Polarization:
how it breaks up our societies
Social divisions and political conflict are on the rise across the Western world.
We have qualitative proof of that: mass social protests, the radicalization of parties, the rise of populist leaders and governments, political violence and domestic terrorism.There is also quantitative data confirming the change: the level of difference in opinions on key issues has risen in 31 out of 49 countries tracked by the Digital Society Project in the years 2011-2021. In another 4 it has remained at the same, elevated level.
Differences of opinion are perfectly normal in a healthy democracy – this system is based on pluralism and freedom of expression. So when are differences becoming unhealthy? When they reach a point where democratic decision-making is no longer possible and efforts at community-building fail. This is what we call polarization. The term can denote several things: the state of deep division, the process which leads to it and the tool which certain actors use to intentionally produce division.
Serious polarization corrodes democracy and community, while acute polarization can lead to social strife and civil war. The process has two manifestations. One is ideological polarization - the difference in opinions people have on particular topics. The other is affective polarization - the difference in attitudes toward other people, depending on whether they hold opinions that are similar or different from ours. The former is rational and objective, while the latter is emotional and subjective. It is also open to change.
Polarization is not just a political issue. Yes, parties and politicians are highly polarized - but equally so are we as citizens, our families, workplaces, local communities and nations. Divisions run deep and beyond political preferences or ideological choices: we are increasingly divided on how we live, what we earn, how we consume, what we eat, whom we talk to, watch or listen to. Social media have trained us to be more opinionated and confrontational toward other people – and protective of our own identities.
Our work relies on the insight that polarization is rooted on the emotional, not the intellectual level. A growing body of research shows that argument-driven debates have no impact on highly-polarized groups - they actually harden radical views instead of bringing people together. Our view is that differences of opinion reflect underlying differences in lived experience – and that those personal and group experiences need to be talked about as they carry the affective charge which later fuels ideological divisions. The community dialogue is designed to enable such exchanges.