Abstract
The incel community presents an intriguing case within social movement studies, marked by a collective sense of victimhood, a negative collective identity, and a self-deprecating view that starkly contrasts with the positive self-image and objectives typical of most social movements. This discrepancy raises questions about what motivates members to continually engage with the community. This study conducts online observations and discourse analysis to offer an in-depth examination of the community's interaction patterns, discursive practices, and ideological beliefs. Using Randall Collins’ Interaction Ritual Chain framework, the analysis uncovers a paradoxical emotional landscape, challenging traditional models of social interactions and emotional energy as described in his framework. Contrary to the anticipated positive emotional outcomes from successful interaction rituals, incels predominantly display negative emotional expressions, which are transformed into discursive symbols fundamental to group identity. This dynamic is especially evident in discussions of suicide, where members frequently and actively encourage each other to take their own lives. The study elaborates on Collins’ theory by proposing the concept of “dark emotional energy” to elucidate the dynamics that not only perpetuate harmful group dynamics but also bolster a collective sense of belonging, providing insights into the complex mechanisms through which destructive ideologies are maintained within online communities.
Keywords
Introduction
Why did you decide to join the Incel community?
Would you consider yourself an incel?
Can you elaborate on your true motivation for joining this community?
Are you here to share experiences, seek advice, or something else?
These probing questions greet new members upon registering at Incels.is, a popular online forum for self-identified incels. While initially presented as a space for individuals to share experiences of sexual frustration and the challenges of forming romantic relationships, the community functions as much more than just a support group. New members, often met with skepticism, must quickly prove their authenticity by responding to a series of inquiries designed to vet their true motivations. What might seem like an ordinary registration process is, in fact, a ritual of initiation into an insular and often hostile enclave.
Acceptance into this community hinges not merely on shared grievances but on adopting a deeply misogynistic ideology. Members are expected to use aggressive, hateful language, and participate in discussions that often rationalize extreme views, including violence, as solutions to their perceived marginalization. Although outwardly presented as an open space for discussion and advice, the forum operates as a structured mechanism for enforcing conformity, ensuring that only those who fully embrace its toxic, misogynistic worldview are accepted.
The ethos of inclusion and exclusion is emblematic of the incel community. Incels see themselves as marginalized, victims of societal changes—particularly feminist advancement—which, in their view, has stripped them of their rightful place in the gender hierarchy (Ging, 2019; O’Malley et al., 2022). They adopt a rigid, gendered hierarchy, that espouses misogynistic views toward women, frequently rationalizing violence as a means of restoring patriarchy and reasserting male dominance (Regehr, 2022; Zimmerman, 2022). As a result, incels are often categorized as an extreme subset of a broader anti-feminist online movement and have increasingly attracted academic attention, especially in light of violent incidents linked to members identifying as incels (Hoffman et al., 2020; O’Malley et al., 2022; Wood et al., 2022; Zimmerman, 2022).
A defining feature of the incel ideology is the self-deprecating view members hold of themselves. Incels place themselves at the lowest tier of society's perceived hierarchy, a stark contrast to most social movements that typically recruit members by fostering positive self-images and political visions (Melucci, 1989; Polletta and Jasper, 2001; Tarrow, 2011). They embrace a sense of inaction and resignation, focusing more on discussing their perceived plight rather than proactively seeking societal or personal change. In this article, we aim to address this apparent paradox by investigating the dynamics of interactions among members on Incels.is and their role in perpetuating and strengthening incel ideology. We address two primary questions: How do internal interactions among incel members contribute to the creation and perpetuation of incel ideology within the community? What compels the members to engage and re-engage in these interactions?
To address these questions, we employ online observations and discourse analysis of Incels.is. This approach provides an in-depth examination of the interaction patterns, discursive practices, and ideological tenets within the community. Theoretically, we draw on Randall Collins’ interaction rituals (IRs) framework, enhancing it with the concept of “dark emotional energy (EED)” to conceptualize specific interaction types and the emotional undercurrents and motivational drives permeating incel interactions.
The article begins with a literature review on incels, followed by a description of the theoretical framework and the introduction of the concept of “EED.” We then outline the data collection and analysis methods, leading to the presentation of key findings.
Literature review
Incels are often classified as part of the manosphere, a network of men's rights groups connected through websites, blogs, and online communities that believe there has been a significant shift in the social hierarchy between men and women (Ging, 2019). This shift is perceived as elevating women to the highest societal status. Within this misogynistic ideology, the “red” and “blue” pills, borrowed from the 1999 film The Matrix, serve as metaphorical frameworks. The blue pill represents mainstream beliefs about gender dynamics, relationships, and equality, while the red pill signifies an awakening to what incels describe as “the truth” about societal and gender dynamics (Ging, 2019). Incels have expanded this framework with the “black pill,” representing a deterministic, dystopian, and nihilistic outlook in which the social hierarchies are rigid, with an individual's physical appearance determining their social and romantic success, regardless of personal effort or change (Baele et al., 2021; Helm et al., 2024; Preston et al., 2021).
Scholars have examined incel social hierarchies in relation to hegemonic masculinity, emphasizing the hybrid and often contradictory masculinities within the community (Ging, 2019; Glace et al., 2021). While incels often use violent, aggressive language that aligns with traditional hegemonic forms of masculinity, they simultaneously portray themselves as voiceless victims, marginalized by both men and women. They attribute their marginalization to perceived biological inferiority relative to more attractive men and see modern feminism as exacerbating their subjugation (Czerwinsky, 2024; Daly and Reed, 2022; Witt, 2020).
Incels argue that women wield significant power in the “sexual marketplace” as gatekeepers of sexual access, a dynamic they believe has been amplified by dating apps (Preston et al., 2021). However, women are also portrayed as subordinate to “Chads”—men epitomized by physical attractiveness, sexual success, and social dominance. This subordination is often framed in sexual and social terms: women are depicted as deferring to Chads’ desires, prioritizing relationships with these idealized men, and thereby reinforcing a hierarchy where only a small subset of men reap social and sexual rewards (Andersen, 2023; Menzie, 2022).
Incels position themselves at the bottom of this hierarchy, frequently describing themselves as “subhuman,” reflecting their feelings of inferiority, dehumanization, and social alienation. The term “subhuman” underscores their belief that they are viewed as less than human, excluded from basic social respect and validation (Ging, 2019). Paradoxically, while seeing themselves as marginalized, incels claim moral and intellectual superiority over both women and Chads (Menzie, 2022). They argue that women, driven by hypergamous instincts and superficial desires, lack depth and moral integrity, while Chads are dismissed as shallow and undeserving of their elevated position in the sexual hierarchy, with their success attributed to unearned genetic privilege rather than intellect or merit. Incels see themselves as uniquely aware of the systemic unfairness of the “sexual marketplace,” framing their suffering as evidence of deeper societal insight. By framing women as both perpetrators and enablers of incels’ perceived marginalization, this constructs a framework in which violence is seen as a justified response to their role in the perceived systemic injustices of the sexual marketplace. However, as Czerwinsky (2024) argues, it is important to distinguish between “misogynistic incels” and the broader spectrum of individuals who identify as incels or involuntary celibates but do not advocate violence or adhere to a misogynistic ideology.
These contradictions are central to the incel worldview and a focus of research. Some studies explore how male vulnerability is ideologically weaponized to challenge feminist dominance (Czerwinsky, 2024; Daly and Reed, 2022; O’Malley et al., 2022; Witt, 2020), while others examine how these inconsistencies foster solidarity within the community (Banet-Weiser and Bratich, 2019; Ging, 2019; Lindsay, 2022).
The incel philosophy not only establishes a societal hierarchy but also creates an internal hierarchy within the community (Thorburn et al., 2023). At the top are “truecels,” regarded as the most authentic and highest-ranking members. Lower-status members include “greycels,” typically newcomers, and “fakecels,” a derogatory term for those not perceived as “true” incels (Aiolfi et al., 2024). This internal hierarchy is critical for understanding radicalization, as social identity is shaped by power dynamics within group structures. Reicher et al. (2005) argue that individuals strongly identifying with a group are influenced by information aligned with its identity, and this influence is typically exerted by members who are seen as the most representative of the group. Thus, “truecels” wield significant influence over group dynamics, while newer members tend to occupy peripheral roles with less sway (Team, 2023).
A key aspect of incel group dynamics is their internal language, which includes memes, trolling, symbols, and “shit-posting” with specific meanings for members. Studies show this language fosters a strong in-group versus out-group distinction (Witt, 2020). It also serves as a vehicle for spreading extreme ideologies, often disguised as humor (Greene, 2019)—a strategy commonly used by far-right groups to mask propaganda and attract sympathizers (Askanius, 2021; Rieger et al., 2021; Rothermel, 2023).
Scholars have identified patterns of progressive radicalization among incels, often starting on mainstream platforms like Reddit and escalating to more extreme spaces (Mann et al., 2023). Regehr (2022) describes a process where individuals struggling with loneliness and mental health issues are gradually drawn into incel ideology through humor, symbols, and internal jargon. This ideology reframes their loneliness into misogynistic anger, shifting blame from personal struggles to societal oppression. However, radicalization can also work in reverse. Solea and Sugiura (2023) highlight a “normification” process where niche incel discourses spread to mainstream platforms like TikTok. This normalization occurs subtly, often using emotional appeals and pseudo-science to disseminate tropes from the incelosphere.
The dual role of incels—both as a consensus-building community and as a group in conflict with societal values—places them at the crossroads of being an online community (Sugiura, 2021a), a subculture (O’Malley et al., 2022), and a social movement (Hoffman et al., 2020; Menzie, 2022; O'Donnell and Shor, 2022; Salojärvi et al., 2020; Wilén, 2024; Witt, 2020). For this analysis, we conceptualize incels as a social movement, as they meet key criteria outlined in movement literature. According to Meluccís (1989) definition, social movements (a) possess a collective identity based on shared experiences of marginalization and (b) engage in symbolic actions that challenge societal norms. Incels embody these traits, rallying around frustrations around perceived marginalization in the “sexual marketplace.” While they lack formal organizational structures, their collective ideology and their use of memes, trolling, and symbolic language arguably serve as a form of resistance against perceived societal injustice and attempts to reshape cultural narratives and societal structures. It is primarily their focus on challenging societal norms and reversing feminist advancements that leads us to conceptualize them as a movement rather than the closely related concept of a “subculture.”
What sets incels apart from many other social movements, however, is their lack of a positive vision or goal. Most movements aspire to social change, rights recognition, or policy reform, fostering a positive collective identity, self-worth, and a sense of being part of something larger (Melucci, 1989; Tarrow, 2011). This impersonal, extra-individual force serves as a motivation for members to stay involved. In contrast, incels internalize their ideology through victimhood and resentment. Their discourse centers on frustration, anger, and a nihilistic view of societal structures, particularly those related to gender and relationships. Unlike other movements, incels lack a constructive vision for societal transformation (Cottee, 2020).
This raises a critical question: what compels members to repeatedly engage with and perpetuate this ideology? Specifically, how do internal dynamics and interactions within incel communities sustain and reinforce these beliefs, ultimately driving radicalization? To shed light on these questions, we now turn to the work of Randall Collins.
Theoretical framework: online IRs
We theorize interactional dynamics on Incels.is within an interactionist framework, drawing closely from Collins’ (2004) theory of IR. As a situational theory, interactionism focuses on transient encounters, seeking to understand how identities and categories gain intensified significance through focused interactions. However, certain aspects of the incel community and its ideology cannot be fully explained by Collins’ theory alone. Therefore, we expand the framework by introducing the concept of “EED.” This concept aims to capture the seemingly paradoxical mechanism that drives members of the incel community to continuously (re)engage with each other and the forum.
IRs
What motivates people to continuously engage in social interactions? How are collective symbols and meanings produced through these interactions? These are among the key questions Randall Collins sought to address through his conceptualization of Interaction Ritual Chains (IRC) theory. Collins (2004) drew on Erving Goffman's work (1956, 1967) to recontextualize Durkheim's theories into a micro-sociological framework, explaining how groups create social membership and intersubjectivity—their collective identity as a “we.” Like Durkheim ([1912] 1915), Collins places rituals at the heart of social life—moments of shared attention and emotion that have the power to transform objects of focus into symbols infused with group belonging. These symbols, in turn, play a role in future rituals, creating a chain of interactions that form the foundation of a shared sense of community. Collins defines rituals broadly, encompassing activities such as dancing together at a club, chanting at a political rally, or even the simple act of sharing a cigarette.
According to Collins, an IR consists of four essential ingredients. First, a group of individuals (at least two) must be physically co-present, allowing them to perceive each other's micro-signals such as body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice. Second, barriers are established to outsiders, giving participants a clear sense of inclusion and exclusion. Third, participants focus their attention to a common object or activity, therebycreating a shared reality. Fourth, they experience a common mood or emotional state. These ingredients reinforce one another; in particular, mutual focus and shared mood tend to amplify each other. As participants become more absorbed in the collective activity and attuned to each other's actions and emotions, they experience a heightened intensity of their shared emotions, which eventually dominates their awareness.
When these ingredients align, IRs foster group solidarity and collective identity among participants, reinforcing mutual bonds and a sense of belonging within the group. As participants develop stronger solidarity and intersubjectivity, they begin to internalize the group's shared thoughts, morals, and behaviors, seeing themselves less as individuals and more as part of a collective. In essence, the ritual transforms a group of individuals into a community, cultivating a shared sense of “we.”
Participants experience successful rituals as pleasurable and energizing, imbuing them with what Collins calls emotional energy (EE): a positive feeling that entices participants to remain in the community, manifesting as “confidence, elation, strength, enthusiasm, initiative in taking action” (Collins, 2004,p. 49). This EE is contagious, spreading throughout the group and fostering a collective effervescence. Group members strive to preserve the memory of these positive emotions through shared symbols (Durkheimian “sacred objects”) which become charged with meaning and serve as common reference points within the community. These symbols, often the objects of focus during rituals, represent crystallized EE that helps participants recall the unity experienced during the ritual. However, because EE tends to dissipate over time, individuals seek to engage in new rituals to rejuvenate these positive feelings. For Collins, EE is the driving force behind social bonds, group solidarity, and interpersonal relationships, propelling participants to further interaction and generating a chain of rituals that sustain communities. Symbolic objects, gestures, and rituals carry shared meanings that bind individuals together, fostering common understanding and reinforcing social bonds.
While both Durkheim and Collins’ works predate the Internet and view physical co-presence as necessary for successful IRs (see e.g. Collins, 2004, pp. 53–55), recent research suggests that rituals can also occur in mediated environments. For instance, DiMaggio et al. (2018) found that IRC theory effectively predicts which online posts elicit robust conversations and responses. As in face-to-face interactions, shared topical focus in these mediated environments contributes to successful exchanges, and these interactions exhibit temporal rhythms similar to those found in face-to-face conversations. Similarly, Maloney (2013) demonstrated that EE can be generated and identities formed in online exchanges on pro-anorexia websites. These and other studies (Johannessen, 2023; Wahlström and Törnberg, 2019) suggest that while mediated IRs lack full bodily presence and may be lower in intensity, they are often compensated for by their sustained and long-term nature. This is especially relevant in the age of “deep mediatization” (Couldry and Hepp, 2018), where mediated interaction is ubiquitous. However, as Törnberg and Törnberg (2024) argue in their study of far-right extremist forums, when IRs occur online, the focus shifts from material symbols to the realm of discourse and language. Building on these insights, the analysis below expands Collins’ conceptual apparatus to capture the unique EE generated in incel interactions.
The dark side of emotions
While Collins’ theory has been applied to contexts ranging from funerals to riots and sports events, it has been criticized for overemphasizing positive emotions while neglecting the “dark side” of EE. Collins acknowledges that emotions like hatred, anger, and rage can emerge as transitory outcomes of IR (Collins, 2004, pp. 50–53), but he does not treat them as central components of the interaction. Addressing this gap, Boyns and Luery (2015) expand Collins’ framework by differentiating between positive emotional energy (EE+) and negative emotional energy (EE−).
EE+ corresponds to the positive emotions central to Collins’ theory, fostering group solidarity, confidence, and enthusiasm. In contrast, EE− represents an individual's adversely charged emotional disposition against membership in a group or a social encounter. EE− is likely to manifest as a result of failed or contentious rituals, when the social bases of EE+ are challenged, undermined, or unfulfilled. Unlike Collins’ argument that failed rituals result in deflation or low energy, Boyns and Luery propose that EE− generates intense emotions like embarrassment, anger, resentment, vengeance, and fear. These emotions lead to social alienation and foster experiences of conflict, distrust, and aggression. Repeated unsuccessful interactions can solidify one's identity as an outsider, deepening resentment against the group.
Both EE+ and EE− motivate action, but their trajectories differ: EE+ drives group solidarity, while EE− directs hostility toward perceived enemies. Boyns and Luery’s (2015) conceptual advancement is particularly relevant for understanding the emergence of groups that see themselves as societal outcasts. Such groups can be viewed as the consequence of repeated experiences of exclusion from social interaction. Since the feelings generated by social exclusion are often uncomfortable and unsettling, people will seek to avoid interactions that have a history of leading to negative emotions, distract themselves with alcohol, drugs, or similar coping mechanisms, or attempt to reduce the overall impact of EE− by counterbalancing it, seeking out other communities and interactions (Boyns and Luery, 2015, p. 161). Groups can thus unite in mutual hatred against a common adversary, thereby pushing them toward a new community. When EE− is generated against an opponent, this can become an important point of symbolic focus for group members, facilitating collective identification and becoming a symbol for the group. EE− can thus be an important means to generate EE+, as intergroup conflict produces a greater level of intragroup identification, a higher level of group commitment and loyalty, and the construction of a novel collective identity.
While Boyns and Luery (2015) offer insights into why individuals seek new communities, the survival of these groups still hinges on their ability to generate successful IRs and positive energy. A pull mechanism is necessary: the EE− that emerges in aversion to the outside should thus lead to a strong community characterized by positive energy. However, in the case of groups like incels, this dynamic differs significantly. The energy visible in their interactions diverges from Collins’ description of positive conjunctions, which infuse participants with solidarity, confidence, and enthusiasm. Instead, there is a mix of high EE− (anger, resentment, hatred, and rage) directed toward an outgroup, coupled with a low level of EE+ toward the ingroup, leading to irritation, unfriendliness, and withdrawal. Despite finding solidarity within the community and hostility toward outsiders, members often express feelings of depression and loneliness. Yet, they continue to interact, finding reasons to remain engaged in the community.
Building on this understanding, we propose an additional dimension of EE, termed EED, to better conceptualize the dynamics within groups like incel. This acknowledges that the interactional context is vital for understanding how EE is expressed. In the context of incels, the negative energy generated by a common external threat does not seem to foster positive group unity. Instead, it leads to outcomes where individuals become more isolated from the external world. Even though members find solidarity within their community and hostility toward outsiders, they also experience depression and loneliness. EED should not be seen as contrasting with EE+ and EE−, but rather as a distorted version of EE+. The outcome, in this case, is a type of EE where the resultant feelings are predominantly negative, including sadness, resentment, nihilism, and shame. The concept of EED is further elaborated in our analysis below.
Research design
In this study, we adopt a nethnographic-inspired approach, allowing us to immerse in the online culture of the incel community to gain a deeper understanding of its members’ perspectives, language, and rituals. Such immersion is crucial for comprehending the subtleties of the incel ideology and the emotional undertones of their interactions. Open online communities, such as Incels.is, are particularly valuable in this context as they provide access to extended sequences of naturally occurring interactions (Silverman, 2007).
The focus of the study is on Incels.is, specifically selected as it is considered a central hub for the incel movement (Lindsay, 2022; O'Donnell and Shor, 2022). This forum serves as an online meeting place where self-identified incels discuss their experiences, ideologies, and grievances related to their perceived inability to form romantic or sexual relationships. Discussions often reveal frustration, self-pity, misogyny, and, in certain cases, endorsement of violence (Lindsay, 2022)
At the time of writing, the forum boasts approximately 23,000 registered members, with 10,840,129 posts across 480,000 threads. Web traffic analytics from Ahref 1 indicates that the site receives around 1.5 million monthly visits. Over the past 6 months, the primary demographic comprises men aged 18–24 (36%) and 25–34 (27%), predominantly from the UK (30%), followed by the USA (24%), and Brazil (19%). Visitors’ browsing interests circulate around gaming (e.g. platforms like Twitch and Roblox) and adult websites. Most incoming traffic stems from social media platforms like YouTube, Reddit, and 4chan, as well as the Darknet (Doxbin). Notably, the top outgoing links from the site lead to YouTube (9%), Incel.blog (7%), Alivegore.com (4%), and Reddit (3%).
The data for this study was collected in two phases, with a total duration of five weeks. The initial phase involved covert observation of the community over two weeks, focusing on the most active threads. This phase served three main purposes. Firstly, it facilitated a more intricate comprehension of the community, centering on internal communication among members and exploring language use. This is particularly important considering that incels are documented for using memes and varied symbols in their communication (see Witt, 2020). Secondly, by examining general interaction patterns within the forum, it enables a more integrated understanding of the community. As posited by Collins (1981), there may be spill-over effects from previous IR that individuals have engaged in. Since members of incels are commonly engaged in reading and posting across multiple threads, they are invariably influenced by the outcomes from a range of IRs. Thirdly, this phase helped us to select the most suitable threads for a closer examination.
Despite its obvious benefits, this approach of identifying prevalent tendencies in the community has its limitations, particularly in discerning the dynamics of individual interactions, which typically occur within threads. Therefore, the second phase of data collection concentrated on gathering a small selection of specific threads and spanned three weeks. The threads were selected based on the observations made during the first phase, based on their high response rates and views within a condensed timeframe, under the assumption that these may contain the most successful IRs. This resulted in a selection of 10 threads comprising 1593 comments, permitting a richer exploration of the dynamics of IR in digital spaces.
As the primary focus of our study is to explore the interactions among members of the incel community, rather than individual comments, we draw on psychological discourse analysis (PDA; Goodman, 2017; Wiggins, 2017). Unlike traditional qualitative methods that rely heavily on coding, which can fragment and decontextualize data (Potter and Wetherell, 1987), PDA is action-orientated and emphasizes the relational dynamics and emotional undercurrent within a community—aspects often neglected in conventional discourse analysis approaches (Wood and Kroger, 2000). Our analytical approach is inspired by the concept of analysis as theoretical reading, where interpretations are not bound by rigid methodological procedures. Instead, they involve repeated, theoretically informed readings of the data and the writing of interpretive analyses (Goodman, 2017). Initially, the data was read and re-read with our research questions and our theoretical framework in mind to identify key themes and relevant information (cf. Goodman, 2017). The subsequent phase focused on identifying interactional patterns by tracing how comments and responses evolved within threads. These patterns were coded, and analytical interpretation notes were documented, forming the foundation for our analysis.
Ethical considerations
This study grapples with sensitive ethical considerations. It involves individuals with mental health challenges, including suicidal thoughts. Understanding the radicalization process online is crucial, given its significant societal impacts. Due to the large size of the group and the public nature of its discussions, we regard it as a public domain. Thus, it does not require individual consent for research, in alignment with ethical guidelines provided by The Association of Internet Researchers (Franzke et al., 2020) and the British Sociological Association (BSA, 2017). However, ensuring anonymity and user integrity was paramount during data collection and analysis due to the sensitive nature of data. As praxis when studying online forums, we opted for covert observations. Since the content of the forum is openly accessible, we gathered the data without interacting with the members. While publicly announcing our presence was a considered alternative, this could potentially jeopardize data collection, and risk altering the dynamics and interactions within the forum. It could also pose unwarranted risks for the researchers. To ensure anonymity for the members, usernames and other highly identifiable information were deleted when collecting the material. Direct quotations have been altered to prevent tracing back to individual users.
Findings
The analysis consists of two major parts. In the first part, we begin by identifying how Collins’ essential components of IR are fulfilled in the online context of Incels.is, and how these rituals generate intersubjectivity and a distorted form of EE. To achieve this, we examine general interaction patterns across all threads analyzed in the material, allowing for a more integrated understanding of the community. In the second part, we deepen the analysis through a focused examination of a single thread, enabling a detailed exploration of the interaction dynamics. Here, we aim to further analyze the specific EE− generated through interactions on the forum.
Online IR components
Within the Incels.is community, IR takes the form of the exchange of messages on shared topics. In other words, the rituals are conversations. From a social membership perspective, the significance of conversations is less attributed to their content and more to their role as moments of shared focus on a common activity. Like any ritual, they are constituted by a shared focus on a set of symbols, united with shared emotion, as outlined in the theory section above. However, the unique distinction lies, obviously, in that the ingredients and the outcomes of the rituals are actualized within the realm of discourse and language. The objects of shared attention are words, stories, and images, rather than physical objects, serving as the conveyors of shared experience. Shared focus comes naturally in this context: specific topics become typical for the community, and form the core of community conversations.
The sense of group assembly in this context is arguably represented by the common banner under which individuals have gathered. Although digital spaces such as Incels.is cannot offer a shared physical presence, they feature distinctive designs and descriptions that delineate the community's purpose and shared focus. Elements like logos, names, descriptions, and graphic designs arguably lay the foundation for constructing a common cognitive reality. These digital spaces are deliberately designed to elevate a banner that declares the shared attributes around which the community congregates. The technological structuring of online meeting places, such as forums with subforums and discussion threads, organizes conversations to ensure participants maintain a mutual focus of attention.
The participants in these discussions, over time, erect certain barriers to outsiders, often manifesting as distinctive internal culture and language. These barriers are essential in maintaining the coherence and uniformity of the community and in reinforcing the distinct identity and ideology of its members. They act as delineators, determining community membership. In the incel community, we find that these barriers manifest as primarily linguistic barriers, legitimacy challenges, and common standard of (anti)morality.
In terms of linguistic barriers, trolling and “shitposting” are prominent features of the community (see also Hoffman et al., 2020). While the extent of trolling is difficult to quantify, members employ a rather distinctive jargon, which can be interpreted as a symbolic way of communicating within the community (see also Greene, 2019). This jargon manifests visually through symbols such as “Pepe the Frog” and DC's “The Joker,” the former being a symbol assimilated by trolls and alt-right activists, and the latter depicting a villain aspiring to destroy society. Additionally, this jargon encompasses a unique lexicon laden with acronyms, slang, and terminologies, often esoteric to outsiders. For instance, terms like “foid” and “toilets” are commonly used in lieu of “women” in forum discussions. The recurrent substitution of derogatory terms for women serves as a rallying symbol for group members. This in-group language and jargon not only strengthen communal bonds but also demarcates community boundaries, alienating those not familiar with the nuanced meanings and connotations. These distinctive words and stories serve as emblems of community membership and forms of cultural capital, with prestige accorded to those who expose “fakecels” and uphold the community's linguistic norms.
Regarding legitimacy challenges, the community has a pronounced internal social hierarchy, often leading to skepticism and scrutiny directed at newcomers or perceived outsiders. New members face challenges to their legitimacy and alignment with incel ideologies. Established members often express dislike with the perspectives brought forth by newer members. For instance, as one member expresses this: “The blackpill is supposed to be unique and reflective, which is contradictory to what new ‘incels’ puts forward, it's why all of us older users highly dislike the new graycels that are joining.” Here, “graycels,” being newcomers not fully indoctrinated into the ideology, are not considered to be full members of the community. This hierarchical structure is evident in interactions where the term “graycel” is employed pejoratively, even toward established members, highlighting the prevailing challenges for newcomers in gaining acceptance and impacting the community dialogue. For example, while we cannot statistically validate this due to data limitation, we noticed that members with “only” a few hundred posts were rarely to receive responses during thread discussions, indicating a perceptible hierarchical delineation based on contribution history and a general reluctance to accept others into the community.
In terms of common standard of morality, the community shares misogynistic and nihilistic ideologies, which can be seen as a form of common standard of (anti)morality, and also as a shared focus of the discussions. These categories blend on the forum, contributing to uphold barriers to outsiders. This is manifested in various ways in the discussions. Some users call for some form of social ritual or mechanism to further divide the community and separate well-established members from newcomers. For instance, as expressed by this member: My initiation is that you’d have to kill a pet on camera, people generally loves pets, and ending a life is a very impactful thing, I could gauge their reactions and see if they are pressing themselves or not, if you lack the heart to kill animals that we as humans hold dear to us like “family”, then you aren’t black pilled.
Although these types of explicit calls for violence are not common on the forum, they exemplify how encouragements for deeply immoral and repulsive action are used as a type of nihilist “anti-morality test,” to prove one's commitment.
Another facet of this common standard of (anti)morality within the community is a prevailing tendency toward escalation, evident in both the explicit and heated conflicts between members and the visual material exchanged. For instance, in one thread, a member shared degrading pornographic GIFs of women, and this trend escalated over 28 pages to more extreme graphic content involving short clips of sexual assault and torture of women in submissive positions. Similarly, another thread proposed that all men would commit sexual assault under certain circumstances, leading to an exchange of rape pornography. These instances of escalation are prime examples of successful IR. As emotions intensify and spawn new emotional states (Collins, 1981), the content shared among incels follows a trajectory of escalation, maintaining a constant mutual focus despite the escalating severity.
In both these cases, the adherence to nihilistic viewpoints and extreme misogynistic expressions serves as a group barrier, effectively repelling those who do not share these perspectives. The normalization of extreme viewpoints within the community thus creates a hostile environment for individuals with differing or more moderate views, serving to distinguish members from non-members and further cementing the communitýs coherence.
Furthermore, the charged symbols and misogynic narratives that become characteristic of the community function not only as markers of membership and cultural capital but also carry an emotional resonance, fostering a shared mood among members. As participants learn the community's discourse, they concurrently adopt the associated emotional responses to different topics and stories. This environment is steeped in bitterness, cynicism, toxicity, and self-pity, with members often competing over who has the worst position in life, whether due to low self-esteem or perceived physical unattractiveness. This competitive downward spiral is acknowledged by members, as reflected in comments such as: “No one can see how ‘ugly’ you are and based on the pictures I've had sent to me for ratings, most guys on her’ can't assess for shit and over-exaggerate their ugliness for the sake of memeing and fitting in.” The overall interactional context is destructive and toxic, with discussions on suicide being a pervasive element across all threads examined. This toxic environment is exemplified in the following post: I vote for self-improvement salesman and hope shills to get ban from this forum. I am sick of self-improvement assholes shilling normie advice. If people want to laying down and rot, it is their fucking choice, mind your own fucking business if you are doing great in life. The forum should be a place where people share their grievances with people in similar situation. Hope is cope and go fuck yourself if your life is good.
Such sentiments reflect the overall mood of the forum and serve as the interactional context in which IRs unfold. This context, as we will explore in the following section, leads to what can be seen as a distorted outcome of the rituals. The rituals, steeped in such a toxic environment, deviate significantly from traditional norms and expectations, often reinforcing the community's inward-looking and self-destructive ethos.
Intersubjectivity and emotional energy
Intersubjectivity, collective identity, and emotional energy are central outcomes of successful IR according to Collins. On Incels.is, the prevailing nihilistic and toxic discourse engenders a unique form of intersubjectivity and group solidarity, often marked by ambivalence. Solidarity is expressed in various ways: the use of inclusive pronouns like “we” or “us” signals a collective identity, and members frequently refer to each other as “brocels,” indicating a sense of kinship. However, when members seek counsel in distress, such as contemplating leaving the forum or committing suicide, the responses often reflect this ambivalence.
We identified three prevalent forms of support: positive, negative, and ambivalent. Positive support, though less frequent, attempts to guide a member toward constructive outcomes, as seen in the following response to a member considering suicide: I understand know what is happening but let me tell you that this is awful reading just how much you have detailed how your final days will go. I hope you pussy out and realize there is more to life than other people's opinions, take care friend.
Negative support, more common, encourages destructive behavior, illustrated by a blunt suggestion from another user to commit suicide: “KILL YOURSELF (IN REAL LIFE, NOT IN VIDEO GAME).” In another instance, a member even advised on a suitable location for suicide. While these responses may exhibit a form of group solidarity, they are deeply cynical and destructive, reflecting the community's underlying ideology. Notably, there is even a subforum on Incels.is called Suicidefuel, where members actively encourage each other to commit suicide. Whether these expressions are genuine or trolling, their potentially devastating impact is significant (Witt, 2020).
Ambivalent support, a unique variant, presents itself as positive and emphatic but ultimately harbors destructive intentions. This type of “support” can intensify feelings of isolation and despair, reinforcing a nihilistic outlook—a form of catastrophic compassion. For example: “Btw I wish you find peace on the other side I’m planning to rope in a few years too (in Roblox) btw I’m atheist, so I think I won’t even realize I’m dead because I’ll be too dead to care.”
Despite the expressions of intersubjectivity and occasional solidarity among community members, the emotional outcomes deviate from the positive outcomes Collins (2004) associates with successful IR. Instead of feelings of confidence and joy, which Collins argues foster social cohesion and repeated interactions, the frequent discussions on mental health and the pervasive theme of suicide across threads indicate a community mired in negative emotional states. The emotional spectrum within the community is dominated by anger, despair, and pessimism. Members often appear acutely aware of the detrimental influence the forum has on their mental health, as illustrated by this member who has posted over 25,000 times: I can’t handle it on this website anymore, and I didn’t even hate anyone when i first joined. In fact, I joined this forum not only to find like-minded people but also out of curiosity due to the shock value of this website, but i did not know the website would eventually influence me, otherwice i perhaps’ wouldn’t have joined. I pretended to be hostile towards society to blend in with the forum, but eventually, the forum really influenced me, thats when I really became angry at the world.
Nonetheless, despite the prevailing negativity, members are consistently drawn back to the community, engaging in frequent and voluminous posting. A significant portion of members have posted several hundred posts, with some surpassing 15,000. This contradictory dynamic—where interactions spiral into destructive emotions yet members feel compelled to return—is also evident within specific threads.
In one particularly notable thread analyzed below, a member seeks others’ views on a contentious topic within the incel community. Initially, as we will see, the tone was somewhat hopeful, but as the exchange unfolded, the emotional tenor gradually shifted toward negativity. The original poster's stance evolved into a more self-destructive self-image, eventually culminating in expressions of suicidal intent. Despite the persistent negativity, the member continuously re-engages with the community.
Don’t fucking trust a sex worker
The thread contains 181 comments and had been viewed more than 7000 times when the data were collected. The thread starter is a member who finds himself in a rather peculiar situation: a sex worker has claimed to have fallen in love with him, and he is seeking advice from the incel community. This topic is particularly interesting because it is controversial within the context of the black pill ideology, as it touches on a core aspect of what it means to be an incel—namely, the inability to find a romantic partner (Witt, 2020). The thread begins with the member describing his situation and seeking advice from the community: This situation is fucked me up and I can’t sleep right now. Do you think alcohol caused this? How should I continue right now? I think the alcohol cased this and she will say something else tomorrow.
This sets a specific focus of attention for the thread, with nearly all respondents offering advice. The thread is filled with negative support, an often-harsh shared emotional mood, and various crude comments from other members, such as: “Ascend as soon as possible then get the fuck out from this site.” and “DON’T FUCKING TRUST A SEX WORKER WHO TAKES YOUR MONEY YOU FUCKING DRUNKARD.” Another member adds: “Bro you fucked up you were paying her to leave after you got your rocks off not stay around having drinks going on dates. Ghost her ass at the hotel, delete her number after you smash one more time. NO RELATIONSHIPs with a whore dude.” The (very) few instances of positive support in the thread, where some members suggest exploring the possibility that the woman might be sincere, are largely ignored by others. Throughout the thread, one can note a collective belief among the participants that women, especially sex workers, are inherently deceitful and manipulative. This assumed knowledge is not only part of the black pill ideology but also reinforces the incel community's view that they possess an “over-encompassing” understanding of women's true nature. Their advice to the thread starter—advising him to “ghost her” and warning him not to trust her—reflects this perceived superiority and distrust of female intentions.
Over time, the thread starter appears to align with the negative comments, expressing adherence to the black pill ideology and a general distrust of the woman who claims to love him: “She told me she doesn’t care about money. I don’t trust her.” When repeatedly encouraged by other members to leave the forum due to his apparent ability to have sex and “ascend,” he replies, “No, I’m truecel to be honest. Believe me, I wish I was a chad.” Throughout the thread, the thread starter expresses a conflict between wanting to believe in the woman's sincerity and adjusting to the feedback from fellow incel members. This ambivalent mistrust is clearly reflected in the following two quotes: She gave me some personal information and showed me photos of her kids, one of them are really sick. Is this positive or just a façade from her? What should I do? I want to ascend with her. As a beggar I’m not able to be picky. During sex, she expressed that she loved me. But I don’t really trust her because she is a professional liar […] And I also got her real name and her real number. She told me that she hadn’t any feelings for me until I fucked her other sex-working colleges and she got jealous because of it. And she also claimed that I have her the best sex that she ever had. Obviously I don’t trust anything of this.
In response to comments from other members, the thread starter expresses self-doubt, sadness, and even suicidal thoughts; “I don’t care. I will kill myself someday, so what does it matter?” These emotions are further reinforced by other members, who criticize his naivety and question his motives and true identity as an incel. Despite this harsh feedback, he continues to return to the discussions, repeatedly seeking advice. It becomes clear that what motivates him to participate and re-engage in these interactions is not the generation of EE+, as typically seen in successful IRs, but rather some other compelling force.
Dark emotional energy as group-building
In this thread, as in many others across the forum, negative emotional expressions overwhelmingly dominate interactions. Rather than offering positive emotional support, members focus on assigning blame and reinforcing social hierarchies within the group. Consequently, forum interactions tend to have a destructive emotional impact on participants, leading to expressions of depression, self-loathing, and loneliness. However, despite these detrimental effects, members consistently return to the forum.
This dynamic seems contradictory and runs counter to Collins’ theory, where EE+ generated in successful rituals infuses participants with feelings of joy and enthusiasm, driving them back into a continuous chain of interactions. Instead, in this case, rituals seem to produce an amalgam of heightened EE−, such as anger, resentment, hatred, and rage directed at outgroups, while generating low levels of EE+ within the in-group. This peculiar dynamic cannot be fully explained by Boyns and Luery's (2015) concept of EE−, which typically arises from failed IRs and is characterized by anger, shame, and animosity toward outgroups.
To resolve this apparent paradox and better understand how emotional energy manifests in the community, it is essential to consider the specific interactional context. The incel community constructs its identity around a negative collective self-image, one formed in direct opposition to a perceived enemy.
Discussions frequently revolve around themes such as suicide, perceived powerlessness, misogyny, and victimization. These depressive themes, along with their associated emotional expressions—depression, hopelessness, insecurity, and self-hatred—not only serve as discursive objects of attention in the discussion but also become symbols of group identity—“sacred objects” in Durkheim's sense. Members share their own negative experiences, receiving validation that reaffirms their position within the group. These emotional states, while reflective of personal distress, become emblematic of the group, intensifying shared emotions and solidifying the collective identity.
However, unlike traditional rituals that generate positive outcomes—such as joy, confidence, or empowerment, these incel rituals create a reinforcing cycle of despair and self-destruction. It is through this shared despair, cynicism, and bitterness that members bond, forming the core of the community's collective identity.
Thus, the IRs within incel forums manifest “inversely,” producing what can be described as a form of EED. Rather than a simple contrast between EE+ and EE−, EED is a distorted version of EE+, where the group's emotional cohesion is rooted in shared negativity and destructive emotions. Instead of fostering empowerment or collective efficacy, these shared rituals lead to emotional decay and entrenchment in negative worldviews. This community thrives, not because of failed rituals, but because of this persistent negativity, suggesting that Collins’ idea of “failed rituals” does not fully apply here. Rather, EED becomes the foundation for the group's survival. Although these interactions fail to generate EE+, they create group symbols charged with negative energy, such as the glorification of suicide or internal competition over who experiences the most self-pity. Paradoxically, these symbols serve to unify the group and sustain its identity.
Interestingly, the concept of dark emotional energy seems to align with the original theories of Durkheim and Goffman. Durkheim ([1912] 1915) distinguishes between positive and negative cults, focusing on both social bond reaffirmation and behavior regulation. Goffman (1967), similarly, identifies presentation rituals (affirmative) and avoidance rituals (taboo behaviors). Both scholars acknowledge that societal solidarity involves opposing yet complementary components, organized around rituals with both positive and negative dimensions. Collins, however, primarily reflects the positive cult and affirmative presentation rituals.
Discussion
The analysis of Incels.is presents a complex and paradoxical emotional landscape, challenging traditional understandings of IRs and emotional energy as proposed by Collins (2004). Despite the presence of conditions that typically foster positive emotional outcomes in social interactions, the emotional dynamics within the incel community deviate significantly from these expectations.
In traditional IRs, the objects of shared attention are often physical or tangible, like religious icons, national flags, monuments, or sports team emblems. However, in online settings like incel forums, these symbols are replaced by linguistic and discursive objects. Words, memes, and narratives act as the focal points of attention, creating a discursive reality that appears to be as powerful in generating group solidarity as physical symbols might be in face-to-face interactions.
In the case of Incels.is, this shift leads to negative emotional expressions being transformed into discursive group symbols, becoming emblematic of the community. In this interactional context, the emotional outcomes of social interaction manifest inversely, perpetuating negative emotions and destructive group dynamics. Experiencing, or at least expressing, these emotions become crucial for marking group identity and signaling belonging.
While Collins suggests that successful IRs lead to repeated engagement due to the positive emotional feedback loop, the dynamics within incels.is represents an inversion of this process. In these online settings, members continually re-engage, not because of positive reinforcement, but due to the need to reaffirm their shared negativity. The constant re-expression of self-pity, hopelessness, and anger becomes a ritualistic act that sustains the group's collective identity, even if it perpetuates personal emotional harm. Rather than breaking down due to failed rituals, this community thrives on negativity. Thus, dark emotional energy becomes the foundation for group survival.
Returning to our research question, it is this dark emotional energy that reproduces incel ideology and compels participants to engage and re-engage in these interactions. This analysis challenges some of the core assumptions in Collins’ IR theory. While Collins accounts for both positive and negative emotional outcomes, his theory does not fully anticipate how EE− can become the primary binding force for certain groups—particularly in online environments where discursive interactions replace face-to-face rituals. There is reason to believe that online settings may be especially prone to generating this type of dynamic. The fluidity of engagement in online settings—where individuals can engage and disengage at will—allows IRs to be sustained over longer periods, enabling the continuous cultivation of EE−. Unlike physical settings where rituals have clear beginnings and ends, the asynchronous and ongoing nature of online interactions allows for a persistent build-up of these destructive emotions.
However, caution is warranted when interpreting these results. It is possible that incel members do, in fact, experience EE+ as a result of these interactions, even if they do not overtly express it. The interactional context and community norms may restrict the expression of positive emotions, meaning that the negative feelings expressed may serve as discursive symbols rather than genuine emotional expressions. While speculating about participants’ “true motivations” and “true emotions” is beyond the scope of this study, this remains an important topic for future research. Unraveling these dynamics would require in-depth interviews with participants, focusing on their experiences with online engagement.
In conclusion, this study underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of emotional dynamics within online communities, particularly those with destructive or extremist ideologies. Understanding these processes is crucial—not just for the psychological well-being of members—but because the impacts of these forums may extend offline, sometimes with violent consequences. Both experimental and observational studies indicate that exposure to and engagement with radical online content increases support for and involvement in political violence (Hassan et al., 2018; Karell et al., 2023; Müller and Schwarz, 2021; Törnberg and Törnberg, 2024; Wolfowicz et al., 2022). Several studies also point to a clear and undeniable connection between online misogyny and physically violent extremism (Díaz and Valji, 2019; Sugiura, 2021b).
We believe Collins’ theory provides valuable insights for understanding this link and offers a lens through which to explore how violence can emerge from social online interactions. This study contributes by showing how this theoretical framework can be extended to better encompass IRs in an online setting.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (grant number 2022-05487).
