Troubling polarization and, in the worst case, escalating political and ideological contradictions are of all times, but which dynamics are at stake in the current late modern era with its diversity of manifestations of power? Taking this matter into account, our critical care-ethical perspective on a seemingly polarized world addresses in this context questions concerning the human emotional dimension, (societal) relationships, institutional aspects and implicit as well as explicit power plays. Member of our board of editors, Silke Jacobi wrote the following article about polarization.
Hardening relationships within society and polarization from a local to a global scale: to begin exploring this complex theme, I will distinguish four operative terms, such as forms of polarization, conflict, the emotional aspects as well as political crisis situations. The position from which I examine this problem is located in critical care ethics as a political theory and ethics. I consider Late Modernity, also known as Hyper Modernity, to be an adequate diagnosis of our times.
The Hypermodern era is characterized by turbulence, ambiguity, uncertainties about a definition of “truth”, and social and ideological division. It is a new era, full of clashing extremes ((1)). I consider long-standing persistent global issues to be related to increasing polarizing tendencies. In this article, I tentatively point to some of the underlying dynamics that could be at play here. I conclude by raising issues that deserve further investigation from a care ethical perspective.
The definition of polarization
Contradictions and conflicts between large groups in society can rigidify when sharp divisions emerge ((2)). Rigidity needs fertile ground: for example, when conversations about identities are linked to value judgments. While social media is a global, hypermodern dissemination medium, terminology highlights classifications as fuel, where visions are pitted against each other, up to a point of no return. Members of the opposing groups are no longer seen as subjects that can define themselves. Ideas and perceptions specifically about ‘the Other’ transform into negative sentiments, which causes undifferentiated mental images. Within this dynamic, new information can only be perceived in the light of previously created sentiments.
Polarization or conflict? A delineation
In a concrete conflict emotions are involved, but sentiments do not predominate ((2)). Later in this article, we will address the difference between sentiment, emotion, and affect. Conflict research ((4)) indicates that conflicts go through phases in a dynamic process ((2)). The expressions of the controversial opponent in the end are finally seen as stemming from and resting on their own lived experiences ((3)). That means, ideally, that the ‘Other’ is seen as a subject and is no longer the object of one’s own assumptions. In a pragmatic sense, a conflict is ended by the conflicting parties when, after reaching its peak, the parties settle for a (fragile) compromise rather than spending even more energy. In a polarized dynamic, however, fuel, as mentioned above, perpetuates the contradictions ((2)).
In a conflictual situation, those who participate in it are actually involved in the problem. The underlying question, or rather the motivations of those involved, have traceable indications. There are concrete issues, for example suffering or desire to power, in the lives of those involved. Thus, for a workable resolution of the conflictual situation, there are responsibilities to be specified (and stakeholders can be held accountable). A fundamentally different constellation exists in the case of polarization: the responsibilities and interests are much more difficult to identify, they remain diffuse and complex, and hence the person who wants to counteract polarization soon begets a sense of powerlessness ((2)). Transformation of the situation seems too far away.
Conflict as a vehicle for social transformation?
Conflict resolution can proceed with or without outside mediation, consider the (in phases also polarized) civil war in Northern Ireland, which was finally settled through the mediation of an American senator, leading to disarmament and self-government by members of two previously deeply warring parties. The conflict has not only been settled, but has also, at best, led to some social changes based on an answer to the underlying question ((3)).
A characteristic feature of conflict is that the possibility of transformation emerges. An example of a (political) movement that challenged entrenched social patterns and thus demanded social and political change, is found among feminist-driven care ethicists. Polarization, on the other hand, is more static, since it is driven by image-forming, widely disseminated terminology and narratives, which also those who are not obviously directly involved, integrate into their conceptions and then propagate ((2)).
A care-ethical perspective: the emotional dimension
Conflicts have to do with causing suffering, assigning blame, (more or less) taking responsibility, remorse, asymmetries, powerlessness, reparation, victimhood, strife, trauma. To put it briefly, it can be stated that there is an emotional dimension at play. In care ethics, we argue that embodied emotions have an unmistakable significance, and even enable ethical movement. For example, a sense of responsibility leads to conflict resolution. In polarized contradictions, which are loaded with sentiment, the movement between the disputing parties stays long-lasting absent. In our contemporary world, characterized by short term thinking, this occurs as a long lasting, static obstacle.
In care ethics a distinction is made between emotions, feelings (affects), and sentiments ((5)) (this latter term nowadays has a different definition than in Adam Smith’s writings). Emotional movement arises in the context of the living environment and lived life. An interplay begins by focusing on what is actually experienced, a moral evaluation follows and an interaction between cognition and emotions, according to sociologist Andrew Sayer ((6)).
Sentiments, on the other hand, have a more distant origin; they are defined as a mental attitude that does not necessarily relate directly to a situation experienced by oneself. Typical of a polarizing dynamic is that the terminology used involves generalities and links them to sentiments. For example, by attributing an undifferentiated, externally defined negative identity to a group. This creates an inflammatory reaction: the sentiment distorts into resentment toward population groups or institutions. Fire requires combustible ground. Experiences steeped in suffering and powerlessness, can, under certain circumstances, evoke rigidity ((8)) and thus can be a breeding ground for polarized-loaden expressions of resentment. It then covers up incidental, situational feelings (affects).
From a power perspective, resentments are also used as a power tool, such as in power struggles. This leads to political issues that can only be touched upon in the following sections.
Political settings: crises, polarization and totalitarianism
During the 20th century, some Western societies started to become increasingly flexible, mobile and pluralistic. Political ideals on the one hand and economic interests on the other, were major factors in this process ((7)). The formation of political-liberal forms of government addressed the principle of egalitarian coexistence with “the Other” and his or her different ways of thinking and living. But at the same time the phenomenon of totalitarianism occurred. The philosopher Immanuel Levinas developed his perspective from the horrifying experiences of totalitarianism, where the concentration of power is one-sided. He emphasized that the face of ‘the Other’ appears as “subject”, as a call to ethical action and responsibility.
In the Weimar Republic, for example, which was established in Germany between the two world wars, the rigid conflict between (ideological) groups culminated in polarization and ultimately totalitarianism against the backdrop of a series of financial, political and social crises. This political chaos was instrumentalized. Conspiracy theories (for example the stab-in-the-back myth) offered a tempting simplification of serious problems through what were evidently myths and legends. There was a receptiveness because myths and legends can contribute to collective (national) identity formation ((8)).
In this specific context this was effected by excluding explicitly and violently some — blamed — citizens from the collective. Institutions that were newly established to help make society more egalitarian were treated with contempt. Thus, the narratives fueled resentments. They were in national-socialist Germany used to justify a totalitarian form of government through exclusion and structural violence exercised by a totalitarian state. It culminated in the murder of Jewish citizens, citizens of Sinti- and Roma-origin, homosexual citizens, mentally disabled citizens and political opponents.
A delineation: horizontal and vertical polarization
The polarization research ((2)) distinguishes between vertical polarization and horizontal polarization. One can nevertheless amplify the other. Vertical polarization refers to a presumed irreconcilable contradiction between “the people” (bottom-up) at one side and governments and their institutions (top-down) at the other side, even though the political system has a democratic foundation. Division and social hardening are exacerbated where conspiracy theories suggest that the overwhelming social complexity can be traced back to clear causes and that blameworthy parties can be identified.
As a collective narrative, this unambiguous frame also suggests the existence of hidden totalitarian tendencies. A consequent simplifying perspective results in disqualifying terminology, which fuels the fire, heated up through digital mass communication. Theme-focused controversial discussions would only increase mutual alienation ((3)). Instrumentalized by interested parties with a claim to power, the resentments become a power tool, even if those parties have completely different particular experiences.
Horizontal polarization refers to rigid divisions between population groups ((2)). Complicated particular experiences gained in an entangled conflict with the other group can be absorbed into a generalizing, one-sided collective narrative. However, it also contributes to stereotypical images that are adopted by less affected citizens and spread like wildfire. Solidarity through a collective narrative within one’s own group is thus a protective factor, but exclusivity also carries the risk of horizontal polarization.
Experiences with protective and guided conflict resolution programs demonstrate: Only when the particular narrative can be expressed, the particular narratives of members of “the other group” also can be perceived. That is, from subject to subject, counteracting polarization. In that case, the various phases of conflict resolution could be reactivated. Various projects in (polarized) conflict areas have had partial success with this narrative method, such as in Northern Ireland ((3)).
Narrativity and dialogue as approach to polarization?
Not only is “scorched earth” fertile ground for polarization, but social horizontal divisions in previously more stable societies are also hardening today. Given the complexity, ambiguities, and turbulence of the current era, is authentic encounter between opposing groups a feasible path toward less polarization?
In her analysis, care-ethicist Sophie Bourgault questions the possibilities of a dialogical encounter, in the sense of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Martin Buber, in relation to issues of obviously asymmetric power relations in society, which should be examined in advance ((9)). And hasn’t authenticity become a questionable term in the neoliberal era of inherent contradictions and more subtle power dynamics ((7))? This also raises new questions for care ethics, which we would like to address below.
The late modern context
Late modernity has contradictory tendencies: On the one hand, getting stuck in polarized oppositions and, on the other hand, being subject to seemingly endless processes of change and reactive short-term policy. Since the 18th century, the promise of being able to develop a future perspective according to one’s own insights has been one of the ideals of Western democracies. This has been given form and substance in an extremely challenging process.
The sociologist Andreas Reckwitz hereby notes a growing sensitivity to otherness and equality ((10)). On the other side of this spectrum is the accumulation of diverse global crisis situations with regard to the financial markets, irreconcilable geopolitical relations and, as a result, the uprooting and displacement of a very large number of refugees, climate disaster, epidemics, lack of housing, precarious living conditions due to social asymmetries, etc.
Institutions on the edge?
In this ongoing crisis mode, (national) institutions no longer appear to offer sufficient protection. Their influence and power to enforce citizen-oriented decisions seemed to have diminished since markets were liberalized in a global context and market principles dominate even social institutions. The market principles create an (dis)order by subtly demanding short-term decisions, reactivity and, as a contradiction in terms, authenticity at the same time.
“Agility” must take priority in order to be supposedly “resilient” ((10)), but without any promise of stability. There are indications of an alarming decline of trust in public democratic institutions, which do not (or cannot) take the time and the power to steer the increasing complexity of society in predictable directions ((11)). The feeling of distrust towards the government can turn into resentment towards institutions, fueled in part by those who exploit that resentment and cherish a dystopian worldview.
An alternative definition of resilience
The call for ‘resilience’ suggests the need for an individual reactive attitude towards forces beyond our control. The sociologist Reckwitz offers another interpretation of resilience given the current phenomenon’s. According to him, the ability to deal with ambiguity and inner division could give us the strength to achieve a more solid foundation in the present era ((10)).
Conclusion 1: a dystopian worldview?
All in all, my initial list of issues surrounding polarization does not seem very promising. But is it meant to be a statement that we are living in a hopeless era? Certainly not. There is a wealth of recent critical analysis available from various disciplines that can strengthen the contextuality of care ethics. The critical sociologist Andreas Reckwitz is one example; he delves deeply into the pitfalls of late modernity and possible ways out ((12)). The question remains how controversial reasoning can achieve the power of a transformative social movement. But, as we have seen, analyses must precede truth(-claims) in the current complex context.
Conclusion 2: the next steps?
Care ethics examines correlations between the relational, communal, and political dimensions and has a political-ethical perspective oriented toward current practices. This is why time diagnostics are also essential. With a trained eye on the current complexity in which social and political issues often become entangled, critical care ethics could make a nuanced, in-depth contribution to questions related to polarization.
At first sight, suggested themes may include (among others): autocracy, social asymmetry and institutions, implicit and explicit power distribution—with impact on the emotional dimension —, the role and pitfalls of narrativity, the (emancipatory) role of identity politics and its pitfalls, the opportunities and hidden vulnerabilities of (relational?) dialogue in a political context, the complexity of the differentiation between needs, concerns and interests.
References
(1) Reckwitz, A. (2021) The end of illusions. Politics, Economy and Culture in Late Modernity. John Wiley and Sons Ltd
(2) Brandsma, B. (2017). Polarization. Understanding the dynamic Us versus Them. Publisher BB in Media, English version see here
(3) Tammes, H. Barel, A. (2024). ‘Storytelling en polarisatie’ . Publisher International Theatre & Film Books: Zaandam, The Netherlands (in Dutch) (English version here)
(4) In: B. Brandsma (2017): Brandsma refers to the conflict stages model developed by Collin Craig (Northern Ireland) and Jaap van der Sar (The Netherlands). This model forms the basis for a conflict resolution method that has been proven effective in international contexts.
(5) Sayer, A. (2011). Why things matter to people. University Press: Cambridge
(6) P. Paperman: ‘Love, gender and moral sensibility: a political (his)tory’. Sophie Bourgault & Elena Pulcini (Eds.) In: Emotions and Care: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Ethics of Care 6, Peeters., for further reading (in Dutch): here (author: Frans Vosman)
(7) Foucault, M (2009). ‘Security, Territory, Population’. Lectures at the College De France, 1977-78. Springer: Berlin, New York
(8) Smart, N. (1996). Dimensions of The Sacred. University of California Press: Berkeley and Los Angeles.
(9) Bougault, S. (2020). ‘Democratic practice and ‘Caring to deliberate’: A Gadamerian Account of Conversation and Listening’. In: Care Ethics, Citizenship and the State. Eds: Urban, P., Ward, L. Oxford Brookes University: Oxford
(10) Reckwitz, A. (2021) The end of illusions. Politics, Economy and Culture in Late Modernity. John Wiley and Sons Ltd
(11) see link (in German)
(12) To delve deeper into the analyses of Andreas Reckwitz, see here the link to his podcast (German spoken)
Illustration: The Secret, by Felix Nussbaum (Brussels, November 1939)