Political polarisation and its effect on Social Groups

I have been observing the interactions among members of the social groups, where i am a part of. This is a continuous process and I believe all of us subconsciously do and judge others on parameters we have decided for evaluation. 

I  try to observe, more than any other's interactions with me, my interactions with others. By now, most of you who have been observant, must have noted that this is my OCD. And I consciously think about events taking place around me, with the objectives of maintaining and strengthening harmony in the groups where I am a member of and mend my behaviour to achieve peace. This is purely because I am selfish and prefer to live in peaceful surroundings.

For some time, I have observed and experienced loss of harmony and peace in my immediate surroundings. 

That when members of social groups are face to face, opportunities do present themselves to express differing views, and depending on strength of personalities, arguments may achieve higher decibels. The technological advances have made things worse by facilitating intra-group interactions and communication, by permitting virtual gatherings. The opportunities of arguments resulting out of differing views are in abundance. It has further made such interactions resulting in catastrophic fall outs by hiding non-verbal communication.

I was trying to list out causes for differing views and realised that one of the critical areas for difference of opinion is Political scenario. Members of the social groups have developed strong views on the issue, thanks to propaganda on social media, highly partisan electronic and print media and own interests. Confirmation bias has added fuel to fire, since each one of us looks for information in all media which justifies our stand.

This led me to search for details related with Political Polarization and its effect on Social Groups. A Wiki page on the subject of "Political Polarization" defines Polarization as under:

"According to DiMaggio et al. (1996), "Polarization is both a state and a process. Polarization as a state refers to the extent to which opinions on an issue are opposed in relation to some theoretical maximum. Polarization as a process refers to the increase in such opposition over time." Polarization can be benign, natural, and democratizing, or it can be pernicious, having long term malignant effects on society and congesting essential democratic functions."

Wiki page further explains types of polarization as Elite, Mass, and Pernicious polarization. It states “Elite polarization refers to polarization between the party-in-government and the party-in-opposition” and “Mass polarization, or popular polarization, is stated to be occurring when an electorate's attitudes towards political issues, policies, and celebrated figures are neatly divided along party lines. At the extreme, each camp questions the moral legitimacy of the other, viewing the opposing camp and its policies as an existential threat to their way of life or the nation as a whole”.

The most dangerous variety in my perception is Pernicious Polarization. Wiki page goes on to describe that phenomenon as “In political science, Pernicious polarization occurs when a single political cleavage overrides other divides and commonalities to the point it has boiled into a single divide which becomes entrenched and self-reinforcing. Unlike most types of polarization, pernicious polarization does not need to be ideological. Rather, pernicious polarization operates on a single political cleavage, which can be partisan identity, religious vs secular, globalist vs nationalist, urban vs rural, etc. This political divide creates an explosion of mutual group distrust which hardens between the two political parties (or coalitions) and spreads beyond the political sphere into societal relations. People begin to perceive politics as "us" vs "them."”

And this is what is causing me most discomfort. I have observed, such discussions becoming so acrimonious that at times they result into break down of communication and estrangement of relations. Members of the social group demonstrating love and affection today, may be found to be with broken relationship, because of arguments over such unworthy causes, tomorrow.

I found that those who are arguing are intelligent and can defend their commitment successfully. Are we wise, to take the arguments to breaking point, was the question. What is the difference between “Intelligence” and “Wisdom” was a topic of next search and I came across this explanation:

• “Intelligence leads to arguments. Wisdom leads to settlements.
• Intelligence is heat, it burns. Wisdom is warmth, it comforts.
• Intelligence is pursuit of knowledge; it tires the seeker. Wisdom is pursuit of truth; it inspires the seeker.
• Intelligence is holding on. Wisdom is letting go.
• An intelligent man thinks he knows everything. A wise man knows that there is still something to learn.
• An intelligent man always tries to prove his point. A wise man knows there really is no point.
• An intelligent man speaks when he has to say something. A wise man speaks when he has something to say.
• An intelligent man preaches. A wise man reaches.
• Intelligence is good but wisdom achieves better results."

Let me be Wise.

I received another gem of an advice, which makes most sense for social groups and it says:

“Ships don’t sink because of the water around them; it sinks because of water that gets in them. Don’t let what’s happening around you get inside you and weigh you down.”

Amen!!