Review by Jorge Luis Barrera Vega, April 5, 2025
Polarization is not a new phenomenon; instead, it has been part of human societies for millennia.
However, the latest developments in technology and the widespread use of social media worldwide have
both enhanced the impact of polarization in societies. Before exploring this relationship, Khushi Mishra,
host of this session, established the main differences between two kinds of polarization.
Affective polarization is born from dislike or distrust of people with opposite political views. To give an
example of this type, the expositor presented the following situation: a family member publicly
expressing their support of a political leader results in another member of the group refusing to share a
dinner table next time, because they have a deep dislike for said politician. In other words, affective
polarization is tied to differing political views, but since personal dislikes take precedence over politics,
it’s possible to find a middle ground even amongst those who have different opinions on political issues.
Ideological polarization has no middle ground because one’s political views on particular issues take
precedence over personality. The expositor proposed a day of elections as an example: voters so radically
committed to a system of beliefs that they will only support the party and candidate that they feel truly
embodies them, with the same happening with other groups and their choices; from their perspective,
their choice is right and others are completely wrong. Ideological polarization has no room for nuance or
mediation, and its escalation can result in policy deadlocks, viewing groups with opposite political views
as threats to ours, and feeding mistrust and support for radical means to deal with the perceived threat.
How has social media enhanced polarization of one kind or the other? The presentation explains that
social media creates a digital space that works as an “echo chamber”, strengthening existing political
views and rejecting or dismissing differing perspectives to the point of creating radicalized systems of
belief. Algorithms used for search engines encourage this tendency by prioritizing similar content and
leaving for last, if not dismissing unrelated content, resulting in people using social media being fed
political content and views that become more and more similar as their search is refined. According to
Mishra, however, polarization through social media is not just a passive process from repetitive
exposition to the same political beliefs, since social media itself has become the ultimate cultural industry.
There is a monetary incentive behind polarization, since conflict is considered the best means to create
engagement on the web, and therefore, revenue. The echo chamber manufactured by social media goes
beyond search engines and creates spaces for radicalization and outrage, with the industry growing in size
and reach as more people engage one another with ever-increasing frequency in fights over their political
beliefs. Disagreements on social media are seen as an enemy action, and populism arises with problems
being blamed on a particular group of people, potentially leading to political violence. Web content
expressing and encouraging outrage, as well as digital activism, both push for mobilization without deep
reflection, with quick action taking precedence over considerations of veracity or another’s perspective.
Solutions to this phenomenon can be found in reforms through technological tools that enforce
transparency and accountability on virtual platforms and the use of algorithms, supporting literacy and
media education, and encouraging personal responsibility from people who interact frequently with social
media. This last part in particular is very important, with the speaker closing with a reflection on the need
for self-awareness on our use of social media and the personal and collective responsibility we have as
part of a complex society that surpasses whatever is reflected continuously on the walls of an echo
chamber.
