DESCRIPTION:

History and emotion: emotions in historical and cultural context – an overview.

Emotional history: Why our feelings are historically and culturally different from those of our ancestors

If you have ever felt that your emotions are "out of place," if you wonder why emotion regulation sometimes does not work, or if you want to understand why self-help approaches are culturally limited, then the history of emotions provides surprising answers.

What it's about:

·         That emotions are not universal and unchangeable, but historically and culturally shaped,

·         Why understanding emotional history fundamentally changes your own emotional regulation, and

·         Why this topic is more than just academic theory?

Jan Plamper, Professor of History at Goldsmiths, University of London, has systematised the booming field of emotional history for laypeople in his highly acclaimed book: "History and Emotion: Foundations of Emotional History" (2015). The Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, under the direction of Ute Frevert, a leading historian in this field, has also shown that emotions have a history. They are changeable. And this has massive consequences for our understanding of emotional health, therapy and self-regulation.

This post combines scientific findings with practical applications for your emotions in everyday life.

What is the history of emotions?

Emotional history examines how people in different eras experienced, expressed and regulated their feelings and how this changed over time.

What makes this approach so revolutionary? Scientists argue that emotions are not simply biological constants that remain unchanged over the centuries. Instead, they are subject to change over time. The way a person in the Middle Ages might have felt anger or guilt differed fundamentally from our experiences today, not only in terms of naming, but in the neural processing itself.

How scientists define the foundations of emotional history

"Fundamentals of the History of Emotions" outlines the development of this field of research. From the early works of French historian Lucien Febvre, who asked in 1941 in the "Annales d'Histoire Sociale" whether it was possible to write a "history of hatred," to contemporary approaches.

Historians of emotions pursue various theoretical approaches: The constructivist position (represented by William Reddy and his theory of "emotives") states that emotions are actually speech acts (performative speech acts): they are literally created through their linguistic formulation. The praxeological school (Monique Scheer) sees emotions as learned practices. And neuroscientific approaches draw on brain processes to explain emotions without falling into biological determinism.

The common denominator of all these approaches is that emotions are neither purely biological nor purely cultural, but arise from the interaction between the two spheres. That is why feelings have a physical reality and are simultaneously subject to historical change.

Did our ancestors really feel differently? History and emotion in transition

Here's a concrete example. Imagine you are sitting in a salon in 1750 and telling those present that you feel "stressed". The reaction? Complete incomprehension. The word did not yet exist in this sense. Not because people at that time were not under pressure, but because they categorised their inner states differently, felt them differently, and expressed them differently.

The history of emotions shows that what we would diagnose today as "depression" was considered "melancholy" in the 18th century, a condition that was even regarded as a sign of depth and intellectuality. In the so-called therapeutic age of the 20th century, the same experience was pathologised and deemed in need of treatment.

Barbara Rosenwein, another pioneer in emotion research, coined the term "emotional communities" – groups that determine which emotions may be expressed and how they may be expressed. In the Middle Ages, public crying was a sign of strength and passion in men. Today, it is considered a weakness. Has biology changed? No. But cultural norms surrounding emotions, and thus neural processing, have.

Why emotion historians are changing what we think about feelings

The history of emotions has influenced many current debates, from discussions about "German Angst" to the question of free will. Scientists such as Benno Gammerl, Margrit Pernau, and Bettina Hitzer have shown that, if emotions are culturally influenced, we can also actively shape them.

This has practical consequences. Self-help literature usually assumes that there are "right" and "wrong" emotions, universally valid standards of emotional health. But these standards are themselves historical products. What is considered "emotionally intelligent" today would have been considered weakness or even insincerity in other eras.

Peter Stearns coined the term "emotionology," the study of social standards for emotional expression. His research shows that as morality and honour change over time, so too do people's vengeful or proud reactions. Morality and honour throughout history are not constants, but rather processes of negotiation.

What does Stalin have to do with our emotions? Scientific research

Before Plamper wrote History and Emotion, he authored The Stalin Cult: A Study in the Alchemy of Power (2012), an investigation into how emotional attachment to a dictator is created. This research on Stalinism shows that emotions are not only private; they have a massive political influence on people's actions.

The Stalin cult worked because it generated specific emotions, a mixture of fear, reverence, and what could be called "affective loyalty." These emotions were systematically cultivated through rituals, language, and visual propaganda. They were not "natural" or "spontaneous," but rather the result of emotional education.

What does this mean for us today? Those feelings are never "just personal". Power, politics and the media shape them. The power of feelings lies in the fact that they appear "authentic" and "unfiltered", when in fact they are highly socially constructed. Understanding this is the first step towards emotional autonomy.

Are emotions universal or cultural? The central debate

This is the core question of the history of emotions: Are there universal basic emotions (as Paul Ekman claims), or are all feelings cultural constructs? Scientists skilfully navigate between these two poles.

The position that emotions are universal and biologically determined has its appeal; it is simple, measurable and seemingly objective. But historical research shows that even if there are biological foundations (and there are), their experience, expression and meaning are culturally shaped.

An example: The emotion of "anger" may be neurobiologically similar in a medieval knight and a modern manager. But how this anger is interpreted (as a legitimate defence of honour vs. a loss of control), how it is expressed (duelling vs. passive aggression) and what consequences it has (gaining status vs. needing therapy) is historically and culturally bound.

The history of the term "feeling" itself is revealing. In the 19th century, Wilhelm Dilthey distinguished between "feeling" (subjective experience) and "mood" (the prevailing underlying tone). This distinction did not exist in earlier eras and is absent in many other languages.

How the history of feelings changes our understanding of emotion regulation

If you have ever felt that your emotions "don't fit," then you are sensing the tension between your inner experience and the available cultural categories. You may think that there is no language for you in your emotional community. Or worse: a feeling that is considered "illegitimate."

From a neurobiological perspective, the limbic system generates emotions. But it is the cerebral cortex, influenced by language, culture and upbringing, that turns these into named emotions. This process is not neutral. It is shaped by the unwritten rules of its time. Neuroscience confirms what historians of emotion argue: categorisation changes experience.

So when you learn to "regulate your emotions better," you often learn to "feel what is acceptable in your community." That is helpful. But it is also a subtle form of self-denial. The history of emotions shows that every era has had different ideas about which feelings are "good" or "bad."

What can we learn from the history of emotions for our everyday lives?

The theory of the history of emotions may sound academic, but it has practical consequences. Three key insights:

Firstly, emotions are more flexible than we think. When people in the 18th century experienced "melancholy" as a productive, almost desirable state, it shows that our assessments are culturally influenced rather than absolute. This means that you can actively shape your relationship with your feelings.

Secondly, language is power. The more precisely you can describe your inner states, the better you will be able to regulate them. But be careful, the predefined categories also restrict your ability to tell them. The humanities and social sciences have shown that emotional granularity (the ability to convey feelings in a differentiated way) correlates directly with mental health.

Thirdly: Your feelings are not "wrong" just because they do not fit into standard categories. Perhaps you are simply lacking the vocabulary. Ute Frevert, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, emphasises: "Feelings write history," but history also writes our feelings.

What practical methods can be derived from the findings of scientists?

Instead of reflexively resorting to standard categories, the next time you experience a strong emotion ("Am I angry or sad right now?"), try this:

1. Describe the physical sensation: Where in the body? What quality? (Tight, wide, pulsating, stinging?) This practice of embodiment recognises that feelings are always physical experiences, but their interpretation varies.

2. Find a comparison: If this feeling were a landscape, what would it look like? This metaphorical approach circumvents the limitations of predetermined emotional categories.

3. If necessary, invent a word: "glass shard heart", "fog rage", "steel longing" – whatever fits. This practice may seem unconventional, but it has historical roots. Every era has coined new emotional terms when the old ones were no longer sufficient.

4. Write it down. Build your own emotional lexicon. This practice is not esoteric; it is neurobiologically grounded. By using precise labels, you create more differentiated neural connections. This is called emotional granularity, and it correlates directly with better emotion regulation.

These exercises are based on the insight from emotional history that emotional categories are not given, but made. When earlier generations created their own terms (think of "Weltschmerz", a specifically German concept from the 19th century), they also created them.

Why the history of emotions is so important right now

We live in an age of increasing emotional standardisation. The boom in emotion research over the past twenty years is no coincidence; it reflects a growing unease with reductionist models of feelings.

Economic history shows that emotions are not just private matters; they also structure markets. "German Angst" is not just a stereotype, but has real financial consequences, from saving behaviour to risk aversion. Adam Smith already knew that emotions are economically relevant. But only modern emotional history systematically shows how these relationships change over time.

Psychohistory, a precursor to the history of emotions, attempted to apply psychoanalytic concepts to historical actors as early as the 1970s, but often failed because it ignored cultural differences. Modern emotional history, as advocated by scholars, does better: it recognises that both biological and cultural factors are at work, but their interaction is decisive.

Historians, neuroscientists, anthropologists and therapists are now working together in the field of emotional history research. This interdisciplinary approach is yielding new insights, but also raising new questions. One key question is: if emotions are historically changeable, how 'authentic' are our feelings today? And whose interests do they serve?

The linguistic integration gap: when feelings leave us speechless

This is one of the biggest pitfalls of modern emotional labour: we try to squeeze our feelings into predefined categories: "Is this sadness or fear?", even though the inner experience may be more complex than the available words.

This leads to what I call the linguistic integration gap: you feel something, but you can't name it. And what cannot be named cannot be fully processed.

A concrete example from practice: A patient described a feeling as "a heavy buzzing in my chest that paralyses me, but at the same time wants to escape". None of fear, anger, or sadness described it accurately. Only when we had come up with our own term, "frozen urgency", was she able to work with it.

The history of emotions teaches us that new historical situations require new emotional concepts. The pandemic has created emotional states that initially had no names, until archaic terms such as "languishing" (a word for the coronavirus blues, a diffuse feeling of stagnation and emptiness) became popular. This naming was not only descriptive, but therapeutic: it enabled people to confirm and share their experiences.

Critical reflection: The limits of emotional history

It would be dishonest to conceal the criticism levelled at this field of research. Some neuroscientists argue that the emphasis on cultural variability underestimates biological commonalities. Others criticise that the history of emotions sometimes becomes too constructivist, as if there were no physical reality of pain or fear, regardless of their cultural interpretation.

These objections must be taken seriously. The most compelling works in the history of emotions (such as those by Plamper, Frevert, and Reddy) navigate between both poles: they acknowledge biological foundations, but show how their experience, expression, and meaning are culturally modulated.

Another criticism: the history of emotions can also become elitist. Many studies focus on written sources, letters, diaries, and literary texts. These sources come disproportionately from educated, privileged people. How did illiterate people feel? The enslaved? The excluded? The history of emotions still has work to do in this area.

The most important insights you should take away with you:

• Emotions have a history: feelings are not universal constants, but are subject to change over time and cultural influences.

• Scientific foundations: The history of emotions methodically shows how feelings arise between biological reality and cultural construction.

• Language shapes experience: The more precise your emotional vocabulary, the more differentiated your neural processing and regulatory abilities.

• Emotional communities: Every era and culture defines which feelings are legitimate. These norms are negotiable, not absolute.

• Practical application: If common categories of emotion do not fit, invent your own terms; this is historically sound and therapeutically effective.

• Political dimension: Emotions are never purely private; they structure power, politics and the economy.

• Biological AND cultural: Emotions have physical foundations, but their experience is shaped by culture, language and history

• Current relevance: In times of emotional standardisation (through diagnostics, apps, self-help literature), the history of emotions reminds us that emotional diversity is normal and valuable.

• Therapeutic implication: What is considered an "emotional disorder" today may be regarded as a normal variation or even a strength in other contexts.

• Your emotional autonomy: Knowing that emotional norms are historically changeable gives you the freedom to shape your own relationship with feelings

Reflection question: Is there a feeling in your life that you experience repeatedly but for which you have no suitable name? How would you name it if you were completely free, without regard to therapeutic categories or cultural expectations?

These thoughts are part of the preparation for the workshop "Emotion Regulation Beyond Categories" at Gutshaus Ludorf, 16–18 January 2026.

🗓️ Invitation to the workshop weekend in Ludorf

Would you like to learn how to close the "integration gap" and transform your emotional knowledge into reliable inner stability?

On the weekend of 16–18 January 2026, Dr Dirk Stemper invites you to a German-language workshop retreat at the historic Ludorf Manor House (approx. 140 km from Berlin). The seminar is entitled:

"How do we regulate our emotions – without losing ourselves?"

Friday, 16 January (evening): Free book presentation with a free copy for each participant.

Saturday and Sunday (workshop): Intensive seminar (max. 12 participants) to deepen understanding of the SYSTEM framework and working with attachment patterns and co-regulation.

Workshop price: €250 plus accommodation and meals.

👉 Registration and information: https://tidycal.com/m55y88m/wochenendseminar-emotionsregulation

RELATED ARTICLES:

• Anger in history: symbolism, madness and morality in the Middle Ages

• Against Fear: Rituals against Fear, Anxiety and Panic – Origin and Evolution

• Emotion regulation: the gap between the psychology of emotions and practical implementation

• Emotional Authenticity: Developing Conscious Emotions for True Authenticity

• Emotion regulation: regulating emotions, neurobiology and mental health

• Window of Tolerance: Nervous System, Emotion Regulation and Trauma Therapy

• Emotion regulation in relationships: When love meets old wounds