Polarización como impermeabilidadcuando las razones ajenas no importan
ISSN: 0717-554X
Year of publication: 2019
Issue: 66
Type: Article
More publications in: Cinta de Moebio: Revista Electrónica de Epistemología de Ciencias Sociales
Abstract
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to defend the idea of polarization as impermeability, a sense of polarization that has been overlooked in the debate on political polarization. According to this sense of polarization, a person or group is polarized to the extent that it is impervious to the ideas or reasons of others. In this way, and contrary to the idea on which the senses of polarisation available in literature so far are based, a person or group may be polarised if there has been no movement from the centre to the extremes of the ideological spectrum. Likewise, it will be defended that understanding polarization in this new sense offers advantages for several reasons: i) polarization as impermeability is a sense of polarization more in line with some of the phenomena that are relevant to understanding today’s democratic societies: the economy of attention, the personalization of information or echo chambers; ii) understanding polarization in a standard way, that is, as a shift from the centre towards the ends of the ideological spectrum, entails certain problems.
Bibliographic References
- Abramowitz, A.I. (2010). The disappearing center: engaged citizens, polarization & American democracy. Yale University Press.
- Allport, F.H. (1924). Social psychology. Houghton Mifflin.
- Allport, F.H. (1962). A structuronomic conception of behavior. Individual and collective: I. Structural theory and the master problem of social psychology. Journal of abnormal and social psychology. 3-30
- Bramson, J. (2017). Understanding polarization: meanings, measures, and model evaluation. Philosophy of science. 84. 115
- Downey, D.J. (2001). Attitudinal polarization and trimodal distributions: measurement problems and theoretical implications. Social science quarterly. 82. 494-505
- Flaxman, S. (2013). Ideological segregation and the effects of social media on news consumption. SSRN electronic journal.
- Fricker, M. (2017). Injusticia epistémica. Herder.
- Halberstam, Y. (2016). Homophily, group size, and the diffusion of political information in social networks: evidence from Twitter. Journal of public economics. 73-88
- Hetherington, M.J,Weiler, J.D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. Cambridge University Press.
- Jamieson, K.H,Cappella, J.N. (2010). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford University Press.
- Levendusky, M. (2013). Partisan media exposure and attitudes toward the opposition. Political communication. 30. 565
- Levitsky, S,Ziblatt, D. (2018). Ariel.
- Myers, D.G. (1971). Enhancement of dominant attitudes in group discussion. Journal of personality and social psychology. 20. 386
- Myers, D.G. (1972). Enhancement of dominant risk tendencies in group discussion. Psychological reports. 615
- Myers, D.G. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological bulletin. 83. 602
- Pariser, E. (2011). The Penguin Press.
- Sunstein, C.R. (2007). What happened on deliberation day. California law review. 95. 915
- Sunstein, C.R. (2017). Princeton University Press.
- Tufekci, Z. (2013). “Not this one”: social movements, the attention economy, and microcelebrity networked activism. American behavioral scientist. 57. 848
- Yardi, S. (2010). Dynamic debates: an analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter. Bulletin of science, technology and society. 30. 316
- Williams, J. (2018). Stand out of our light: freedom and resistance in the attention economy. Cambridge University Press.
- Wojcieszak, M. (2018). Social identity, selective exposure, and affective polarization: how priming national identity shapes attitudes toward immigrants via news selection. Human communication research. 44. 247