Not all Polarization is the Same: Participation, Pluralism and Political Conflict

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24137/raeic.12.23.1

Keywords:

polarization, political communication, democracy, consensus, agonism, antagonism, political conflict, digital political participation, tolerance

Abstract

Most polarization studies consider polarized political communication negative for the health of our democratic systems. These approaches are based on the premise of the need for social consensus and that political activity must have agreement as its goal. This article defies both assertions. First, we conceive society as a plural context in which individuals and groups have different interests and identities. In this sense, political conflict must be understood as something inherent to democratic societies. Second, we will defend that not all polarization can be considered harmful. Of course, part of it -unbridled polarization- could reduce social plurality and, with it, a decline in democracy. However, another type of polarization must be claimed as the only possible way to manifest plurality in a society with diverse interests. Agonistic polarization, far from posing a threat to democracy, might be its most effective guardian.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Antón R. Castromil, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)

    Antón R. Castromil holds a BA and a PhD in Journalism (UPSA) and Political Science from the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM). He has been teaching Journalism at the University Complutense of Madrid since 2008, where he is Associate Professor. He has published more than 30 books, chapters and articles in indexed scientific journals. Most of his research has focused on the political impact of the media on public opinion. He has worked on various national and international research projects focusing on public opinion and political communication, political debates, cyberpolitics, media agenda and rational voting.

  • Mario, Universidad Mayor de San Andrés (UMSA)

    Mario Vega is a PhD candidate in Journalism from the UCM and a political scientist with a master's degree in Agroecology, Culture, and Development. He is currently a professor in Political Science department at the Universidad Mayor de San Andrés in La Paz, Bolivia. He is part of the Comunicación y Política en el Nuevo Espacio Público (CONEP) research group at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, and the grupo de pesquisa en Opinão Pública at the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais in Brazil. He is an active member of the Asociación Latinoamericana de Investigadores en Campañas Electorales (ALICE) and the Asociación Latinoamericana de Ciencia Política (ALACIP), with whom he has written several journal articles and book chapters.
    He is a member of the board of directors of Tendencias Sociales. Revista de Sociología y Comunicación published by the Faculty of Political Science and Sociology of the UNED (University of Madrid), the Madrid Association of Sociology, and the Faculty of Information Sciences of the UCM. He is also part of the Communicare team, an electoral marketing and public management agency based in Brazil.

References

Bell, D. (2015). El final de la ideología. Alianza.

Benford, R., & Snow, D. (1994). Marcos de acción colectiva y campos de identidad en la construcción social de los movimientos. En J. Gusfield & E. Laraña (Eds.), Los movimientos sociales: de la ideología a la identidad (pp. 221-252). Academia.

Castromil, A. (2023). Contra la objetividad periodística. El conflicto en las sociedades contemporáneas. Fragua.

Colomer, J. M. (2023). La polarización política en Estados Unidos. Debate.

Coser, L. (1961). Las funciones del conflicto social. Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. A., & Pope, J. C. (2008). Polarization in the American Public: Misconceptions and Misreadings. The Journal of Politics, 70(2) 556-560.

Klein, E. (2021). Por qué estamos polarizados. Capitán Swing.

Laclau, E. (2005). La razón populista. Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Laclau, E., & Mouffe, Ch. (2004). Hegemonía y estrategia socialista. Hacia una radicalización de la democracia. Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil Agreement. How Politics become our Identity. The University of Chicago Press.

Miller, L. (2023). Polarizados. La política que nos divide. Deusto.

Mouffe, C. (1999). El retorno de lo político. Comunidad, ciudadanía, pluralismo, democracia radical. Paidós.

Orriols, L. (2023). Democracia de trincheras. Por qué votamos a quienes votamos. Península.

Schmitt, C. (2014. V. O. 1932). El concepto de lo político. Alianza.

Simmel, S. (2019 V. O. 1904). El conflicto. Sociología del antagonismo. Sequitur.

Tajfel, H., et al (1971). Social Categorization and Intergroup Behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2).

Torcal, M. (2023). De votantes a hooligans. La polarización política en España. Catarata.

Vallespín, F. (2021). La sociedad de la intolerancia. Galaxia Gutenberg.

Weber, M. (1988). El político y el científico. Alianza.

Downloads

Published

2025-04-15

Issue

Vol. 12 No. 23 (2025): Comunicación política y participación digital

Section

Guest authors

How to Cite

Not all Polarization is the Same: Participation, Pluralism and Political Conflict. (2025). Revista De La Asociación Española De Investigación De La Comunicación, 12(23), raeic122301. https://doi.org/10.24137/raeic.12.23.1