Issues, Interactions, and Group Images as Mechanisms of Affective Polarization in Two Environmental Conflicts in Argentina

Arturo L. Fitz Herbert; Luciano H. Elizalde Acevedo

doi:10.5294/pacla.2024.27.2.2

Authors

Arturo L. Fitz Herbert Author Austral University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5861-3860
Luciano H. Elizalde Acevedo Author Austral University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0276-0655

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5294/pacla.2024.27.2.2

Keywords:

Affective polarization, local environmental conflicts, process tracing, unintended consequences, Argentina, Monsanto, CEAMSE, Coordinación Ecológica Área Metropolitana Sociedad del Estado

Abstract

Affective polarization happens when groups develop mutual negative perceptions and feelings. This phenomenon has raised concern among journalists, opinion leaders, and academics, many of whom have related polarization to partisan politics. Previous research has relied mainly on quantitative data focused on the national-level political polarization of Western societies. In this article, we show that polarization and its negative consequences—the damage to relationships and the rise of violence—may arise after divergence with relevant issues unrelated to political positions or identities. We process trace two communities in Argentina with local environmental conflicts to show the interaction mechanisms that start with an issue difference, continue with affective polarization, and may end with escalation or depolarization. By showing the mechanisms of interaction that lead to polarization, we offer a precise and clear explanation of the process that can be tested in further research.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Baldassarri, D., & Bearman, P. (2007). Dynamics of political polarization. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 784–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200507

Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2013). Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. The University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2556282

Bennet, A., & Checkel, J. T. (Eds.). (2015). Process tracing. From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858472

Birch, S. (2020). Political polarization and environmental attitudes: a cross-national analysis. Envrionmental politics, 29(4), 697–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1673997

Bramson, A., Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Fisher, S., Berger, W., Sack, G., & Flocken, C. (2016). Disambiguation of social polarization concepts. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 40(2), 80–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2016.1147443

Bulut, E., & Yörük, E. (2017). Digital populism: Trolls and political polarization of Twitter in Turkey. International Journal of Communication, 11(25), 4093–4117.

Casal Bértoa, F., & Rama, J. (2021). Polarization: What Do We Know and What Can We Do About It? Frontiers in Political Science, 3, 56. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.687695

Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. 2014. Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data: Political Homophily on Twitter. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084

Cottam, R. (1977). Foreign policy motivation: A general theory and a case study. University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.6380611

Davis, N. T., & Dunaway, J. L. (2016). Party Polarization, Media Choice, and Mass Partisan-Ideological Sorting. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 272–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw002

DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., & Bryson, B. (1996). Have American’s Social Attitudes Become More Polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 690–755. https://doi.org/10.1086/230995

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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238160808050X

Fitz Herbert, A. (2017). Algo huele mal. Los orígenes del rechazo a los rellenos sanitarios. Crujía.

Gervasoni, C. (2011). Una teoría rentística de los regímenes subnacionales: federalismo fiscal, democracia y autoritarismo en las provincias argentinas. Desarrollo económico, 579–610.

Harris, B. D., Morgan, C. V., & Gibbs, B. G. (2014). Evidence of political moderation over time: Utah’s immigration debate online. New Media & Society, 16(8), 1309–1331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813504262

Herrmann, R. K. (2003). Image Theory and Strategic Interaction in International Relations. In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis, Eds., pp. 285–314). Oxford University Press.

Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology. A social identity perspective on polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038

Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. (2019). The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science 22(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034

Jones-Jang, S. M., & Chung, M. (2022). Can we blame social media for polarization? Counter-evidence against filter bubble claims during the COVID-19 pandemic. New Media & Society, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221099591

Kalmoe, N., Gubler J. R., & Wood, D. A. (2018). Toward Conflict or Compromise? How Violent Metaphors Polarize Partisan Issue Attitudes. Political communication, 35(3), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1341965

Leeper, T. J. (2014). The Informational Basis for Mass Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nft045

Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12008

Lozada, M. (2004). El otro es el enemigo: imaginarios sociales y polarización. Revista Venezolana de Economía y Ciencias Sociales, 10(2), 195–209.

Matakos, K., Troumpounis, O., & Xefteris, D. (2016). Electoral Rule Disproportionality and Platform Polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 1026–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12235

McCarty, N., K., P., & Rosenthal, H. (2016). Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. MIT Press.

McCright, A. M., Xiao, C., & Dunlap, R. E. (2014). Political polarization on support for government spending on environmental protection in the USA. Social science research, 48, 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.06.008

Mummolo, J. (2016). News from the Other Side: How Topic Relevance Limits the Prevalence of Partisan Selective Exposure. The Journal of Politics, 78(3), 763–73. https://doi.org/10.1086/685584

Singer, M. (2016). Elite polarization and the electoral impact of left-right placements: Evidence from Latin America, 1995-2009. Latin American Research Review, 51(2), 174–194. https://doi.org/10.1353/lar.2016.0022

Scherman, A., Etchegaray, N., Browne, M., Mazorra, D., & Rojas, H. (2022). WhatsApp, Polarization, and Non-Conventional Political Participation: Chile and Colombia Before the Social Outbursts of 2019. Media and Communication, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i4.5817

Waisbord, S. (2020). ¿Es válido atribuir la polarización política a la comunicación digital? Sobre burbujas, plataformas y polarización afectiva. Revista saap, 14(2), 248–279. https://doi.org/10.46468/rsaap.14.2.A1

Watzlawick, P., Beavin Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1981). Teoría de la comunicación humana: interacciones, patologías y paradojas. Herder.

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

Zheng, Z., & Bhatt, B. (2022). Political Polarization in Australia: A Case Study of Brushfires in Australia. In Causes and Symptoms of Socio-Cultural

Polarization (pp. 115–132). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-16-5268-4_5