What is polarizing? There are those who think that this is what EL PAÍS does—Lo País, they will probably say—and there are those who think that, to use the words of President Pedro Sánchez, the only fault lies with “the far-right digital galaxy” and “the sludge machine.” ”. In Spain and other countries, opposing, polarized visions collide, which do not help to dissect a phenomenon that, without a doubt, runs through our society, leaving a trail of mistrust and institutional crises. To put things in order, a large team of academics from 35 countries has decided to launch a project that analyzes the polarization in Europe, to make a well-defined atlas of the problem on this continent, with the intention of intervening to de-escalate it.
At the head of the more than one hundred researchers involved is Professor María Luengo (Madrid, 52 years old), from the Carlos III University, specialized in disinformation and media, because “the idea arose by studying what journalistic impartiality is in the context of a society. polarized.” “The media is biased, but is the cause in society, which is increasingly biased and polarized?” she asks herself. To answer that and many other questions, the network of experts that he has led for six months will work for four years with two clear goals. The first is to define the problem well, because in his opinion we must combat radical polarization, which tears apart the social fabric with hatred, and not so much polarization. fury, the one that keeps the democratic muscle strong, inspired by Chantal Mouffe. They want to study it from social psychology, anthropology, identities, culture and other disciplines, to find “common European patterns”, because almost everything that has been published so far is from US political science.
The second objective is even more ambitious: learning to reduce this tension, based on “a map of depolarization initiatives in civil society and the media,” to design their own interventions. Because they believe that it is possible to depolarize Europe. Luengo attends EL PAÍS at the Madrid facilities of Carlos III, recently arrived from Poland, where they held the first work marathon.
Ask. The first thing is to define what polarization is.
Answer. We are interested in the phenomenon of radical polarization, because part of what we understand is that polarization is not always bad, and depolarization is not always good. There has always been partisanship and that also activates democracy and citizen participation. The problem is when this polarization becomes radicalized, when it is uncivil, when there is already a change of state in what would be ordinary politics. And it turns into animosity: I don’t like you because you’re not one of my people, and everything you think seems bad to me from the start.
Q. That is the one they are trying to de-escalate.
R. Right there we are. We want to be clear about the theoretical foundations of what we call polarization and depolarization. How do we understand it? How is it being understood? And how can we, critically, better position ourselves before that concept? The gurus of polarization, especially in the United States, already use terms that try to further qualify the term, a partisan animosity, because otherwise it is a hollow word. The cultural systems that are nurturing liberal democracies end up in very contrary stories or narratives. And that is, as we said, permeating towards two antagonistic blocks, where it is no longer an agonism, a fight between political contenders, but an antagonism, a “I hate you”, a fight of opposites.
Q. But there is also false polarization, a psychological mechanism that leads us to believe that the other hates us more than is real.
R. Almost all the studies, almost everything we know about polarization, comes from political science, about elections, and also some communication. There is very little social psychology, when it seems to us that, for example, in social networks it is key to study the psychology of those who polarize in networks, because in the end it is a few who set the trend. There is a need for greater knowledge of cultural elements, anthropology, and elements of psychology, which are very little developed. And the trend is set by the United States or the Anglo-Saxon world. We want to go down to work on social polarization, more linked to the civil sphere.
Q. With a European focus.
R. The first thing we hope is to support Europe a little more, identify, give visibility, strengthen networks of researchers who are working on this, do an analysis of civil society or media initiatives in each of these countries. And then I hope that we really manage to take the step from academia to life, to the real world: having an impact is essential. Experimentally test depolarization interventions against partisan animosity. We want to contribute something positive, not only understand well what polarization is, but also reach that depolarization.
“We hope to intervene to depolarize Europe, to have an impact in the real world.”
Q. Can Europe be depolarized?
R. We believe that it can be detected and intervened to depolarize it, that there be greater pluralism and not that antagonism, that “I cross you out, I don’t understand you and I don’t even investigate, because emotionally I am with my group, and I have to think the same as them in all of them.” the topics”. In some depolarization proposals there was talk of spaces of peace, because polarization is understood as conflict, war. In that sense, let’s see how we can understand each other in a kind of post-conflict.
Q. Is it a problem derived from the digitalization of societies?
R. Increasingly, polarization scholars place the beginning in the economic crisis, in 2008. Not so much in the digital issue, but more in economic inequality, because it also generates inequality in how we see ourselves, how we perceive ourselves. Experts like Luis Miller speak of a daily polarization, by neighborhood, that has always been like this, but that is still becoming more accentuated in the issue of material structures. That is there, but I think there is a multifactorial element: there is the economic, the political, what has happened in these years in Spain since the motion of censure… And in Europe, speaking with colleagues from other countries, we discovered that the whole historical issue , identity and culture is very important. The division cannot be understood without going to the past of their countries, to their identities. The war in Yugoslavia, our Civil War… These are things that we are sensing and that are going to be very interesting, because a network like this takes us out of Spain, and perhaps we are also very attached to our history and our way of seeing things. And Europe gives us that different perspective.
Q. And do networks make these identities more toxic?
R. There are very contradictory studies. On the one hand, it has been shown that greater exposure to networks and being online exposes you to a plurality of ideas. But, on the other hand, you are in your tribe, which constantly reinforces what you think, your way of seeing things. There is still a lack of clarity about the influence.
There are extreme right-wing media, very aggressive, and there is really little journalism there. There are very shabby things”
Q. And the contribution of social psychology.
R. Harmful or radical polarization no longer has to do with ideology, but with affective polarization, which is what we are exploring right now. An intensification of those negative affects towards the other person, just because they are different. The mechanism is not merely rational, it is not about “well I am going to give you arguments of reason so that you understand”, but it has to go to those affective, psychological, media literacy mechanisms. It is teaching people not to share information that you are not sure about simply because it goes against others. There is a lot of talk about misinformation and one of the reasons is that we misinform on purpose because we want to polarize, to speak ill of others. You have to be very careful there, that’s where the alarm goes off. Perhaps networks not only amplify the extension, but also the intensity.
Q. A lot of noise was generated by what President Pedro Sánchez said, when he spoke about digital media and the mud machine.
R. Different things are put in the same bag, because in digital media there is everything. But well, some specific, extreme right-wing, very aggressive media outlets are being identified, and there is really little journalism there, little professionalism. There are very shabby things. In that sense he is partly right, but digital is broader.
Q. Is it necessary to define what a means of communication is? There are media and other things in disguise.
R. Some call it alternative media. Now there are many on the extreme right, but not only. In my view, they are a polarizing factor due to the aggressive tone and also because of this phenomenon that must be studied: there are some very partial platforms that not only try to win over their own, but also try to disavow those who are not theirs. , seek to generate political antagonism. In the Nordic countries they have been identified as “illiberal”, in the sense that it is not that they are extreme right, it is that they support ideas that go against democratic laws. That is very different, because they are going backwards in acquired rights, in civil liberties. Here it seems that everyone is in the bag of the extreme right, but it must be studied.
You can follow SUBJECT in Facebook, x and instagramor sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
