Polarisation

Jūratė Ruzaitė, Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania
jurate.ruzaite@vdu.lt

Initially, the concept of polarisation was introduced to explain socio-economic inequalities, focusing on the widening gap between specific groups in terms of income distribution and opportunities. Nowadays, polarisation is understood not only in economic terms but has also become associated with the social practice of establishing a strict distinction between two antagonistic groups, the positive ‘Us’ (those who share our opinion, or the in-group) and the negative ‘Them’ (those who express an opposing opinion, or the out-group). These groups develop into incompatible opinion-based groups, where the person’s opinion defines their group membership. Polarisation can take different forms, including, for instance, positional polarisation (divergence in stances on specific issues), affective polarisation (deepening emotional hostility toward opposing groups), and interpretative polarisation (conflicting interpretations of the same events or facts).

Caused by the extreme fragmentation of the Internet into specific interest groups, polarisation corrodes social cohesion and reinforces ideological polarity, extremist behaviour, and information bias. Internet users tend to interact only with like-minded people and therefore distance themselves from alternative views and uncomfortable debates. Real-life interactions frequently require us to navigate diversity, while the virtual realm may exhibit more uniformity, not necessarily in demographic terms but in terms of shared interests and perspectives. Interest-based communities thus might replace location-based communities.

It is often argued that strong ideological polarisation fosters selective exposure and the emergence of information bubbles or ‘echo chambers’. In such bubbles, users tend to seek content that supports their opinions, contributing to misinformation and hate speech (see Hate speech), with homogeneity further reinforced by social media algorithms. However, this view is not universally accepted. Scholars like Axel Bruns question the impact of echo chambers, suggesting that their effects have been exaggerated and reflect a broader moral panic about the role of digital media in society.

Keywords: in-group, out-group, information bias

Related Entries: Echo Chamber, Social Media, Algorithmisation

References:
Bruns, A. (2019). Are filter bubbles real? Polity Press.
Chakravarty, S. R. (2015). Inequality, polarisation and conflict: An analytical study. Springer.
Grönlund, K., Herne, K., & Setälä, M. (2015). Does enclave deliberation polarize opinions? Political Behavior, 37(4), 995–1020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9304-x
Koudenburg, N., & Kashima, Y. (2022). A polarized discourse: Effects of opinion differentiation and structural differentiation on communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(7), 1068–1086. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211030816
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.