While many people know about political polarization in general, less people know there are two distinct types of political polarization. One type is "affective polarization", it means how political parties for example, can create a common enemy relating to identity by feeling a sense of belonging in a group and dislike for an out-group. In simple terms, feeling part of a group inspires the person to feel more negatively towards people that are "outside their tribe". Another way of defining it is that it focuses on the individual's feelings in relation to their own political beliefs and the opposing beliefs.
The other type of polarization is ideological polarization. Ideological polarization can be defined as the moving away of political stances or beliefs from a political opposition party (Dalton 1987). Ideological polarization is more evident on social media as the term relates to magnifying one's echo-chamber, which I have mentioned echo-chambers numerous times before. Ideological polarization can be said it focuses on the ideology itself and how it is becoming more extreme on the political spectrum than before.
Understanding the difference of the two types allows for better analyzing political polarization online. The two researchers Emily Kubin and Christian von Sikorski analyzed 94 articles that talk about the role of social media with political polarization. Kubin and Sikorski in
The role of (social) media in political polarization:a systematic review said, "Approximately two-thirds of the articles do not provide a definition of political polarization (Kubin and Sikorski 2021)". Researchers not defining what type of polarization they are analyzing makes it hard to compare and contrasts different research results as many of the researchers in the topic use different methods of examining polarization on social media. Also, from analyzing the articles, Kubin and Sikorski found that selective exposure of media on social media does contribute to both ideological and affective polarization (Kubin and Sikorski 2021). In conclusion, it is important to think about the differences between the two types of polarization and how they are similar and different. Down below is a link to a short YouTube video detailing what exactly is affective polarization, feel free to watch.
Bibliography
Dalton, Russell J. “Generational Change in Elite Political Beliefs: The Growth of Ideological Polarization.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 49, no. 4, Nov. 1987, pp. 976–997, https://doi.org/10.2307/2130780.
Kubin, Emily, and Christian von Sikorski. 2021. “The Role of (Social) Media in Political Polarization: A Systematic Review.” Annals of the International Communication Association 45 (3): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070.
Great post in defining types of political polarization. I think ideological polarization is what is dividing society most. People are being attacked over their beliefs and ideals of political stances. I find this troubling being that we are a free country with freedom of speech yet many groups today are intimidated by opposing political beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThis is super interesting and I agree, the different types of political polorazation play a distinct role in shaping both political debate and political analysis. I think both types play a role in the political climate and while the echochamber concept of ideological polorization is probably the most easy to recognize especially on social media, affective polorization is also very important. The 2016 election was a great example of the us versus them nature of affective politics. Both Trump and Clinton were attacking the validity of the other's base, not on idelogical grounds but on strength and intelligence.
ReplyDeleteThis was a great take on the types of political polarization. I like how you described the mental representation of it by claiming it as recognizing the people as "not of their tribe", which we are seeing more of these days.
ReplyDelete