Polarization and Hyper-Polarization

3. Factors That Make Conflict Intractable

Polarization is the process that causes neutral parties to take sides in a conflict. It also causes individuals on either side of the conflict to take increasingly extreme positions that are more and more opposed to each other. As parties move toward these opposite "poles," they define themselves in terms of their opposition to a common enemy. Trust and respect across poles diminish, and "distorted perceptions and simplified stereotypes emerge."[1] Parties assume more rigid positions and may refuse to negotiate. This process is common in conflicts, particularly conflicts that are tending towards the intractable end of the tractable-intractable continuum. [2]

Some conflict theorists argue that polarization is required for social change. For example, in his essay on BI entitled "Hyper-polarization," Ken Cloke argues that

polarization is a necessary precursor to change and an essential element in every evolution to higher forms of order.  Whatever is new, innovative, and about-to-be must initially separate itself from what is old, habitual, and already-is.  Increasingly, they are driven to differentiate, polarize, and stand apart from one another, and thereby create a crossroads or watershed, a pivot or choice point which breaks the assumption that “there is no alternative,” and forces collective energy to be redirected or channeled from one to the other. 

Likewise, our colleagues at The Horizons Project, argue that polarization is 

generally considered a necessary and healthy aspect of democratic societies. In his writing on social change work, Quaker activist and trainer George Lakey compares polarization to “a blacksmith’s forge,” one that heats up society and makes norms and institutions malleable and more susceptible to change."

But sometimes, we argue, the forge gets too hot, and the norms and institutions of democratic society begin to bend or break down entirely.  This is evident in the conflict between the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States, which has become so polarized that it is causing considerable damage to individual citizens and to the United States overall.  Many political observers call this destructive form of polarization "toxic polarization." Again, quoting from the Horizons Project, 

Toxic polarization is categorically different [from normal polarization] and can often lead to destructive and violent engagement. A component of toxic polarization is affective polarization, which refers to [situations] when groups aren’t simply in disagreement with each other,  but actively dislike and even dehumanize each other. Here, political outgroup members are seen to pose a threat not only to ideas and values, but to identities and social groups. Another component is perceptual polarization, which measures the degree to which we view the other side as extreme in comparison to our own. Thus, toxic polarization exists as a state of intense, chronic polarization – marked by high levels of loyalty to a person’s ingroup and contempt or even hate for outgroups.

At BI, we call this very dangerous and damaging form of polarization "hyper-polarization." Paraphrasing from our 2022 feature article in the Conflict Resolution Quarterly,

Hyper-polarization is an extreme manifestation of conflict escalation and polarization processes which poses a major obstacle to resolving conflicts and bringing peace to deeply divided (and sometimes war-torn) societies.  Hyperpolarization threatens the fabric of relationships critical to the successful functioning of any society.  With hyper-polarization, fellow citizens come to see even small differences in each other’s world views and preferences as menacing and they utilize extreme measures to protect and insulate themselves from such views in the private and public sphere. The resulting hyper-polarization impedes the dialogue necessary for jointly resolving real problems and may even lead to violence, civil war, or attempted genocide.

-----------------------

[1] Dean Pruitt and Paul Olczak, "Beyond Hope: Approaches to Resolving Seemingly Intractable Conflict," 59-92, in Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice: Essays Inspired by the Work of Morton Deutsch, eds. Barbara Bunker and Jeffrey Rubin, et al. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc., 1995), 81.

[2] This definition of polarization is drawn from the BI essay on that topic.

Resources on this Topic

To see all Guide Resources on this topic, scroll within the resource box below.
Stars indicate resources that we think are especially useful.