Factors Contributing to Extreme Polarization in Society: A case Study of Florida State, USA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53819/81018102t5273Abstract
Florida's society is deeply entrenched in extreme polarization, with sharp divides along political, social, and cultural lines. This polarization is reflected in heated debates over issues such as gun control, immigration, and climate change, leading to a lack of constructive dialogue and an erosion of empathy and understanding. The intense polarization has created a fragmented society, hindering progress and unity, and highlighting the urgent need for bridge-building and fostering a sense of common purpose. Studies have shown that during election cycles, voters become more polarized and adopt more extreme positions as political campaigns focus on divisive issues and employ aggressive tactics. The high-stakes nature of Florida's political environment further deepens polarization among voters. Studies have found that individuals residing in urban and rural regions often hold contrasting views on issues such as gun control, immigration, and environmental policies, contributing to the polarization of society. The study concluded that addressing extreme polarization in Florida's society requires a multi-faceted approach. These can be achieved by encouraging open and respectful dialogue, promoting media literacy, and fostering platforms for diverse perspectives which will help in counteracting the echo-chamber effect and promote understanding. Bridging the urban-rural divide through initiatives that address common challenges and promote mutual cooperation can also foster unity and reduce polarization. Promoting civic engagement, supporting inclusive policies, and addressing socioeconomic disparities can help alleviate the divisions contributing to extreme polarization. The study recommended that by encouraging spaces for civil discourse and promoting platforms that facilitate conversations between individuals with different viewpoints can help bridge ideological gaps. Encouraging individuals to participate in community activities, volunteer work, and political processes can help create a sense of shared responsibility and common purpose.
Keywords: Extreme Polarization, Factors, Society, USA
References
Arbatli, E., & Rosenberg, D. (2021). United we stand, divided we rule: how political polarization erodes democracy. Democratization, 28(2), 285-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1818068
Arora, S. D., Singh, G. P., Chakraborty, A., & Maity, M. (2022). Polarization and social media: A systematic review and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 183, 121942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121942
Autor, D., Dorn, D., Hanson, G., & Majlesi, K. (2020). Importing political polarization? The electoral consequences of rising trade exposure. American Economic Review, 110(10), 3139-3183. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20170011
Axelrod, R., Daymude, J. J., & Forrest, S. (2021). Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(50), e2102139118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2102139118
Bekafigo, M. A., Stepanova, E. V., Eiler, B. A., Noguchi, K., & Ramsey, K. L. (2019). The effect of group polarization on opposition to Donald Trump. Political Psychology, 40(5), 1163-1178. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12584
Bernhard, M., Hicken, A., Reenock, C., & Lindberg, S. I. (2020). Parties, civil society, and the deterrence of democratic defection. Studies in Comparative International Development, 55, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-019-09295-0
Bozdağ, Ç., & Koçer, S. (2022). Skeptical inertia in the face of polarization: News consumption and misinformation in Turkey. Media and Communication, 10(2), 169-179. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i2.5057
Castillo, T. A. (2022). Working in the Magic City: Moral Economy in Early Twentieth-Century Miami. University of Illinois Press. https://doi.org/10.5622/illinois/9780252044458.001.0001
Crosson, J. M., Furnas, A. C., & Lorenz, G. M. (2020). Polarized pluralism: organizational preferences and biases in the American pressure system. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1117-1137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000350
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual review of political science, 22, 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022). Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(10), 560-576. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5
Mullins, N. A. (2021). Deepening Partisan-Identity Polarization in the US: A Content Analysis of Major Party Platforms, 1980–2016 (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University).
Petty, A. J., Li, A., Wang, X., Dai, R., Heyman, B., Hsu, D., ... & Yang, Y. (2019). Hedgehog signaling promotes tumor-associated macrophage polarization to suppress intratumoral CD8+ T cell recruitment. The Journal of clinical investigation, 129(12), 5151-5162. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI128644
Ross Arguedas, A., Robertson, C., Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. (2022). Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: A literature review.
Somer, M., McCoy, J. L., & Luke, R. E. (2021). Pernicious polarization, autocratization and opposition strategies. Democratization, 28(5), 929-948. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1865316
Volkan, V. (2020). Large-group psychology: Racism, societal divisions, narcissistic leaders and who we are now. Large-Group Psychology, 1-144.
Wojcieszak, M., & Warner, B. R. (2020). Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Political Communication, 37(6), 789-811. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1760406
Yarchi, M., Baden, C., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2021). Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication, 38(1-2), 98-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067
