Polarization Of Attitudes As The Togetherness Sociology

essay A

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all the help you need with your essay and educational goals.

Get Access

Peoples that follow Internet media in Croatia usage to state that any treatment in the remarks of online editions of newspapers, and on Internet forums excessively, stop up in a treatment about the UstaA?a, the Croatian World War II fascists, and the Partisans, the Croatian ( but besides common for all the other states that were portion of the former Yugoslavia ) anti-fascists, partially communists. Why articles that have nil to make with the World War II, fascists, zealots and other remains of past times end in a polarized treatment about those subjects? Why do people travel to extremes in assorted political treatments ( particularly when they are anon. ) ? Is it possible to avoid polarisation?

Equally early as 1996, in the flowers of the Internet phenomenon, when everybody saw a great globalising potency of that so new medium, Erik Brynjolfsson and Marshall Van Alstyne wrote a paper about the cyberbalkanization produced by the new medium ( 1997, revisited in 2004 ) . Unlike the many cyberenthusiasts of that clip, they said that the Internet will non link more people, but will organize many niches, groups based on the affinities of the people in those groups. Or better, Marshall McLuhan ‘s Global Village would non be the lone possible consequence of the new networking media. They saw already so that assorted groups on the Internet are based on their involvements, non on geographical locality. Basically, they foresaw that a atomization of the internet will happen – the cyberbalkanization.

“ By [ cyber ] balkanization[ 1 ][ they ] mean the grade to which resources exist as staccato islands within a larger population ” ( 1997:6 ) . This phenomenon comes out from some restrictions in interaction which “ exist due to ( 1 ) cognitive capacity restraints ( 2 ) losing or unshared vocabulary, e. g. medical nomenclature ( 3 ) insufficient bandwidth, e. g. even video-conferencing may supply insufficient context for meetings and ( 4 ) deficiency of trust [ … ] ” ( 1997:10 ) . So, in internet we tend to organize homogenous communities of like-minded individuals, which are impossible to organize in our geographical communities where different people, with different sentiments and features coexist. This happens because, unlike in the “ existent universe ” , people have the chance to take the content, the contacts, and connexions as they please. “ The stronger the penchants, the stronger the balkanization ” ( 1997:17 ) in the so called internet, and besides “ [ n ] arrower penchants balkanize while broader penchants unbalkanize interactions ” ( 1997:17 ) . To be even more precise, if our involvements are really specific, and we are truly overzealous about them, the consequence will be more balkanization, if our involvements are broad, and we are more funny there will be less balkanization.

The phenomenon of cyberbalkanization is common on the Internet because people can organize there a Daily Me, and frequently an anon. Daily Me. After the atomization there are assorted groups, but non even so all the people belonging to a group are equal, there is besides stratification traveling on in every group on the Internet, between those who are the “ existent ” know-alls, and the other ordinary members ( Brynjolfsson, Van Alstyne 1997 ) .

Cass R. Sunstein, a ill-famed jurisprudence professor who is working at the minute on Barrack Obama ‘s disposal, says that “ [ tungsten ] biddy people find themselves in groups of like-minded types, they are particularly likely to travel to extremes ” ( 2009:2, italics in the original text ) .When groups of people of different sentiments talk together they do non compromise or run into in the center, they go to extremes. More exactly, “ members of a considering group normally end up at a more utmost place in the same general way as their dispositions before deliberation began ” ( 2009:3 ) , and this is a planetary phenomenon. For illustration, people that show racial biass tend to go more racist when they talk with like-minded people, and those people who show small racial bias, you guessed right, tend to go even less racialist. The same thing happens to women’s rightists and those people against feminism, to people that are against or for a war intercession, and so on. There happens something similar to cyberbalkanization but in the physical universe, a sort of self-segregation, and segregation is ever, harmonizing to Sunstein, a utile tool for bring forthing polarisation.

In experiments with people from “ bluish ” and “ ruddy ” electoral countries in the United States[ 2 ]it was found that polarisation happens all the clip. The same happens in panels of Federal Judgess. They besides tend to polarise harmonizing to the panel formation. If there are more Republican oriented Judgess they will tilt to more Republican sort of deliberation, and vice-versa if the panel is Democratic. It seems that merely on three subjects Judgess do n’t truly alter their pre-deliberation sentiments in any way: on abortion, on capital penalty and on national security.

Anyhow, groups tend to be more utmost and aggressive than persons. Peoples that are inclined to take hazards when together with people that are inclined to take hazards excessively, tend to… take more hazards. Peoples take more hazards after a brief period of corporate treatment, but that is non a planetary phenomenon. It seems it is connected with civilization, because there were findings that showed that Chinese people make a “ cautious displacement ” alternatively of the American “ hazardous displacement ” ( see Sunstein 2009: 16-17 ) . Why is it so different in the USA and Taiwan is explained by the determination that “ [ T ] he predeliberation median is the best forecaster of the way of the displacement ” ( 2009:17 – italics in the original ) . That means that the Chinese before fall ining a group treatment are less prone to hazard.

Groups polarize, explains Sunstein ( 2009:21 ) , because people exchange new information, and that information is skewed in a predictable way[ 3 ]. Groups move because of the impact of information. Normally in a group there are no counterarguments, and the discourse is necessarily skewed.

It seems that today terrorists become more and more utmost because they read and exchange information online. Not on web sites which are inactive, but on forums, newsgroups and get offing lists ( see Sunstein 2009:25 ) . They get all the information they need, but skewed information, and they look precisely for that.

Peoples besides like to hear something that they already know or believe. If person Tells you something that you already cognize it is really likely that you ‘ll stop up wishing that individual, and you will wish more yourself ( see Sunstein 2009:29 ) , likely because you confirm your cognition, or “ cognition ” , on some facts, or “ facts ” . “ In face-to-face treatments and in strictly written undertakings, people give higher evaluations ( in footings of cognition, competency, and credibleness ) both to themselves and to others after having information they already know ” ( Sunstein 2009:29 ) . Peoples tend to disregard information that is non in line with what we already know or think. Sunstein explains in that manner the differences between the presidential terms of George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln. G. W. Bush had a staff that encouraged group polarisation and made more suited more utmost solutions of some jobs ( we have seen the consequences ) , while A. Lincoln had a “ healthy Team of Rivals. ” The Bush disposal turned to a “ Team of Unrivals ” where dissent was frequently seen as disloyal.

The same phenomenon is present in race murders. It is truly interesting and perplexing how people that had a normal life for old ages turn into mass liquidators. Information even in those state of affairss play a major function, as it came out from the Rwandan instance, and besides from the wars in former Yugoslavia. Peoples are indoctrinated by the media which are already skewed and biased, and, on the other manus, the reputational force per unit areas push people in aberrant Acts of the Apostless. Peoples can express joy at the people that do n’t kill, they may believe a individual is a coward if she is non ready to kill the enemy, and that individual can besides lose the regard of their households. On the other manus, people with the possibility of taking a larger position on things and have international contacts can even in such utmost state of affairss play major functions in order to salvage lives. That was the instance with Paul Rusesabagina from Rwanda, depicted in the 2004 movie Hotel Rwanda. He, even though was a man of affairs oriented about entirely on net income, has managed to salvage 1000s of Tutsi refugees, chiefly because he had many international contacts ( see Newman 2008:18 ) .

Harmonizing to Sunstein, there are two different histories on polarisation:

Polarization reveals hidden beliefs and desires

Polarization creates new beliefs and desires

When people have hidden beliefs and desires, which are hidden because ( they think ) they are non approved by the larger community, and people from the community start to talk with each other about their concerns more extremism comes out if they discover that they are sharing some concerns: Then they start to experience indignation because they used to bring forth self-silencing for all those old ages. To be more clear, a good illustration is sexual torment. Once that sort of pattern did n’t even hold a name, when adult females started to speak about things that were refering them, sexual torment became a condemnable act in most counties of the West.

When there are new beliefs and desires, of class, we do n’t hold any sort of sense of grudge. There must be some sort of polarisation enterprisers around ( See Sunstein 2009:32 ) . The positions that end up being utmost are wholly generated by group interactions. As I wrote earlier, people besides want to be liked by other people in the group, so an increased extremism is a rational reaction to what you learn and what you care about.

Many times polarization arises from people ‘s misjudgment about group behaviours as impartial when they are in fact biased. Sometimes, as in the blogosphere, as we have seen with the cyberbalkanization, people voluntarily choose groups to belong, and thoughts to follow with non much critical thought about the prejudice.

Another interesting determination exposed by Sunstein is the fact that besides physicians are less likely to back up epic actions when they are entirely than when they are in squads. Sometimes when they are in squads they try to revive people even though there ‘s no point in making that, because the consequence is merely a cerebrally dead individual, which becomes another job. Peoples placed in groups show besides a greater displacement to generousness. In groups people become less selfish.

But why people shift more likely in one way than in the other? This is because there must be a rhetorical advantage. The demand for higher punishments for drug usage, for illustration, is a good illustration of rhetorical advantage. Or even a better one, the demand for rough penalty for paedophiles. In those instances we are certain that people will travel to extremes, and, in my sentiment, any sort of social witch-hunt starts with a little rhetorical advantage ( salvage the kids, the young person, women- virgins, etc… ) .

There is a nexus between assurance and extremism. “ [ P ] eople with utmost positions tend to hold more assurance that they are right, and [ … ] as people gain assurance they become more utmost in their beliefs ” ( Sunstein 2002:122 ) . Otherwise, people moderate their sentiments if they are non certain if they are right. If the group is formed by confident people it is likely to switch.

Russell Hardin ( as cited in Sunstein 2009 ) writes that extremists suffer from “ halt epistemology. ” Extremists are non irrational, it is merely that they know really small, and what they know supports their extremism ( Sunstein 2009:41 ) . “ [ W ] hat you know depends on whom you know and who you know depends on whom you meet ” ( Brynjolfsson, Van Alstyne 1997:18 ) . Peoples in “ extremist ” groups meet a modest figure of people, they portion the small information that a little group can hold, and the consequence is that they do non cognize many people, do non hold much information, and accordingly organize a deformed and colored position of the universe. Finally, that status drives them into mindless Acts of the Apostless of force in the name of a belief.

If people can easy go forth a group, it is really likely that that peculiar group will go utmost. All the individuals that do n’t hold with the beliefs of the group leave, the group becomes smaller and more determined in what its members do. Easy issue options produce more radicalism because dissent disappears in the group.

Sunstein concludes what might go on in assorted groups ( 2009:48-49 ) :

“ For many issues and many groups, the average point of position, in progress of deliberation, is the best forecaster of the way of the displacement [ … ] .

When groups contain every bit opposed subgroups, do non keep stiffly to their places, and listen to one another, members will switch towards the center ; they will depolarise. The consequence of commixture will be to bring forth moderateness.

When people are covering with “ eureka jobs, ” for which the right reply, one time announced, is clear to most or all, assorted groups will happen the right reply.

Sometimes people will remain precisely where they are. Those with entrached positions on capital penalty, the struggle in the Middle East, or abortion may non be much moved to hear what their antagonists have to state. ”

Depolarization may happen in state of affairss where “ group members are disconnected reasonably equally and if people are willing to listen. ” ( 2009.49 ) . If people think that other people are fools at that place will come polarisation once more. That is why societies need dissent ( Sunstein 2003 ) .

Extremists are truly commited to their beliefs and/or political orientations, and when they see grounds against their beliefs and political orientations, counter to the common sense, they become even more utmost. When some false beliefs of some people are corrected, like that there were no arms of mass devastation in Iraq, their beliefs do n’t go weaker, but even more extremist. Marc Sageman ( cited by Sunstein, 51 ) , an expert on terrorist act, calls that phenomenon “ in-group love. ” People ever procedure information in a manner that fits with their desires, and they change their heads if people with whom they typically identify do.

After all we can read about polarisation we may inquire ourselves why, for illustration, Democrats in the USA do n’t travel more to the left, and Republicans more to the right? The reply seems simple: Because they would acquire fewer ballots. We have seen that where issue a group is easy wholly people that are non utmost leave the group. The same thing would go on with the Democrats, for illustration, because it is truly easy to go forth the party or to halt vote for a party. There would stay few members who would be more extremist, and fewer electors which would be more radical. Merely in utmost state of affairss, in my sentiment, radical parties can acquire more ballots, or radical motions can hold a larger suppport, as it happened in the 1930s Germany, 1917 Russia, or in the European Parliament with the one time fringy far right parties as the British National Party, the Gallic Front National, The Belgian Vlaamse Bloc, etc… Except for the Nazi Germany and Russian instances, which are still a affair of surveies and differences, some of those radical parties when on power, or when they taste a little sum power, acquire milder, as is the instance with the Italian Lega Nord or the post-fascist Movimento sociale italiano turned into a milder Alleanza Nazionale, so merged with the even milder Berlsuconi ‘s Popolo delle liberta .

To understand polarisation among assorted groups better we have to understand the construct of homophily. “ Homophily is the rule that a contact between similar people occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar people ” ( McPherson et al. 2001:416 ) , and it gets stronger the more similarities there are between people.

There are two sorts of homophily ( McPherson et al. 2001:419 ) , the baseline homophily or “ homophily effects that are created by human ecology of the possible tie pool, and inbreeding homophily or “ homophily measured as explicitly over and above the chance set ” . Another distinction of homophily by Lazarsfeld and Merton ( cited by McPherson et al. ) is the 1 of position homophily, “ in which similarity is based on informal, formal, or ascribed position, and value homophily, which is based on vaues, attitudes, and beliefs. ” ( 419 ) . So, position homophily is based on sociodemographic features like race, ethnicity, sex, age, faith, instruction, business and behaviour forms. While “ [ V ] alue homophily includes teh broad assortment of internal provinces presumed to determine our orientation toward future behaviour ” ( 419 ) . The bottom line is that “ people who are similar along relevant dimensions tend to seek out one another and to populate in the same societal webs. ” ( Sinstein 2009:83 ) . Assorted findings ( McPherson 2001 ) support this claim. Peoples of same ethnicity will be more homophilous, people of same sex and gender tend to be homophilous but it depends really much about the fortunes ( sex, age, instruction, etc… ) , age groups tend to be homophilous, people that portion the same faith, instruction, business, and societal category, web places, behaviour ( that ‘s why aberrant young person lodge together ) , attitudes, abilities, beliefs, and aspirations. “ There is [ besides ] considerable inclination for grownups to tie in with those of their ain political orientations ” ( McPherson et al. 2001:429 ) . All those groups that develop homophily demo a inclination to self-segregate ( Sunstein 2009:83 ) .

The causes of homophily are geographical ( locality – it is still the best forecaster to acquire people along ) , household ties, organisations ( where we work, voluntary organisations, etc ) , etc… ( McPherson et al. 2001 ) .

If there is more wonder, in the sense that people are eager to larn about their environment, and other civilizations, it seems that homophily decreases. More exactly: “ [ … ] If societal norms encourage people to cultivate the inclination toward wonder, and even to please in new subjects and sentiments, so groups will incorporate birds of many different plumes.[ 4 ]“ ( Sunstein 2001:85 )

Wendy Griswold, in her analysis of the “ reading category ” and reading wonts in Italy, Norway and the United States ( 2008 ) , says something that seems to stand in between cyberbalkanization, polarisation and homophily. She says that cultural regionalism “ is booming non despite globalisation and information engineerings, but because of them ” ( 2008:1 ) . Internet, harmonizing to her findings, has connected people on regional footing, and did n’t arouse the planetary uniformity that many “ no planetary ” writers would wish us to believe. Although the Internet can arouse cyberbalkanization on a bigger graduated table, many people can even acquire polarized in their little cyberbalkanic “ states ” , but it makes another interesting phenomenon: people get connected through a globalizing medium as the Internet, in their niche, but to acquire together “ unrecorded ” , to run into in existent life because of the books they like.

To reason, Internet, even though it is a planetary medium, is n’t a agencies for uniforming and globalising all the human societies in universe. It is more likely a agencies for atomization of the societies, and all those fragments of societies can hold negative characteristics every bit good as positive 1s. They can hold a span from terrorist groups to readers nines. In any instance Internet can fulfill homophilic inclinations without being based on geographical locality, but, as Griswold found, it can link people with similar involvements on a regional base.

It is non plenty merely “ to bridge the digital divide ” for assorted societies by giving them entree to the Internet, there must be an active instruction to further wonder, critical thought and good debate in order to avoid rhetoric fast ones, otherwise we ‘ll acquire many entranched islands of extremists that could hold a bigger impact on society in the existent life.

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member