Fear in our societies: a tool for control during crises?

Opinion 17-06-2026 | 16:35

Fear in our societies: a tool for control during crises?

How security, economic, and identity fears shape societies, and why overusing fear weakens trust, imagination, and long-term stability.

Fear in our societies: a tool for control during crises?
Fear and the weight of difficult questions... A Palestinian child sits amid the ruins of a destroyed building in the Bureij refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip on 11 June 2026. (AFP)
Smaller Bigger

 

In times of turmoil, fear does not remain a passing human feeling. It becomes an element of politics. When crises intensify, trust weakens, and security, economic, and identity threats become intertwined, authority finds itself facing an old question that is constantly renewed: how can a worried society be governed? And can fear be transformed from a source of chaos into a tool of control and stability?

 

Since the emergence of the modern state, fear has been present in the relationship between authority and society. Fear of chaos, of war, of hunger, of the other, of collapse, of losing identity, or of an unknown future.

 

What is new today is that fear is no longer managed only through traditional political discourse. It is now manufactured, amplified, and recycled through the media, digital platforms, and engagement algorithms, turning it from an individual feeling into an organized collective state.

 

Fear, in its essence, is not always negative. Societies sometimes need a degree of awareness of danger in order to act and defend themselves. A state that does not make its citizens aware of the scale of threats may appear detached from reality or incapable of protecting its interests.

 

But there is a major difference between managing risk and managing fear. The first is based on honesty, building trust, and defining solutions, while the second is based on exaggerating threats and keeping society in a constant state of anticipation of the worst. Here, fear becomes a tool of governance.



What are the types of fear?

 

There are three main types of fear used in managing societies: security fear, economic fear, and identity-based fear.

 

Security fear is the most visible. When people feel that their lives are under threat, the demand for stability becomes more important than any other demand. In moments of terrorism, wars, or security collapse, societies tend to accept exceptional measures and may willingly give up part of their freedoms in exchange for a sense of protection. This does not happen only in developing countries, but also in major democracies.

 

After the September 11 attacks, American society accepted a massive expansion of surveillance and security powers under the banner of counterterrorism. The fear was real, but its political consequences extended far beyond the security moment itself.

 

In this type of fear, authority presents itself as the final barrier between society and chaos. The implicit message is clear: reality may not be ideal, but it is better than the terrifying alternative. Here, the citizen is not asked to love authority, but to fear its absence.

 

Economic fear is more complex, because it is not always linked to a direct threat, but to a continuous feeling of insecurity. Fear of unemployment, inflation, currency collapse, loss of social status, inability to educate children, or inability to access healthcare. This type of fear produces a citizen preoccupied with daily survival, less willing to take risks, protest, or even think about long term alternatives.

 

In many societies, ruling does not require direct repression if people are sufficiently exhausted. Continuous economic pressure can lead to a kind of public withdrawal, where the main goal becomes individual survival rather than public participation. In this way, fear of tomorrow becomes an invisible tool for controlling the present.

 

Identity-based fear is perhaps the most dangerous, because it does not only address people’s interests but also their sense of self. When a society is told that its identity is threatened, its religion is under attack, its culture is in danger, or that another group seeks to replace it, fear becomes deeper than politics. It becomes an existential struggle rather than a policy disagreement.

 

Identity fear can divide societies rapidly. It creates psychological boundaries between us and them, makes coexistence appear weak, and makes difference appear threatening. For this reason, it has been used by many political forces around the world, from populist right-wing movements in the West to religious and nationalist groups in the East, as the fastest way to mobilize the public. Fear of the other is easier to mobilize than hope for the future.

 

In the modern world, fear is no longer managed only from the top down. It is no longer produced solely by authority. Sometimes it is produced by opposition groups, sometimes by social groups, sometimes by the market, and sometimes by digital platforms that discover that angry and fearful content spreads more than calm and rational content.

 

Algorithms do not have a political agenda in the traditional sense, but they reward emotional intensity. The more fear increases, the more engagement rises. The more engagement rises, the more content spreads. A closed loop then forms: fear produces content, content amplifies fear, and reproduced fear becomes a psychological reality even if it is not always a factual one.

 

Fear can achieve rapid discipline. It can delay difficult questions, push people to rally around authority, justify exceptional measures, and create a temporary sense of cohesion. But it cannot build long term stability.

 

Stability based on fear is inherently fragile, because it always needs a new threat to sustain itself. When danger fades, authority must summon another. Over time, society grows tired of fear, loses sensitivity to it, or turns against it.

 

Fear does not build trust. It builds obedience. And obedience may create calm, but it does not create deep legitimacy. A society that moves only under fear does not become stronger; it becomes more likely to erupt when conditions change.


 

Limits to the use of fear?

 

There are moral and political limits to the use of fear. A governing authority that exaggerates fear among its citizens may lose its ability to convince them when real danger appears. If people feel that fear is being used against them rather than to protect them, then the security, economic, or identity-based discourse shifts from being a tool of mobilization to a source of lost trust.

 

Even more dangerous is that constant fear weakens political imagination. Fearful societies do not dream; they seek shelter. They do not think about the future; they try to avoid collapse. They do not demand reform; they are content with not falling. In this way, stability itself becomes impoverished, lacking energy and lacking direction.

 

 

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar