P³: Power, Propaganda, Polarisation ICA 2024 postconference
Breaking Points – Five Symptoms of Constructive Agonism Turning into Destructive Polarised Discourse
Katharina Esau, Samantha Vilkins, Axel Bruns, Sebastian Svegaard, Tariq Choucair, Carly Lubicz, Kate O’Connor
- 26 June 2024 – Paper presented by Axel Bruns at the P³: Power, Propaganda, Polarisation ICA 2024 postconference, Brisbane
Presentation Slides
Abstract
While digital and social media platforms promise to bridge divides by connecting diverse individuals, they increasingly host polarised debates that threaten societal cohesion. Although conflict is an essential component of societal integration (Dubiel, 1992; Mouffe, 1993), there is a growing concern over the degree of polarisation evident in public communication today (e.g., Baum & Groeling, 2008; Kreiss & McGregor, 2023), especially on social media platforms (Kubin & von Sikorski, 2021). While the digital turn in communication research offers novel opportunities to study political polarisation through traceable interactions at scale, it also adds complexity to an already challenging concept. Ambiguities surrounding the conceptual understanding of polarisation in different fields lead to problems in advancing the research in the digital communication context. The conflation of different types and forms of polarisation (issue-based, ideological, affective, interpretive, interactional, ...) erodes the utility of the concept itself and opens the door to an uncritical proliferation of technologically determinist perspectives and solutions.
In this paper, we conceptualise destructive polarisation and its observable symptoms through the lens of digital media and communication. To avoid future indiscriminate use of the term polarisation, we advocate for precise delineations when studying polarisation as a threat to democracy and public communication (see also e.g., McCoy et al., 2018; Somer, 2001). The focus here is not on polarisation in general, but rather on determining how and when it becomes destructive. We have identified five key symptoms of this transition – breakdown of communication, discrediting and dismissing of information, erasure of complexities, exacerbated attention and space for extreme voices, and exclusion through emotions – though not all five need to be present for polarisation to have reached a destructive state.
Destructive polarisation is thus the result of various dynamics of simplification, amplification, and exclusion, and results in the alignment of individuals and groups with overly simplistic categories (e.g., liberal/conservative; left/right), an unwillingness to acknowledge the legitimacy of opposing perspectives, and a refusal to engage in meaningful communication across, or even on a meta-level about, these divisive lines. However, none of these symptoms in isolation necessarily point to the existence of destructive polarisation: it is perfectly legitimate, for instance, to refuse to engage with violent extremists. The destructive force of polarisation emerges not from an 'Us vs Them' dichotomy per se, but from how these strategies are deployed in combination as rigid battle lines in the political landscape, thereby neglecting the nuanced attention actual societal issues warrant.
This escalating scenario is becoming a focal concern, as it undermines democratic principles and practices. We apply and discuss the concept of destructive political polarisation with regard to studying its dynamics on selected recent issues discussed within digital media and communication contexts. By identifying observable indicators within communication practices, we develop an analytical toolkit, thereby advancing our understanding of destructive polarised discourse.
