Calling Out Polarization

There is a great deal of discussion about the relationship between misinformation and polarization, or the relationship between AI and polarization, particularly the dangers of things like filter bubbles and collaborative filtering. Most people recognize that political polarization – the tendency for the public to divide sharply between left and right in ways that encourage radicalization, increase mistrust, and strengthen intolerance for people and ideas – is generally a bad thing for democracy. This is true not only because it makes it more difficult to identify our shared interests and values, but also because it makes people easier to manipulate. Yet, while many emphasize the need for regulatory reform, perhaps a more straightforward social solution is required: calling out and condemning such attitudes.

First, let’s consider why polarization presents a problem for democracies. In its most fundamental form, the concept of democracy assumes that the public is capable of self-governance. This requires that individuals be able to understand public issues that affect them and to advocate for their own interests. Without the ability to understand what is in your own good, voting power, by itself, is of little help. If something inhibits public communication and deliberation, it greatly restricts the public’s ability to deliberate. As Philosopher Thomas Christiano notes, “To the extent that the epistemic weaknesses generated by a particular environment contribute to many people being deprived of important tools for thinking about their interests or aims, and vulnerable to having their rational abilities subverted by others with different purposes and interests, we have a serious problem for democracy.”

In cases of extreme polarization, where each side essentially listens to their own news with its own isolated take on public issues, individuals are cut off from potentially learning about common issues and shared values that will allow them to weigh interests, debate, and compromise. Such conditions allow voters to be easily manipulated as they are unlikely to trust “the other side,” making it more likely that hatred and outrage will keep people’s attention and keep a larger public divided.

If we can call out people for expressing “fascist” sentiments, “authoritarian” sentiments, “woke” sentiments, or “socialist” sentiments then why is it that we don’t call out figures for expressing needlessly polarizing sentiments? While the idea of attempting to push back against polarization sounds good in theory, as noted people can disagree on the causes. Also, when groups are polarized against other groups, they often feel their condemnation and dismissal of their political opponents comes with good reason.

Given the power of misinformation in othering, it quickly becomes impossible to reach across the aisle and take the concerns of the other side seriously. If we fundamentally disagree on the facts, it will be difficult to carry on a conversation. And this is no less true if we fundamentally disagree over values. It may seem unreasonable or even unacceptable to associate people who champion values that are in direct conflict with our own.

But another essential piece of democratic dialogue is the advancement of one’s views and the criticism of alternative policy ideas. Attempting to avoid polarization by minimizing differences between different political groups comes with its own set of consequences and complications.

Still, if we are going to denounce polarizing behavior, we need to be clear what kind of behavior should qualify. Pointlessly focusing on past political battles, “trolling” the other side, engaging in guilt-by-association fallacies, dismissing the concerns of whole groups of people, engaging in whataboutism; all count as unhelpful, polarizing tactics.

We also know that we cannot resist outrageous content, so perhaps we need to be better at policing both those in the media who benefit from posting “click-batey” material and ourselves for being tempted to consume it. We know full well that such content will not provide a balanced take on an issue, and we are all too prone to assuming that the other side is operating in bad faith. Even a failure to appear sufficiently patriotic quickly devolves into public figures being branded as “traitors.” But such attitudes and discourse are detrimental to democratic dialogue.

Of course, none of this means that you have to believe what the other side believes or adopt the same values they do. What it does require is that you don’t respond in ways that dismiss or demonize. As philosopher Jane Addams argues, “We know instinctively that if we grow contemptuous of our fellows, and consciously limit our intercourse to certain kinds of people whom we have previously decided to respect, we not only tremendously circumscribe our range of life, but limit the scope of our ethics.” Addams believed that most political conflict is a result of unnecessary personal attitudes getting in the way and that the key to a well-functioning democracy is a sympathetic understanding of our fellow citizens. Instead of concluding that one’s political opponents are degenerates or fools for believing as they do, see the wide gap that is said to separate their misguided ways from your true beliefs as a symptom of a larger social problem. You may find that the values, priorities, and interests of the other side, even if disagreeable, are still very much intelligible.

This shared understanding may in turn reveal shared values hidden under the veneer of political rhetoric and venom. As Addams notes, democracy requires that “all must turn out for one another, and at least see the side of one another’s burdens” and that “diversified human experience” is “the foundation and guarantee of democracy.” We should unite against those who seek only to polarize, just like those who litter, for polluting social discourse and obscuring our perception of a common cause.