| Societal polarization : Present or perceived ideological and cultural divisions within and across communities leading to declining social stability, gridlocks in decision-making, economic disruption and increased political polarization. The question in this article is what risks societal polarization entails. To this end, I look at this phenomenon from a social, political and demographic perspective. The question thus becomes: ‘What are the social, political and demographic implications of societal polarization?’ | In this text I write in my own capacity, not that of any organization. The 2025 Global Risk Report – WEF gives this definition. |
Author: Manu Steens
Contents
What is the situation today with societal polarization?
The phenomenon
Societal polarization is a phenomenon that is increasingly occurring in society. It is mainly expressed in political, socio-economic and cultural areas.
Politics : Although some people think they see the uniformity of politics, there is a growing division of political movements. Being a centrist party is becoming increasingly difficult, where the citizen expects increasingly outspoken positions. This is also reflected in the results of the last elections. We saw an increased polarization of parties at both ends of the political spectrum.
Socio-economic : There is a growing gap between rich and poor, between highly educated and less educated, between the city and the countryside . This results in a difference in worldviews, social views and behaviour.
Cultural : There are tensions around one’s own identity, immigration, and cultural values. More and more people feel like strangers. This is expressed in debates about, for example, the assimilation and integration of immigrants, the ability to preserve their traditions, and religious freedoms, at home and on the street. But there is also polarization in climate debates . And this with international dimensions.
Where does it occur? In all Western democracies. On all social media on the internet. At the dinner table at home and in public debate, often less and less nuanced and that in all corners of society.
The main causes
What are the main causes? These are technological developments, economic factors, socio-cultural factors and political developments.
Technological developments : despite the ubiquity of the internet, people are becoming isolated in their thinking, by the algorithms of Facebook, for example , which show more and more of what interests you. And the internet is the fastest way to spread fake news, conspiracy theories and disinformation, which sets people against each other from a hybrid criminality. And yet there is still more trust in the classic media than in online media for, among other things, the news.
Economic factors : Increasing income inequality, globalization and its effects on local communities, and uncertainty about work and job relocation create frictions that manifest between and within communities.
These technical developments and economic factors can in turn give rise to social and cultural factors such as declining trust in official institutions and strong socio-economic vulnerabilities that lead to radicalization and further development of extreme groups in society.
This in turn provides input to political developments , through increasing populism of some politicians who present the problems in too isolated and too simple a way, and come up with easily digestible but too simple solutions. Because of such populism, but also because of other things, many people lose their confidence in the government. Econpol writes: “Populism thrives on mistrust of established institutions, ideas, and ideologies. Stagnant productivity, large trade imbalances, and waves of immigration have contributed to growing discontent of the population in the West and undermined confidence.”. People can no longer unravel the political situation, which causes them to drop out of rational (system 2) thinking and switch to system 1 thinking : they use cognitive bias .
What are uncertainties about societal polarization today?
I have three core questions here:
- What are the two most important uncertainties that I should consider?
- What four possible future scenarios emerge from this?
- What are the social, political and demographic risks of the most dangerous scenario?
From today’s situation it seems that technology, especially the internet, leverages societal polarization. On the other hand, on a social level, group formation is one of the goals of polarization: one’s own group must win and therefore become as large as possible. In this, cultural identity seems to be a second lever from the school benches . But does that have to be the case?
The role of social media and technology seems to be a polarizing lever, but is that always the case? Could it be different?
There is uncertainty about how social media influence polarization. On the one hand, things like Facebook can function as echo chambers. They drive people further apart. But they can also have a connecting effect and lead to dialogue instead of discussion between groups with a different background. The precise impact of technology itself is therefore not so clear.
The role of identity and culture is my second uncertainty.
It is not entirely clear how cultural identity and group formation cause polarization. Why do some cultural differences give rise to discussions and polarization and others do not? How do they influence the degree of polarization, and how flexible are the cultural boundaries?
This gives four quadrants, each with an extreme future worldview, with the truth lying somewhere in the middle.
So the two axes are:
- Technology integrates vs technology polarizes
- Cultural identity integrates vs. cultural identity polarizes
Four scenarios
The difference between these four worlds may lie in the time span in which you view evolution.
OMG is perhaps the most explosive world. My suspicion is that there is still a need for a growth in maturity to get people to stop being influenced by echo chambers, internet recruiters, fake news, dis- and misinformation… and that the algorithms are adjusted in a socially acceptable way to help people to be productive in an increasingly complex world. I hope that within 200 years such a growth in maturity will have become a fact. But I will not verify that myself.
The most explosive scenario: OMG
Social risks of societal polarization
Societal polarization provokes social fragmentation that reduces social cohesion , resulting in a weakening of shared identity and growing mutual distrust between population groups.
This ultimately results in social fragmentation with a decrease in empathy between the different ‘camps’. This results in a loss of shared goals between the groups, and people withdraw into their own ideological or cultural echo chambers.
This can eventually manifest itself as a domestic conflict . In this case, technology, in the form of weapons and media , is used to whip up the own group and to exterminate the (supposed) opponent group. Examples of this are genocides in Rwanda and Myanmar . There, many psychological problems arose among survivors .
Such social fragmentation contributes to the destabilization of (previously present?) democracy. There is growing distrust in democratic institutions , a growth of populist and extremist movements and a steady extinction of democratic decision-making processes.
On a social level, this polarization also entails economic risks because most forms of social cooperation become impossible when democracy is dying out . This in itself slows down the innovative possibilities throughout the country, which puts a brake on any form of economic development.
Political risks of societal polarization
An important phenomenon, which can occur very suddenly, are administrative blockades. These are characterized by paralysis of political processes and the impossibility of reaching a consensus. In addition, the political parties grow increasingly apart and encourage their social supporters to do the same.
Besides the fact that many people are recruited from the rank and file of the warring parties, sometimes with the narrative as a ‘weapon’, there is actually a growing distrust in government systems and institutions, namely those of the opponent. Democracy is increasingly less perceived as a realistic solution.
Radicalization is encouraged by certain political tendencies, which encourages the rise of extremist movements. The latter occurs at all levels of the population. This creates a risk of authoritarian movements opposing each other. These make it impossible to grow closer together politically .
This will only further extinguish democratic dialogue and increase empty political rhetoric, so that people no longer actually feel that the remaining ‘politics’ no longer represents them .
This increases the risk of a change of power that polarizes more and more against the opponent, who one wants to avoid. Checks and balances disappear, or are also indoctrinated.
Demographic risks of societal polarization
Social polarization causes growing social segregation , which manifests itself in fewer intercultural encounters and weak integration of internal and external migrants. Integration problems create risks of marginalization, especially of external migrants. This marginalization blocks social inclusion.
One of the characteristics of disagreement is that it is not always between peers. There can be conflicts between generations, even within a family. This is partly why the perspectives of the young diverge from those of the old, and how the young see the old.
All these and other problems together cause a fragmentation of the collective identity of the community. This happens with a growing group formation that actually aims at a weakening of national social cohesion.
Conclusion
Discussing OMG as the most explosive scenario is justified by the evolution of the last decades. Therefore, this is the only scenario I have elaborated on regarding risks of societal polarization. The other worlds may simply have less severe instances of the same threats or a focus on only some of them.
In any case, I hope that what is not yet possible: a world where reason and humane feelings follow in the interest of charity, will be possible when humanity is ready for it.