Polarization Of Attitudes As The Togetherness Sociology Essay Example

extreme beliefs globally. When different opinions come together, compromise tends to decrease as individuals gravitate towards more extreme positions aligned with their original dispositions. This applies to various topics such as racial biases, feminism, war intervention, and others.

In the physical world, a similar phenomenon called self-segregation exists which leads to polarization according to Sunstein's analysis. Experiments conducted involving individuals from "blue" and "red" electoral areas consistently reveal polarization occurring in the United States context. The patterns of polarization observed in panels of Federal Judges align with the composition of the panel itself. If there are more Republican-oriented Judges present, they will lean towards Republican deliberation.
Similarly, Democratic panels tend to lean towards Democratic deliberation, but Judges do not significantly alter their pre-deliberation views on abortion, capital punishment, and national security issues. Despite the tendency for groups to display more extreme and aggressive behavior compared to individuals, when risk-taking individuals come together, they collectively engage in even riskier behaviors. However, it is important to note that group discussions do not always result in increased risk-taking behavior universally. Cultural influences also play a role in shaping this phenomenon as Chinese individuals exhibit a "cautious shift," unlike their American counterparts who show a "risky shift." The contrast between the USA and Taiwan can be attributed to the accurate prediction of opinion changes based on the median prior to participating in group discussions. Prior to engaging in group discussions, Chinese individuals are less inclined towards taking risks. According to Sunstein (2009:21), group polarization occurs when people share biased new information in a predictable manner [3]. Information has the ability to influence shifts in group opinions. Within a group setting, the

absence of counterarguments distorts discourse. Additionally, terrorists have become increasingly radical nowadays due to their consumption and exchange of online information (Sunstein 2009:25).These extremists actively search for distorted information that confirms their existing beliefs through forums, newsgroups, and mailing lists instead of relying on inactive websites. Additionally, individuals tend to prefer hearing things they already know or believe. When someone tells you something you already know, it increases the likelihood of forming a positive opinion about them while reinforcing your own knowledge or perception of certain facts (referencing Sunstein 2009:29). Individuals tend to have higher evaluations of themselves and others in terms of knowledge, competence, and credibility when they receive information that aligns with their existing beliefs (Sunstein 2009:29), whether it is through face-to-face interactions or written engagements. This tendency can be observed by comparing the presidential terms of George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln. While Bush's administration fostered group polarization and pursued extreme solutions with negative outcomes, Lincoln embraced a "healthy Team of Rivals." However, under Bush's leadership, dissent was often seen as disloyalty, resulting in a "Team of Unrivals." This phenomenon also occurs during instances of racial violence where individuals who once lived seemingly normal lives become mass murderers. Information plays a crucial role in cases like the Rwandan genocide and wars in former Yugoslavia. The media perpetuates bias and indoctrination while reputational pressures push individuals towards deviant actions.People who refrain from killing may be admired, but those who are unwilling to kill their enemies can be seen as cowardly and lose respect from their families. However, individuals with a broader perspective and international connections can play important roles in extreme situations to

save lives. Paul Rusesabagina from Rwanda demonstrated this in the movie Hotel Rwanda (2004), where despite being focused on profit as a businessman, he was able to rescue thousands of Tutsi refugees due to his international contacts (see Newman 2008:18). According to Sunstein (2017), polarization has two explanations: it reveals hidden beliefs and desires, and it creates new ones. When people express their socially unacceptable beliefs and desires, more extreme views tend to emerge, leading to feelings of anger and resentment after years of self-censorship. A notable example is sexual harassment, which was initially unrecognized but became a criminal offense in many Western countries as awareness about it increased among women. On the other hand, when new beliefs and desires arise, there is no animosity or lingering grudges. Sunstein (2009:32) suggests that polarization exists among entrepreneurs, with extreme positions primarily influenced by group interactions.As previously mentioned, individuals seek validation from fellow group members, which can result in an increase in extremism. This is a rational response based on their own convictions and concerns. Polarization often occurs when people mistakenly believe that groups are impartial when in fact they exhibit biases. The blogosphere exemplifies cyberbalkanization, where individuals willingly join groups and adopt thoughts without critically considering prejudiced attitudes.

Sunstein's research also indicates that physicians working as part of a team, rather than alone, are less likely to support drastic actions. In group settings, individuals may try to revive others even if it is not beneficial, resulting in someone being cerebrally dead and creating additional problems.

Being part of a group also fosters selflessness and generosity. People tend to lean towards one direction over the other because of the

rhetorical advantage it offers. For example, advocating for stricter punishments for drug use or demanding severe penalties for pedophiles are powerful demonstrations of rhetorical advantage.

In certain situations, it becomes evident that individuals are willing to go to extremes. From my perspective, social witch-hunts often begin with a slight advantage in rhetoric by protecting specific demographics such as children, youths, women (especially virgins), and others.

There is a strong link between confidence and extremismAccording to Sunstein (2002:122), individuals with extreme viewpoints have high confidence in their correctness, and as their certainty increases, so does the extremism of their beliefs. Conversely, when individuals are unsure about being right, they tend to moderate their opinions. If a group is composed of confident individuals, it is likely that its stance will change. Sunstein (2009) cites Russell Hardin's perspective that extremists may lack an extensive understanding of epistemology but are not irrational; instead, they possess limited knowledge that supports their extremism (Sunstein 2009:41). Brynjolfsson and Van Alstyne (1997:18) argue that "what you know depends on whom you know and who you know depends on whom you meet." Hence, individuals in extremist groups have limited interactions with only a small number of people, which restricts the information they receive. Consequently, they lack knowledge about many people and possess limited overall information, leading to a distorted and biased perception of the world. This ultimately drives them to commit senseless acts of violence based on their beliefs. Furthermore, when individuals can easily leave a group, there is a high likelihood that the group itself will become extreme. As dissenters who disagree with the group's beliefs depart from it, the group becomes smaller but more

determined in its actions. Radicalism is heightened when there are easy issue options because dissent disappears.According to Sunstein (2009:48-49), when groups engage in deliberation, the average viewpoint of the group determines their direction. If a group consists of opposing subgroups but maintains open-mindedness and flexibility, they will tend to move towards a more moderate position and depolarize. Incorporating diverse perspectives into discussions promotes moderation. However, individuals with strongly entrenched views on topics like capital punishment, the Middle East conflict, or abortion may remain resistant even when presented with opposing viewpoints (2009:49).

Depolarization occurs when all group members feel equally disconnected and are willing to listen to each other. It is crucial for societies to embrace dissent because viewing others as foolish can lead to polarization (Sunstein, 2003). Extremists demonstrate unwavering commitment to their beliefs and political orientations. Instead of being influenced by contradictory evidence, they become even more fervent. Attempts at correcting false beliefs often reinforce extremism instead of weakening convictions; an example is the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (Sunstein cited Sageman, 51). Terrorism expert Marc Sageman refers to this phenomenon as "in-group love," where people process information that aligns with their desires and are influenced by those they typically identify with.Despite the well-known polarization within society, it is clear that Democrats in the USA cannot move any further to the left while Republicans cannot move any further to the right without risking losing votes. When a group becomes more extreme, non-extremists tend to leave the group. The same would happen with Democrats if they became more extreme; individuals can easily abandon or stop voting for a party. Consequently, there would be

fewer members and voters holding radical views or extreme alignment.

This concept (2001) can be categorized as either status homophily or value homophily. Status homophily involves individuals associating with others who have similar social status, such as income or education level. On the other hand, value homophily refers to individuals associating with others who share similar beliefs, attitudes, or values and can be observed in various situations.

Historical instances provide examples of this phenomenon where radical parties or movements gained support and influence like Germany in the 1930s and Russia in 1917. The European Parliament has also seen fringe far-right parties like British National Party, French Front National, and Belgian Vlaamse Bloc gaining attention. However, some of these radical parties may adopt more moderate positions when they come into power or even experience limited power themselves.The text discusses the transformation of post-fascist groups Italian Lega Nord and Movimento sociale italiano into the milder Alleanza Nazionale, which later merged with Berlusconi's Popolo delle liberta. Understanding polarization among different groups can be better explained by considering the concept of homophily. Homophily refers to individuals being more likely to form connections with those who resemble them rather than those who are dissimilar. This tendency becomes stronger when there are more similarities between individuals. There are two types of homophily: baseline homophily focuses on the effects generated by potential connections within social ecology, while inbreeding homophily measures the occurrence of connections beyond chance. Lazarsfeld and Merton distinguish between status homophily and value homophily. Status homophily occurs when individuals associate with others who have similar social status, such as income or education levels. On the other hand, value homophily refers to individuals

associating with others who share similar beliefs, attitudes, or values (McPherson et al., 2001:416). Position homophily is based on sociodemographic features like race, ethnicity, sex, age, faith, instruction business and behaviour forms; whereas value homophily is based on values, attitudes and beliefs.People with similar dimensions tend to form social networks and seek each other out. Studies have shown that individuals who share ethnicity, sex, age group, faith, education level, occupation, social class, web placement, behavior, attitudes, abilities, beliefs, and aspirations are more likely to exhibit homophily. Adults also tend to associate with those who hold similar political orientations. These groups displaying homophily tend to self-segregate due to factors such as geographical locality, household ties, and organizations (McPherson et al., 2001). However, if individuals have a sense of curiosity and eagerness to learn about different environments and cultures,
homophily appears to decrease. When societal norms encourage people to embrace curiosity and engage with new ideas,
diverse groups can come together (Sunstein 2001:85). Wendy Griswold's analysis of reading habits in Italy Norway and the United States (2008:1) suggests that cultural regionalism thrives due to globalization and information technologies instead of being hindered by them. Griswold's research shows that while the internet has connected people regionally without leading to global uniformity as criticized by opponents of globalization (Griswold 2008), it also has the potential for cyberbalkanization at a global level.On an individual scale, people can become divided within their own small cyberbalkanic "states". However, the internet's fragmentation results in a fascinating phenomenon where individuals with niche interests can connect globally and meet offline because of their shared passion for certain books. Nevertheless, despite being a global medium, the internet does

not unite all human societies; instead, it breaks them into smaller groups with both positive and negative aspects - ranging from terrorist organizations to book clubs. Nonetheless, regardless of geographical differences, the internet enables individuals with similar interests to primarily connect on a regional level. To bridge the digital divide in various societies, providing access to the internet alone is inadequate. Proactive education that fosters curiosity, critical thinking, and respectful dialogue is essential alongside this effort. Such education plays a crucial role in preventing extremist ideologies from spreading and potentially causing significant consequences beyond the online realm within society itself.