Polarisation and populism
Polarisation is defined as the sharp division of contrasting opinions or beliefs – polar opposites. In his book, But what can I do? Why politics has gone so wrong, and how you can help fix it, Alastair Campbell dedicates an early chapter to the part that polarisation has played in breaking UK politics. James O’Brien coined the term ‘footballification’ “to describe the way that the blind, unquestioning loyalty of football fans has been transferred to political figures and parties”.
When we are ‘in the moment’ are we really the rational beings that we think we are? Part of the human condition appears to be to take sides, to join tribes. In this age of stressful lives, shorter attention spans, instant news and more things to worry about than ever, are we all in danger of becoming polarised in our thinking and behaviour faster than before, and perhaps without even being aware of it? Have we made ourselves ripe pickings for populists?
Polarisation in personal relationships
To understand how polarisation is used to manipulate people in politics, it’s helpful to start by examining personal relationships and the workplace.
Polarisation in personal relationships is complex. Diverging values, communication breakdowns and cultural differences often contribute to a widening gap between individuals. When strongly contrasting beliefs or perspectives emerge on significant issues such as politics, religion, or ethics, the connection between partners or friends can be strained.
Individuals may surround themselves with like-minded people, creating an ‘echo chamber’ where different opinions are unlikely to be heard. This further increases polarisation because it prevents constructive discussions. Misunderstandings, miscommunications and a lack of empathy can also fuel polarisation, leading to feelings of resentment, alienation and emotional distance.
Polarisation in organisations
In organisations, the way people are managed can create polarisation. This can come from management leadership styles, communication breakdowns and resistance to plans for change. Autocratic leadership approaches can cause resentment among employees, while a lack of transparency and ineffective communication can give rise to rumours and distrust within the workforce. Workplace politics and cultural differences further contribute to polarisation, creating a toxic environment characterised by division and internal strife.
Polarisation in politics
In politics, polarisation comes out as a sharp division between opposing ideologies. The huge increase in available media outlets, political ideas based on identity factors (such as race, religion or social class), and economic inequality all contribute to polarisation.
People tend to gravitate towards political echo chambers, where they consume information that reaffirms their existing beliefs while disregarding or attacking opposing viewpoints. This selective exposure to media sources perpetuates polarisation, making it challenging to find common ground or compromise on contentious issues.
Additionally, gerrymandering (where constituency boundaries are changed to benefit a certain party), party sorting (where people join political parties that match their own ideology) and the influence of social media exacerbate political polarisation. There is no middle ground, and this undermines democratic institutions and makes it difficult to progress on critical challenges in society.
How stress aggravates polarisation
We all know that life requires an ongoing exposure to stress, often due to external pressures, work demands, or personal challenges. Too much stress can influence our cognitive processes and emotional responses and makes us more susceptible to polarised thinking and behaviour.
Cognitive bias: Stress can impair cognitive function, which might make us react in a highly emotional way and we might focus too much on perceived threats. This cognitive bias can make us more prone to black-and-white thinking, where we view complex issues as simple polar opposites with no grey areas. In personal relationships, stress may make our differences in values or perspectives more obvious, and it will be more challenging to engage in empathetic communication and compromise.
Emotional reactivity: Stress triggers the body’s fight-or-flight response, releasing hormones like cortisol and adrenaline that arouse extreme emotional responses. This can make interpersonal conflicts more intense and increase polarisation within relationships. If we’re under stress we may become more defensive, reactive and less open to considering alternative viewpoints.
Social influence: Stress can also make us more vulnerable to social influence, making us more likely to go along with the thinking of a group. We may also take extreme positions to make feelings of uncertainty or anxiety go away. In workplaces, stress-related pressure to conform to the ‘rules’ of the management structure or office politics can contribute to polarisation among employees, leading to the formation of factions and internal conflict.
Addressing stress
To mitigate the impact of stress on polarisation, individuals and organisations can take proactive steps to promote well-being and resilience:
- Stress management: Encourage practices such as mindfulness, exercise and relaxation techniques.
- Supportive communication: Foster open communication and encourage dialogue to address sources of stress and promote understanding among individuals with divergent perspectives.
- Conflict resolution: Provide training in conflict resolution and interpersonal skills to help individuals navigate differences constructively and foster collaboration.
- Leadership support: Promote supportive leadership styles that prioritise transparency, empathy and inclusivity to create a positive work environment.
Addressing polarisation
To address polarisation across all these aspects of our lives, a multifaceted approach is required, centred on fostering empathy, dialogue and collaboration.
In personal relationships, we should all try to prioritise open communication, active listening, and respect for differing views to bridge divides and strengthen connections. Cultivating empathy and compassion can help by promoting understanding and tolerance within relationships.
In the workplace, by addressing stress and promoting well-being, individuals and organisations can create a more conducive environment for constructive dialogue, collaboration and conflict resolution. Leaders must prioritise transparency, communication and inclusivity for a positive work environment.
Similarly, in politics, there should be a focus on promoting media literacy, reducing political echo chambers, and fostering civil discourse. Structural reforms, such as electoral and campaign finance reform, can help restore faith in democratic institutions by limiting the influence of money and special interests in politics. Additionally, promoting diversity and inclusion in political representation can help bridge divides and promote unity across ideological lines.
The detox we all need
Ultimately, addressing polarisation requires a collective effort from individuals, leaders and policymakers to promote understanding, empathy and cooperation across societal divides. By prioritising open dialogue, respect for differing perspectives and a commitment to shared values, we can work towards building a more inclusive, tolerant and cohesive society.
