Normative Underpinnings of Polarisation Research

The final speaker in this ECREA 2024 on polarisation is Michael Brüggemann, whose interest is in normative perspectives on polarisation. These stem largely from the two normative traditions of the Habermasian public sphere, where issue and ideological polarisation is not a problem if it can be resolved through rational debate and democratic listening; and Chantal Mouffe’s concept of agonistic pluralism, where transparency in conflicts and political mobilisation are central and polarisation can be a useful motivator for passionate and divisive (but not inimical) communication.

Current debates are moving beyond this by discussing levels of polarisation, which may become problematic and pernicious beyond a certain point, and by noting the potential imbalance of polarisation for instance between the mainstream and extreme fringe positions. In such cases, efforts to polarise may create a false equivalence between these positions; in some contexts, even substantial levels of polarisation against extremists can be entirely justified.

In the context of the climate debate, for instance, democratic transformative communication may be required, and provides a normative framework: this should facilitate free, fair, and inclusive discursive exchange; enable transformation; and provide transparency and reflexivity in ecological policy-making, generate new ideas, and hold policy-makers accountable.

Here, othering of – polarising against – the pernicious actors who undermine this democratic transformative communication might be welcome; radical ideas for genuine climate action are desirable, and too-moderate proposals that merely delay action are not; and affective rhetoric that encourages action is important, while dehumanising the outgroup is not acceptable. Ultimately, this redefines the position of the centre in the debate – this cannot be some lukewarm middle position, but a principled stance in favour of meaningful action.

This, then, also applies to journalistic coverage, and requires a re-evaluation of journalistic norms; it requires journalists to take a stance and move away from a merely ‘balanced’ and conflict-oriented coverage of all sides.