“Humans are tribal. We need to belong to groups. We crave bonds and attachments, which is why we love clubs, teams, fraternities, family. [...] But the tribal instinct is not just an instinct to belong. It is also an instinct to exclude.”
Polarisation is a process of increasing ‘us-versus-them’ divisions in society. Historically, this phenomenon can be found in almost every place and time, therefore it should not be treated as something rare or alien. As a process that can happen due to a plethora of causes, polarisation is also not a necessarily negative or outright evil occurrence. Many civil movements found parts of their success through polarising tactics; one can even assume that every revolutionary idea introduced into a society will initially be met by strong resistance.
However, that is not to say that polarisation is without its dangers. Whatever the cause, and whatever the moral plight behind it, polarisation always comes with a certain risk of escalation, with many forms of violence waiting at the bottom of the pit.
Core to the process of polarisation is the development of a specific language of absolutes, whereby both sides of a certain argument consider themselves to be the ‘good’ side, while they consider their opponent to be the ‘evil’ side. This language of absolutes is usually woven into an overarching narrative that is used to justify specific beliefs and grievances, or to explain certain events and developments.
It is important to note here that these narratives are not necessarily about factual information, but rather about emotion and identity. Therefore, regardless of factual correctness, building a narrative based on emotion and identity can allow certain repetitive, and potentially incorrect, information to become the norm, convincing individuals that the information is true and allowing them to conform to a certain bias.
“Polarisation is a process of increasing ‘us-versus-them’ divisions.”
“Letting polarisation fester stops people from seeing each other as human beings.”
On a fundamental level, narratives are related to (group) identity as every group or individual requires a certain storied explanation of where they come from, what sets them apart from others, and why they do what they actually do. This can be seen as an ‘in-group’ that you belong to, and an ‘out-group’ that you are against. Historically, the identity of a group is usually formed against the background of a certain ‘other’, whether that’s the Ancient Greeks and the ‘barbarians’, the umma and the unbelievers, or the occident and the orient.
This formation of creating in-groups, as opposed to specific out-groups, is very much a human instinct, and it is in this process that we can usually see the birth of polarisation. In a society where identities conflict with one another, many believe that their interests cannot be joined, that they have nothing in common, and that an individual cannot embrace more than just one specific identity. Hence, divisions can occur in societies that house many immigrants, foreign cultures, or ethnic and cultural groups that have been politically at odds with one another.
As polarisation in a society increases, we see a declining willingness amongst groups to live together and share the same society. Letting polarisation fester stops people from seeing each other as human beings and can amplify the possibility of making people vulnerable to radicalisation and, in turn, violent extremism and terrorism.
In short, we identify three key aspects of polarisation:
A PROCESS OF GROWING, SOCIAL DIVISION,
in which the diversity of people and of their thoughts move towards two distinct groups, divided by the principles of certain in-groups and out-groups.
THE NARRATIVE AND THE LANGUAGE,
which play on the emotions and identity formation of groups and individuals. Narratives usually follow the same binary logic, using phrases such as ‘good and evil’ and ‘us-versus-them’. We refer to these structures as ‘black-and-white’ frames for their absolute reasoning, not allowing any ‘grey’ nuance to challenge their narrative.
THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL OF ESCALATION,
which continues to snowball as the narratives that drive the processes of division turn more absolute and hostile. As the escalation continues, we see more issues, events and debates in society being linked to the binary narratives, making it increasingly difficult for bystanders to ignore the polarising process.
Although offline polarisation has been around for as long as recorded history, the rise in internet access and social media usage over the last ten to fifteen years has culminated in the new phenomenon of online polarisation. Because of the radically changed online nature of society these days, online polarisation is more prevalent and feeds heavily into what happens offline. The internet has changed a lot of how society functions. Therefore, one should not distinguish fully between online and offline polarisation, but rather see them as intertwined, impacting each other in both directions.
We identify four factors that make online polarisation a revolutionary, new dimension to this age-old phenomenon:
“We like to surround ourselves with like-minded people.”
Echo chambers provide a space in which we constantly hear our own convictions being bounced back to us on repeat, without any form of thought-provoking criticism. Although this isn’t an online phenomenon exclusively (echo chambers can develop in neighbourhoods or schools for example), their existence has grown rapidly since the introduction of the internet and social media. Social media platforms often function on a business model that sucks people into an echo chamber, and in doing so revealing to us that, often, people do not want to hear opinions that conflict with their own.
By isolating oneself in an echo chamber, either consciously or subconsciously, we can bring about selective exposure. Generally speaking, we like to surround ourselves with like-minded people, as that makes us feel safe and part of a tribe. As such, it provides us with the comfort of having clear-cut distinctions between friends and foes. This want for safety and tribal aspects builds on the concept of identity discussed above.
A person who adheres to selective exposure tends to avoid content that is of a different perspective or challenges their own position, only focusing on media that aligns with their views. Effectively, selective exposure arises as a result of the individual’s actions, whether they are aware they are doing so or not. This, in turn, can feed into the further growth of echo chambers.
Building on this, echo chambers are exacerbated by the algorithms used on social media channels, which are known to cause filter bubbles, a term coined by Eli Pariser in his book The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You. Filter bubbles differ from echo chambers as they specifically involve algorithms, whereas echo chambers do not necessarily have to.
The algorithms used in the architecture of social media are what make us believe that we are in groups of like-minded people, and thus can promote one’s desire to share only a particular set of views that will be approved by these people. In turn, this creates a feedback loop and can push polarisation even further. As they prevent opposing views and opinions from being seen by individuals, algorithms create a false belief that our views are always true and held by a majority.
Breaking the bubbles and the algorithms is not easy to do, as social media companies play on the human instinct that attributes one’s identity. When you are in a filter bubble, it is not only about hearing your own thoughts and feelings echo, but also about being exposed to the worst part of your adversaries. You only click on the headlines that have an emotional reaction to you, enabling you to dehumanise people as you only see the worst of their ideas and actions. As such, filter bubbles and algorithms are worsening the situation; it is difficult to find common ground when you only see the worst of your adversaries.
“Algorithms create a false belief that our views are always true and held by a majority.”
We discovered the existence of #HobbyHaters: a group of active, hating twitterers who are able to leave a significant mark on the public debate. It poses the question: can and should we still take Twitter seriously?
How can YOU help stop the spread of fake news? Well first, you need to recognise when something is false. This checklist will help you understand how to spot fake news.
Individuals can be easily exploited through disinformation. It is emotional messaging, playing on an individual's identity and pre-established narratives. In recent years, the use of disinformation has grown more serious in the form of ‘fake news’: false information that’s created purely for financial gain or political destabilisation. Since the rise of social media, we have seen a stark rise in fake news, originally posted by media outlets and then disseminated across the Internet via bots and trolls using fake social media profiles, as well as by individuals unaware that what they are sharing is untrue. Politicians have even started to use the term ‘fake news’ to describe comments and news stories that they just do not like or do not agree with themselves.
The creator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, pinpoints disinformation on the web as one of the greatest challenges of all time. It is through this spread of stories by the media and individuals that fake news is able to manipulate political opinion and divide societies further.
The internet has given a platform to almost everyone, enabling every imaginable opinion and piece of information to be found somewhere online. While, on the positive side, this has allowed civil movements across the world to organise themselves more effectively, this mass accessibility also came with two downsides.
To start, the ability to create anonymous user profiles has made it quite easy to post harsh opinions on the internet, with little to no repercussions. These individuals are hard to trace and it is difficult to hold them responsible for the potential damage done by their messages. Furthermore, the users are unable to see the impact they have on others by expressing harsh or hateful opinions. As a result, people tend to be more extreme online than they may be offline.
Second of all, with the rise of the internet, especially with such easy access to it from smartphones, we see that our overall attention span is decreasing, causing a shrinking willingness to engage in longer debates that would allow participants to be confronted with more pluralistic and nuanced perspectives. Social media in particular is designed to play on triggering short attention spans from people, exploiting these specific instincts that we, as humans, have.
“People tend to be more extreme online.”
We can do something meaningful ourselves in the fight against online hate. Click here to read our five tips on how you can make a difference!
All of these developments in the online world have made many consumers and experts wary of social media’s role in society, and its effect on polarisation in particular. However, we would argue that this is not an exceptional occurrence as, historically, we have dealt with the negative consequences of life-changing technologies that were introduced en masse.
Like the mass introduction of cars in the previous century, which required decades of traffic-regulations and safety checks to make the technology truly safe — we are convinced that the internet, and social media in particular, is at an early point in its history where, after its wide scale introduction, it still requires many years of extra regulation efforts, both politically and socially.
If we manage to improve our use of these technologies, we will be able to minimise the negative impacts such as mentioned above, and optimise its positive impacts on society, such as improved social cohesion, and the promotion of civil movements.
At Dare to be Grey, we consider our organisation at the frontline of this social and political fight for a better and healthier online environment.
Written and edited by:
Hannah Richter
Jordy Nijenhuis
Edwin van de Scheur
