![strophes pour se souvenir strophes pour se souvenir](http://i.skyrock.net/8720/91228720/pics/3220164201_1_5_h34FeGIa.jpg)
As for anger, I argue that it is not only rational from the point of view of the angry group, but also from the point of view of the whole political community, as its occurrences are signals that help preventing internal hatred. I show that there are indeed cases in which external hatred – but not internal hatred, which leads to civil war – is beneficial. I determine the circumstances in which anger and hatred, despite being an obstacle to productive deliberation, can prove having positively valued consequences for communities. The second part of the paper deals with the political implications of these psychological investigations. Their genesis, phenomenology, and conative structures are especially investigated. To do so, I first propose a precise psychological analysis of the latter, which emphasizes their distinction. In the present paper, I challenge the alleged irrationality of these two emotions. Hatred and anger have widely been recognized as being hostile emotions in this sense. Hostile emotions, that is, emotions which provoke an opposition directed towards the person of the adversary, are indeed incompatible with a fruitful debate, and can thus be deemed as strategically irrational, as they preclude political communities from taking fair and effective decisions. Yet, only specific emotions (such as empathy) seem tolerable during the course of deliberations. Recent contributions to the deliberative theory of democracy (Chambers 2004 Neblo 2020) have emphasized that emotions could play a positive role within debates.