Peacemaking in a Polarized World
In this article, we think about how to resist what scientists are calling “polarized information ecosystems.” Polarization is widely discussed. But widely discussed subjects are rarely well-discussed. Too many commentators continue to utilize the increasingly insufficient “echo chamber” hypothesis to explain the political division we see in American society.
I argue that Christians have a primary responsibility to live lives of holiness. Holiness demands distinct ways of living which transcend the negative and sinful ways that worldly systems attempt to trap us in. In a world that profits from division, Christ says blessed are the peacemakers (Matt. 5:9). This work of peacemaking must first be embodied within the Body of Christ before it is carried out into the world. Christians, and indeed any ideologically diverse communities, are well-positioned to cultivate ways of resisting the polarizing forces driving our nation down.
Echo Chambers Are Not the Problem
Studies on the flow of information online in
2013 and
2014 initially indicated that users were being bombarded with information that already affirmed their preconceived notions of politics and reality. The well-known “echo chamber” hypothesis posits that isolating oneself from different viewpoints drives ideological and affective polarization. The first kind of polarization is when ideologies become increasingly opposed to each other. The second, affective polarization, is when groups
feel increasingly opposed to each other.
These echo chambers, according to Petter Törnberg, are “homogeneous clusters protected from opposing individuals and perspectives—which are said to lead to the divergence of opinions toward more extreme positions” (1). When understood in this sense, echo chambers are not the problem.
However, philosopher C. Thi Nguyen does make a helpful distinction between epistemic bubbles and echo chambers. Epistemic bubbles, Nguyen argues, happen when communities are simply unexposed to other perspectives. Echo chambers in Nguyen’s definition have more to do with how outside voices are treated and perceived. Nguyen writes,
By discrediting outsiders, echo chambers leave their members overly dependent on approved inside sources for information. In epistemic bubbles, other voices are merely not heard; in echo chambers, other voices are actively undermined (142).
Moving forward, we will focus mostly on quantitative research on polarization. In these quantitative articles, such distinctions are not used; epistemic bubbles and echo chambers are usually taken to mean the same thing by researchers.
Polarization Driven by Interaction, Not Isolation
In the latest literature on polarization, researchers are finding that it is not isolation that is causing polarization. Rather, it is more interaction. Petter Törnberg describes the process this way. We quote Törnberg at length:
the diverse and nonlocal interactions of digital media drive plural conflicts to align along partisan lines [and] drive a global alignment of conflicts by effacing the counterbalancing effects of local cultures. The model thus suggests that digital media can intensify affective polarization by contributing to a runaway process in which more and more issues become drawn into a single growing social and cultural divide, in turn driving a breakdown of social cohesion (2).
In other words, media functions by taking disputes which often do not materialize in our everyday lives. It then turns these issues into two-sided winner-takes-all conflicts. Individuals are then made to feel like they
must take a side.
This means that we are not often trapped in isolated bubbles of information. Rather, we are forced into confrontation with the “other side.” As Törnberg writes, “digital media does not appear to lock people into isolated echo chambers but rather intensifies interaction with diverse actors and ideas from outside one’s local bubble” (3).
Polarization Caused by Sorting
Political scientists have traditionally held that “unified” societies are not ideologically homogenous. Rather, the various communities in a harmonious society all have things that they disagree with each other on. Groups will thus be allied regarding some issues, and opponents on others. This is what political scientists refer to as “cross-cutting.” These multiply aligned alliances and oppositions essentially cancel each other out, making room for peaceful coexistence.
However, the media scape is not characterized by cross-cutting differences. As Törnberg tells us, media actively reduces these cross-cutting divides into diametrically opposed party platforms. Thus, differences no longer cut across communities; communities are being reconfigured or “sorted” into two major communities. These two communities—Republicans and Democrats—have now
sorted themselves into a situation where there are no more complex loyalties. Who “we” are and who “they” are is now clear as day.
This social sorting even extends to previously ordinary aspects of our lives. In what some scholars call “oil spill” polarization, it is not so much that ideologies are becoming further apart. Rather, these two opposing ways of thinking are becoming more
expansive. Spending habits, levels of education, consumption lifestyles, and so on are becoming markers of identity in this ever-expanding culture war.
Another Picture of Polarization
However, in other strands of scholarly literature we do find other pictures of how polarization happens. One study conducted by Christopher K. Tokita et al. offers some insight into how
individual practices can worsen polarization, perhaps among more extreme users.
Tokita and colleagues find that individuals engage in a different kind of sorting. When an “information ecosystem” is already polarized, users will begin sorting themselves into increasingly homogenous groups. This is largely done by unfollowing others in one’s social network. Thus, further polarization can be accounted for when users unfollow others with different viewpoints (Tokita et al., 1).
The authors find that the more one isolates oneself in a separated community, the more detached they become from information. This detachment even includes their preferred sources of news and information. There is a trade-off for becoming more extreme. As Tokita et al. write,
Rather than creating false beliefs, the power of misinformation may lie more specifically in further isolating consumers of misinformation from the broader society. Since the topics and emphasis of misinformation will often be highly dissimilar from mainstream news coverage, users who heavily consume misinformation will be in an uncorrelated (or perhaps even anticorrelated) information ecosystem relative to individuals who consume only mainstream media (7).
The Political Effects of Polarization
Polarization is not just a talking point or a buzzword. It is a phenomenon with concrete political effects. Because we as Christians are told that we are not truly at home in this world (1 Pet. 2:11), I like to think about political life in this metaphor. In this world, we are like guests staying in someone else’s home. And a good guest must learn about the host and the rules of the home.
In the US, being a good guest requires living in the spirit of how the government was designed. Yet, polarization’s effects on how we approach politics hinders this. Törnberg raises the Congress as an example. The two branches of Congress—the Senate and the House—are meant to represent on a federal level the interests of individual states and regions. How can representatives represent their local communities when all communities are being subsumed into the same one-dimensional conflicts? What implications does this have for local policy (Törnberg, 8)?
Trading local issues for these ever expanding partisan wars is leading us further and further away from the design of our political system. This is not to reify the system as our moral end all be all. But if the people of a country are losing grip with how the country really works, can this nation really be by the people and for the people?
Resisting Polarization as the Body of Christ
And now, we have our call to action. If Christ blesses the peacemakers, how shall we make peace in a polarized society? Resistance to polarization takes place in our personal practices, our ecclesial life, and our organizing and advocacy efforts.
The classical liberal fantasy of making political decisions through rational deliberation is effectively gone in the digital world. Törnberg writes that these spaces are “not merely arenas for rational deliberation and political debate but as spaces for social identity formation and for symbolic displays of solidarity with allies and difference from outgroups” (10). People do not hear from other voices in order to learn more. They do it to learn who they are not and strengthen their own sense of group loyalty.
The question for the Church is how our own identities can be presented and enacted in the digital space in faithful ways.
I. Personal Practices
The first thing that we as Christians can do to counteract the effects of polarization in our own lives is to keep our connections open. If someone disagrees with you, you do not need to be their best friend. But stick around for them. Show grace for them and for yourself. Be hospitable as you allow them to continue sharing your own space (this is all within reason; even Paul and Barnabas had to break ties at some point!).
Maintaining a social network is not merely a symbolic way of keeping the peace. Keeping community, even tapping into multiple communities, is key to staying informed. As Tokita et al. show us, isolating oneself also silences the sources that one prefers listening to.
But most importantly, being exposed to other points of view is not inherently going to make someone more open-minded. This is a myth that must be addressed. We must do the inward, spiritual work of reorienting how we
feel about others (indeed, politics has been reduced to feeling), not just what we think about what they say. Lean into God’s grace, compassion, and will to reconciliation as you navigate these treacherous waters.
II. Ecclesial Life
In the Bible, Paul calls the Church the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12). This metaphor is partly political. Because we are many members, each with its own purpose and gifts, we are bound to have political differences as well. The politics of the hand is not the same as the politics of the foot, so to say.
The Church cannot operate off of one singular political ideology, for it is a body and not a singular member. After all, the Head of the Body is Christ, and Christ’s politics remain inexpressible by the world’s ideologies and political structures. We can sometimes determine which political systems are truly anti-Christ. But for the vast majority of the time, no single group of Christians can preach their politics as the only good, true, and beautiful one.
Therefore, we must lean into this political diversity in the Christian community. We are all meant to do things for the glory of God. Can’t different politics facilitate this multifaceted calling? Can’t some give to the poor interpersonally while others advocate for less poverty?
Resistance to polarization on the collective level must start with the Church community. By navigating our own political differences, we will learn how to engage with those in the world.
III. Organizing and Advocacy
This is where things will get more explicitly political. Polarization is a direct result of market interests. As mentioned in a previous article on the internet’s “
marketplace of ideas”, social media companies profit the more we give up our data. We give up data through our online engagement, and they maximize profits by maximizing our engagement. As it turns out, provoking the most negative emotions like anxiety, anger, or offense is what does the trick.
It is no coincidence that there is not only ideological polarization but affective polarization as well. These emotions are provoked
by design. And the designers of these online spaces are those who love money. Paul’s words to Timothy are proven yet again (1 Tim. 6:10), for even the evil of polarization results from the love of money.
We must turn this into a political issue. Polarization is driving the nation apart. The ones who are at the most extreme ends are losing touch with reality through the constricted flow of information. And the majority of Americans who are more moderate are becoming increasingly disengaged from a two-party system in which they can no longer see themselves.
Write your representatives. Organize and educate. Recognize that we war not with flesh and blood, but with principalities on high (Eph. 6:12).
There are things that we can do to resist this. It is time that we begin the work of peacemaking.
References
Nguyen, C Thi. “Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles.”
Episteme 17, no. 2 (2020): 141-161.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...emic-bubbles/5D4AC3A808C538E17C50A7C09EC706F0.
Tokita, Christopher K., Andrew M. Guess, and Corina E. Tarnit. “Polarized information ecosystems can reorganize social networks via information cascades.”
PNAS 118, no. 50 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2102147118.
