By Dr Fiona MacDonald, PhD, University of Northern British Columbia — The Conversation, 14 November 2021
Political polarisation has been an increasing topic of concern for people in many areas of their lives, rearing its head in everything from family get-togethers to workplace relationships and election campaigns. The COVID-19 crisis has demonstrated that polarisation — extremes in opinions and/or an erosion of a more moderate political centre — can have real life-and-death consequences.
To function in an increasingly polarised society, we first need to know the source of the division. In politics, we often assume that disagreement stems from conflicts over policy directions. Political science literature, however, disputes this notion. It’s not disagreement over policy that drives polarisation, but rather our emotional feelings and perceptions about the nature of the world around us.
This is the compelling argument behind the book Prius or Pickup? How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide, by American political scientists Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler. Their work demonstrates how our emotional responses to ideas and events is deeply connected to our world views. Those who gravitate to the “fixed” end of the spectrum tend to regard the world as a dangerous place full of threats, while people who gravitate to the “fluid” end tend to see the world as a safe place to explore.
As Hetherington and Weiler explain: “Why is politics so polarised if people actually don’t care all that much on the issues? What if you just completely understand the world differently from those on the other side in your guts?” This kind of gut-level disagreement poses much bigger challenges because not only is there disagreement on how to handle a problem, but the nature of the problem itself is disputed. The COVID-19 polarisation we’re seeing illustrates this dynamic.
There are no easy fixes, but there are a few strategies that can help manage the stress and de-escalate the impact of this kind of conflict in our day-to-day lives. First, recognizing the emotional basis is key — even when we consider our own views to be science-informed. Realizing that those with whom we disagree are often coming from a place of fear and anxiety can help lower frustration, and is one step towards developing empathy and/or compassion for their position. Showing genuine validation — phrases like “that must be frustrating” or “that must be very difficult” — are invaluable tools when shared genuinely in various kinds of interactions, and they can immediately lower tension. This article has been republished under Creative Commons licence.