There are 4 levels and 4 types of polarization
[click to view transcript]
My whole thing here is trying to stay grounded using peer-reviewed research and historical context. So consider this a personal rather than work-related PSA from the land of nerds like myself: Polarization is not inherently bad, but believing that polarization is bad actually IS inherently bad. Let’s get into it.
Polarization, in and of itself, is a very human thing to do. It’s a part of group dynamics, creating a sense of ‘us’ within a group. It says ‘this is what we believe’ or ‘this is what we value’. By defining us, there is always a them, but again that’s not inherently bad.
When does it get bad? Today I’m pulling from some work in progress on that very question. The first thing we need to understand is that there are different types and levels of polarization. It’s not a monolith.
Looking at the levels: there’s micro polarization, between individuals; meso polarization, between groups; macro polarization, across society; and mass polarization, involving everybody. But maybe more importantly, we need to look at those types.
There are four types of polarization that this work has mapped out, and just to avoid any big reactions I’m going to use a not particularly current example to illustrate the difference between them. First we have issue-based polarization: for example, whether or not you want companies to be able to make and sell cigarettes, this is issue-based. Then there’s ideological polarization: for example, whether or not you believe that being able to buy cigarettes is a human right; it’s no longer just about the issue, it’s about ideology. Third is affective polarization: for example, believing that anyone who posts supportive comments about buying cigarettes on social media is part of your tribe, and anyone who doesn’t is a bad person; this is no longer about issues or ideology, it’s fully about identity and belonging. Finally, there is PERCEIVED polarization: for example, our perception of everyone elses’ views on buying cigarettes, i.e., what we believe to be true about the state of polarization.
And this is where it gets very interesting. Because if there’s one thing we all seem to be able to agree on right now, across all sides of all beliefs, it’s that we think there is a lot of polarization in our society. Is that true? That the polarization is so universally bad? Is it, in fact, mass polarization: involving everybody? It is macro polarization, across society? Or is it meso polarization, between groups?
This is really important because if we think there is macro or mass polarization, we view society differently; we begin to develop interpretive polarization (how we interpret what we see and read) and interactional polarization (how we relate to others and who we relate to).
In plain language, when we believe that polarization is incredibly widespread and very bad, our behavior changes: what we read, who we interact with, and how we live our lives shifts in ways that can actually worsen polarization. There’s a classic line from sociology called the Thomas theorem. It states, “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” That was coined in 1928, and in my opinion still feels incredibly fresh and relevant for today.
So this is my call to action to you: look I get it there is a lot to freak out about, but the next time you’re really focused on the polarization… stop and consider what specifically you believe about polarization, because it’s probably subtly shaping your actions in the world. Believing that polarization is bad, and not just bad but all-of-society bad, is actually the problem. Thanks for listening.
Sources: https://snurb.info/node/2745 and https://snurb.info/node/2859