"My book is an attempt to pin down a phenomenon that defines our time, one most of us are very familiar with but which is hard to understand. Since around 2012, this phenomenon has been termed "affective polarization," after Shanto Iyengar and other political scientists observed an interesting pattern in how citizens responded to certain survey questions. This pattern has become both the definition of the phenomenon and the basis for a diagnosis of the current political situation."
"Almost everyone living in a contemporary democracy today has found themselves clashing with a family member, friend, neighbor, or coworker over some hot political issue. And the thing is not just what we disagree about but also how our disagreements play out. There's often a sense of heaviness or even danger in those moments, mixed with the feeling that those we're talking to are wrapped in armor, completely untouched by reasons or evidence."
Affective polarization has been identified since about 2012 through survey patterns showing rising negative feelings toward political opponents and positive feelings toward one’s own group. Those survey patterns have been treated as both definition and diagnosis of contemporary political conflict. Ordinary political disagreements often carry heavy emotional tones and a sense that opponents are morally or intellectually deficient. Such affective dynamics are shaped by narratives and social practices rather than merely individual attitudes captured in surveys. A reframing that attends to narratives, affects, and lived interactions is necessary to properly understand and address polarization.
Read at Apaonline
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]