“…Political bodies have not, in general, been researched and understood in terms of their emotionality, and when they are, they are often seen as illegitimate, and their claims and concerns are seen as outrageous, utopian or their rage and hope individualized (Cammaerts, 2012; Persson, 2016). More recently, however, there has been an affective and emotional turn in the social sciences at large where emotionality of politics has generated new interest in a variety of different academic fields, not least among communication scholars (Bainbridge & Yates, 2014; Coleman, 2013; Dahlgren, 2009, 2013; Dahlgren & Alvares, 2013; Gould, 2010; Jasper & Owens, 2014; Pantti & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2011; Richards, 2007; Wahl-Jorgensen, 2012, 2016). If there is a normative idea guiding this article, it is the one put forward by Coleman when he argues that “[d]emocracy depends on forms of interruptive speaking, movement and place-taking that defy the almost all-encompassing image of the public as extras on the stage of history” (Coleman, 2013, p. 194).…”