed, Caillé, Donati, and Boltanski & Thévenot.

• We have restructured Sections 3 and 4, differentiating them, we believe, in a substantial way. We also apologize for the repetition error present in the previous version of the file.

 

This repetition weakens the argumentative structure and gives the impression that the paper is not yet fully polished.

The section on urban space is one of the most promising, but it needs to be strengthened. Lefebvre,  Secchi, and Sennett are appropriate references, but the text remains very abstract. It would be useful to add concrete examples or at least types of urban practices: neighborhood assemblies, participatory processes, inclusive public spaces, urban commons, collective care initiatives, and interventions against urban segregation. This would help demonstrate how the city is not merely a backdrop, but a genuine emotional and political infrastructure.

• We did not refer to a specific experience; rather, we better emphasized how the quality of participatory processes, starting from the provision of structured spaces and times for dialogue within the urban space, can constitute a key element capable of “translating” resentment into forms of change and the construction of new social bonds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Best Regards

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read the article once again. I am overaly satisfied with the revisions.