Is polarization really a problem?
Issue 108: SUPER TUESDAY EDITION: We discuss new research on polarization and revisit our polarization podcast and documentary from one year ago
With the US Presidential Election on the horizon, there has been a great deal of discussion about the corrosive effects of political polarization and the potential threat to democracy. A new Ipsos poll suggests that nearly one quarter of Americans think political extremism and threats to democracy are two of the biggest threats facing the country. This is hardly an American issue as many other countries around the world are dealing with similar issues.
We have been studying and writing about these problems for several years. In fact, Jay published a paper with several other social and political scientists a couple years ago noting that out-party hate is now a stronger force than in-party love (see our figure below). We argued that a poisonous cocktail of othering, aversion, and moralization —which we called “Political Sectarianism” poses a unique threat to democracy.
We have new research suggesting that political sectarianism may be even more harmful to society and closely linked to anti-democratic attitudes that simple affective polarization (i.e., negative feelings about the other party). Although we found this pattern across the political spectrum, the link between sectarianism and anti-democratic tendencies was stronger among Republicans.
One year ago, we released a two-part podcast series about the issues of polarization and political sectarianism and threats to democracy featuring interviews with a group of experts who shared insights from their fields. Note that when people use the term polarization here they are usually referring to affective polarization or political sectarianism rather than traditional policy disagreements (which are known as ideological polarization).
In the first 30-minute segment, we feature interviews with Alison Taylor, Executive Director at Ethical Systems who shares her business perspective; Dr. Hahrie Han, Professor of Political Science and the Director of the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University who talks about collective action and civic engagement; Uriel Epshtein, Executive Director of the Renew Democracy Initiative who highlights the decline of third spaces; and Josh Fryday, Chief Service Officer for the State of California with California Volunteers who shares his observations in how political leaders leverage polarization for their agendas.
The first episode: The Roots of Polarization is available here on Substack, Spotify, and Apple podcasts. (You can listen now by clicking the “play” button below, or follow the links to save and download both podcast episodes on Spotify and Apple).
Here are some highlights from episode 1:
Dr. Hahrie Han, professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University frames polarization in terms of social dynamics—how individuals view those who are different from them.
Hahrie: “Polarization is not any one thing. So at one level, polarization is just the distance between the political parties. And we can see that in Congress, that the views of the average Republican and the views of the average Democrat have become increasingly further apart.
I think in the mass public though, where you have a lot of people for whom politics is "a mere sideshow" in the circus of life, polarization isn't necessarily about how far apart they are in particular policy decisions, but instead how people perceive those who are different from them. And I think one of the things that has become more, of greater concern in recent years is that people tend to think of people who are not like them in increasingly negative, in some cases, dehumanized, terms.”
Joshua Fryday, Chief Service Officer for the State of California says that he has observed political leaders taking advantage of the isolation and chaos in a changing society:
Josh: “We live in a society right now that is changing rapidly and people are looking for explanations of why it's changing and why they may feel like they're being left behind. And it's often - and we see political leaders exploit this—the easiest explanation is often the most divisive explanation that political leaders point to. So I think it's certainly a leadership issue, but it's also, we live in a very disconnected society.
People feel isolated from each other. They don't know their neighbors, they're not involved in social organizations anymore to the extent that they were decades or generations ago. And because we are literally, physically isolated from each other and politically isolated from each other, it makes it easy to prey on people with these, I think, simple and often divisive explanations that our leaders are giving.”
Meanwhile, Alison Taylor, Executive Director at Ethnical Systems reminds us that businesses also feel pressure to adopt a political identity for their advantage and many are exploiting polarization for economic advantage:
Alison: “Businesses have become more polarized. There's very, very interesting data showing that C-suites have become either more Republican or more Democrat quite dramatically in the last decade. You have a lot more businesses really trying to stoke the culture wars and stoke polarization for brand advantage.
I think that business is becoming a vehicle for our political frustrations. That pressure is not going away, and we have started to look to our employers to represent our values, to provide us even with a democratic voice on what they're standing up on, and to really be a source of meaning and identity in our lives in a way that was not the case even a decade ago.”
What these individuals have in common is that they view polarization and its roots from many different lenses and identity several factors that have led to the peak of polarization as we know and experience it today.
In addition to the podcast, we also created a 10-minute short documentary, Protecting Democracy in a Time of Extreme Polarization to introduce the challenges of polarization, division, and the erosion of democratic norms.
Our film was screened at the Astoria Film Festival 2023 and awarded an honorable mention in the documentary film category! We received a great response from a general audience, and the video was also shared by Lawrence Tribe, a leading constitutional law scholar, and was seen over 33,000 times on Twitter/X. Our film is available to stream for free on YouTube.
With many of these same threats looming large over the election, this issue seems more urgent than ever. It’s important to understand how people are manipulated by corrupt leaders and turned against one another (which we have written about previously in our newsletter here). There are also some compelling messages to reduced partisan animosity and increase support for democracy. For instance, a recent mega-study on this topic found that two most effective interventions for reducing affective polarization were messages that focused on basic principles we discussed in our podcast and video:
POSITIVE CONTACT: Showing a video of positive, respectful contact between people who are politically different. In fact, this Heineken beer commercial that you can watch below is a good example. It aligns beautifully with Gordon Allport’s famous Contact Theory for improving intergroup relations.
SHARED IDENTITY: Learning that the vast majority of Americans support democracy, and this is part of a common identity we all share. Moreover, despite perceptions to the contrary, the average member of both parties likes one another, disdains violence, and supports democracy. Jay’s lab submitted this intervention based on the principles of our book!
News and Updates
We are also coming up on the one year anniversary of our WHO AM I? test, an online tool that can tell you what your identities say about you. Are your strongest identities individual, relational, or collective? Join the 300 people who have taken the test — we will share overall results when we receive enough responses!
Catch up on the last one…
Last week’s newsletter is by far our most successful newsletter in generating new subscribers! See what the buzz is about in our piece examining different types of climate change messaging and the problem with doomerism.