![]() ![]() Our conceptualization of polarization as rooted in affect and identity stands in contrast to a long tradition in political science of studying polarization as the difference between the policy positions of Democrats and Republicans ( Fiorina et al. However, changes in the contemporary political and media environment have exacerbated the divide in recent years, as we explain below. ![]() It is no surprise, therefore, that ordinary Americans see the political world through a partisan prism.įrom a social identity perspective, affective polarization is a natural offshoot of this sense of partisan group identity: “the tendency of people identifying as Republicans or Democrats to view opposing partisans negatively and copartisans positively” ( Iyengar & Westwood 2015, p. Indeed, some even argue that modern governance is effectively always about the next campaign ( Lee 2016), meaning that individuals constantly receive partisan cues from elites. Second, political campaigns-the formal occasions for expressing one's partisan identity-recur frequently and last for many months (or even years) in the contemporary United States. First, it is acquired at a young age and rarely changes over the life cycle, notwithstanding significant shifts in personal circumstances ( Sears 1975). ![]() Partisanship is a particularly salient and powerful identifier for two main reasons. The more salient the group to the sense of personal identity, the stronger these intergroup divisions ( Gaertner et al. A vast literature in social psychology demonstrates that any such in-group/out-group distinction, even one based on the most trivial of shared characteristics, triggers both positive feelings for the in group and negative evaluations of the out group (see, e.g., Billig & Tajfel 1973). When we identify with a political party, we instinctively divide up the world into an in group (our own party) and an out group (the opposing party, or out party see Tajfel & Turner 1979). A host of behavioral consequences flow from that identification. In the United States, partisanship means identifying with the Democrat group or the Republican group ( Green et al. Political parties often form along these lines precisely because group identities are so stable and significant ( Lipset & Rokkan 1967). Individuals instinctively think of themselves as representing broad socioeconomic and cultural categories rather than as distinctive packages of traits ( Brewer 1991, Tajfel 1978). Homo sapiens is a social species group affiliation is essential to our sense of self. AFFECTIVE POLARIZATION: AN OUTGROWTH OF PARTISAN SOCIAL IDENTITY Finally, we discuss strategies that might mitigate partisan discord, and conclude with some suggestions for future work. We also explore the consequences of affective polarization, highlighting how partisan affect influences attitudes and behaviors well outside the political sphere. We trace the origins of affective polarization to the power of partisanship as a social identity, and explain the factors that intensify partisan animus. This phenomenon of animosity between the parties is known as affective polarization. But regardless of how divided Americans may be on the issues, a new type of division has emerged in the mass public in recent years: Ordinary Americans increasingly dislike and distrust those from the other party.ĭemocrats and Republicans both say that the other party's members are hypocritical, selfish, and closed-minded, and they are unwilling to socialize across party lines, or even to partner with opponents in a variety of other activities. ![]() 2006), though there is still an active debate about whether the same is true of the mass public ( Abramowitz & Saunders 2008, Fiorina et al. What does this mean? Political elites-particularly members of Congress-increasingly disagree on policy issues ( McCarty et al. America, we are told, is a divided nation. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |