Emotion does not occur inside a person and then move outward into language, culture and space; it is assembled through relations that are already bodily, conceptual, linguistic, normative and environmental. Lutz’s earlier dismantling of “emotion” as a supposedly natural Western category remains decisive because it exposes the epistemic violence of treating historically specific distinctions—emotion/reason, body/mind, nature/culture—as if they were universal coordinates. Gil-Juárez and Vitores make an allied move in communication theory: language does not simply transport pre-existing content but produces versions of reality through historically available categories and repertoires. Pallí and colleagues similarly shift attitudes from mental possessions toward evaluative practices, opening a route from internal states to situated positioning. The current constructionist work intensifies this displacement rather than merely repeating it.
Eickers and Prinz insist that a social account of emotion cannot abandon the body to biological essentialism: norms become embodied, and bodies become sites where permission, prohibition, recognition and emotional injustice are materially distributed. Their account replaces the opposition between sociality and corporeality with an interdependence in which bodily response is itself historically tuned. Bae then supplies a mechanistic architecture for a compatible claim. In a constructionist predictive-processing model, emotions do not correspond to invariant bodily signatures but arise when hierarchically organised emotion concepts integrate interoceptive, exteroceptive and contextual information. Concepts operate as priors: learned structures that make certain interpretations more probable, yet remain revisable under new conditions. The same arousal can therefore become fear, excitement or calm because emotional content is dynamically inferred rather than physiologically decoded. Hoemann and colleagues bring this situated construction into language by treating emotional meaning as a relation among attention, construal and appraisal; language is not a secondary report on feeling but a trace of how situations are selectively made meaningful. Gonzalez and Cohen-Charash make the constitutive force of wording experimentally explicit. “Positive” and “negative” do not merely classify affective states but impose value judgements on emotions and on those who express them, making terminology itself a normative infrastructure. Chaouch-Orozco, Li and Li expand the scale from terms to semantic fields: across fifteen languages, emotion concepts occupy different relational geometries, and long-term cultural orientation predicts substantial variation in those semantic spaces. The emotional lexicon is therefore neither a universal list nor a culturally decorated code; it is a structured field whose distances carry social history. Şencan and colleagues complete the move from semantic space to lived world. Their comparison of Turkish newcomers and Dutch-speaking Belgians shows that people can display partial emotional alignment while inhabiting differently patterned emotional contexts. Emotional fit and contextual fit do not collapse into one variable. This is theoretically important because it makes situation constitutive: family obligation, migration, work, communication, mutual dependence and everyday logistics are not external triggers surrounding an intact internal emotion but ingredients of the emotional world itself. Across these positions, affect becomes intelligible as world-making: a distributed process through which bodies, concepts, words, expectations, recurrent situations and cultural histories organise what can be felt, named, recognised and acted upon. Once affect is understood as world-making, its proper scale is no longer the individual but the relational configuration that makes an emotional event possible and legible. That configuration may include a face, a street, a notification, an institutional category, a migration history, a family obligation, a semantic opposition, a rating scale, a platform feed or a memory archive. None is merely contextual decoration. Each participates in the production of salience, interpretation and action. This shifts the problem directly toward infrastructure and spatial research. Environments arrange encounters; interfaces rank visibility; institutions stabilise vocabularies; archives retain some traces and discard others; classifications turn fluid experience into administratively actionable kinds; urban rhythms modulate exposure, anticipation, anonymity, crowding and withdrawal. Affective life can therefore be mapped without pretending that it has a single location. The relevant map is topological rather than simply geometric: it follows relations among categories, bodies, situations and systems, much as Chaouch-Orozco and colleagues reconstruct semantic distance or Şencan and colleagues reconstruct recurrent contextual themes from natural language. Predictive construction adds temporality to this map because every present interpretation incorporates prior learning and anticipates possible action. Norms add asymmetry because not every body is equally authorised to occupy the same emotional position. Language adds public circulation because categories travel across media and institutions, accumulating connotations as they move. Platform infrastructures add recursive amplification because technical systems repeatedly reorganise what becomes comparable, urgent or absent. Socioplastics can operate precisely at these intersections by treating affective categories not as psychological possessions but as mobile social forms whose trajectories can be observed across bodies, media, archives and spaces. A corpus would then register not only the frequency of an emotional term but the situations, infrastructures and subject positions that allow it to function; an archive would preserve transformations rather than freeze meanings; a map would identify where affective norms and semantic distinctions become materially consequential; fieldwork would treat context as evidence rather than noise. This also changes what counts as comparability. Two places, populations or moments need not share identical emotional vocabularies to become analytically comparable; comparison can proceed through relations among affordances, recurrent situations, classificatory systems and patterns of recognition. The purpose is not to dissolve embodiment into discourse or to replace psychology with cultural theory. It is to hold multiple registers together long enough to see how they co-produce one another. The body remains consequential, but as a socially tuned body; language remains consequential, but as embodied practice; culture remains consequential, but as patterned situations and semantic relations rather than a container; computation remains useful, but only when its abstractions preserve the relational structure from which their data emerge. Affective world-making therefore adds an epistemic instrument to Socioplastics: the capacity to follow how intimate states become infrastructurally organised and how infrastructures enter intimate experience. Its strongest condensation is relational agency.
Anto Lloveras is an architect and urban researcher working across spatial practice, epistemology, archives and public infrastructures through LAPIEZA LAB and Socioplastics.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bae, S.Y. (2026) ‘What and How Emotions Represent: A Constructionist Predictive Processing Account’, Erkenntnis. doi:10.1007/s10670-026-01070-7.
Chaouch-Orozco, A., Li, X. and Li, P. (2026) ‘Cultural attitudes towards the future shape the semantic structure of emotion concepts’, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 13, 387. doi:10.1057/s41599-026-06623-3.
Eickers, G. and Prinz, J. (2026) ‘Social Construction of Emotions 3.0’, Journal of the American Philosophical Association, pp. 255–275. doi:10.1017/apa.2025.10022.
Gil-Juárez, A. and Vitores González, A. (2009) Comunicación y discurso. Barcelona: Editorial UOC.
Gonzalez, M.F. and Cohen-Charash, Y. (2026) ‘Loaded Language: Terminology Influences Everyday Beliefs About Emotions and People Expressing Them’, Affective Science. doi:10.1007/s42761-026-00367-8.
Hoemann, K., Lee, Y., Dussault, È., Devylder, S., Ungar, L.H., Geeraerts, D. and Mesquita, B. (2025) ‘The construction of emotional meaning in language’, Communications Psychology, 3, 99. doi:10.1038/s44271-025-00255-0.
Lutz, C. (1986) ‘Emotion, Thought, and Estrangement: Emotion as a Cultural Category’, Cultural Anthropology, 1(3), pp. 287–309.
Pallí Monguilod, C., Martínez Martínez, L.M., Calsamiglia Madurga, A. and Cubells Serra, J. (2019) Actitudes y discurso. Barcelona: Fundació Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.
Servidio, R., Soraci, P., Griffiths, M.D., Boca, S. and Demetrovics, Z. (2024) ‘Fear of missing out and problematic social media use: A serial mediation model of social comparison and self-esteem’, Addictive Behaviors Reports, 19, 100536. doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2024.100536.
Şencan, R.S., Yılmaz, E., Lafit, G., Hoemann, K. and Mesquita, B. (2026) ‘From words to worlds: Cultural (mis)fit in the emotional contexts of Belgians and Turkish newcomers’, Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 10, 100276. doi:10.1016/j.cresp.2026.100276.
