“Affective polarisation”, a term coined by American political scientist Shanto Iyengar, describes the increasing emotional hostility and mutual distrust between supporters of different political parties, rather than just disagreements over policy. This has increasingly dominated public and political analyses, intensifying significantly over the last two decades.

The current era is widely considered distinct from previous periods of political division. Today’s political polarisation is characterised by an unprecedented level of animosity. One should keep in mind that affective polarisation differs from ‘ideological polarisation.’ The latter is strictly measured by policy differences.

As noted by Estonian scholar Andres Reiljan, affective polarisation is fundamentally “about people’s feelings”, creating a society split into “mutually hostile political groups” and fostering a powerful “tribal” instinct. Individuals begin to strongly identify with their political party and express a wider hostility toward the opposition. This mentality is strengthened when social identities merge with political affiliations.

According to Reiljan, some political parties and media outlets often exacerbate this divide for financial or political gain, choosing to intensify conflict rather than promoting consensus. This cycle leads individuals to perceive fellow citizens through a prejudiced lens, based solely on political preferences.

As political disagreements turn into social suspicion and emotional hostility, a new form of division is taking root around the world

A 2020 study by the American Family Survey indicated a significant decline in marriages and romantic relationships between Democrats and Republicans, as individuals increasingly prefer partners who share their political views.

Such divisions are being reported from multiple countries. People don’t just dislike the other party’s policies, they dislike the supporters of the other parties as well. Consequently, relationships and social networks are being formed that are politically homogeneous. If one has friends across the political aisle, they often avoid discussing political or social issues to maintain the relationship.

A 2022 study by the US-based Pew Research Centre shows that affective polarisation leads partisans to attribute negative, non-political traits to the opposing group. The dislike is so strong that it becomes a moral judgement. Partisans are less likely to trust members and supporters of the opposing party, even in non-political contexts. They are also less likely to feel empathy for the opponent group when it experiences a personal or financial setback.

On social media platforms, for example, one can see clusters supporting a party actually celebrating the misfortunes of supporters or members of the opposing party. Survey data shows that partisans frequently describe the opposing side as dishonest, unintelligent, immoral or unpatriotic. This shifts the debate away from policy disagreement toward identity rejection.

Indeed, the characteristics of affective polarisation are mostly observed in right-wing populist parties and in groups that support them. But these characteristics are increasingly becoming common among ‘left’ and ‘liberal’ sides also. The latter two often pose as being more sorted, decent, ‘balanced’ and ‘democratic’. They really aren’t.

The ‘agenda’ of all involved remains the same, though: to question and even demolish the credibility of perceived enemies through echo chambers and internet cliques and mobs. Sometimes even friends and acquaintances aren’t spared. And here lies another aspect of affective polarisation, which rebounds and causes polarisation within a group.

According to a 2025 study published in the Communications Psychology journal, as affective polarisation intensifies, it begins to impact the inner dynamics of the groups too. Members of a group may begin to turn on each other, causing the fragmentation of the group.

The segregation and divisions that affective polarisation creates and the mistrusting mindset that it produces, eventually leads to infighting within groups. One can witness this in right-wing populist groups as well as in left and liberal groups and cliques, and even among members of the media.

When some members of a group become more extreme than the parent camp, factions develop. These factions begin to distance themselves from the initial opposing camp, as well as the parent camp. One can see this happening within groups that support US President Donald Trump and those who support the former prime minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan. It’s also quite common within clusters of social activism.

But what causes affective polarisation? A 2025 study by the Berlin Social Science Centre suggests three main reasons. First, current society is less and less structured along permanent formal social groups. There is a decreasing number of memberships in formal civil society organisations and in mainstream political parties. Emotions now play a more central role in identification with a social group and are strategically used to win and maintain group members. Therefore, the ‘us versus them’ mindset is robustly shaped and readily accepted.

Second, social media and digital platforms are increasingly crucial as moderators of public discourse. Social media offers networked flows of communication and a broad set of attitudes that compete with each other for societal attention. Social media postings with a higher intensity of emotional tone are known to elicit more attention and are shared more widely. Thus, emotive arguments have a systematic benefit on social media. This reinforces discourses that are polarising instead of compromising.

Third, it has become quite obvious now that social and political mechanisms developed by modernity to encourage rational thinking have been eroding for years. The idea of the ‘importance’ of emotions has returned to claim that emotions were always important in the exchange between the state and the polity. Apparently, those who designed and implemented mechanisms to shape a rational polity failed to see this and are therefore struggling to constructively channel the outcomes of the returning emphasis on emotions.

These are the factors, the study suggests, that are behind the increasing incidents of hate speech, tribalisation, incivility, intolerance and the dehumanisation of political opponents. Affective polarisation is also threatening governance by undermining rational and reformist means of resolving political, economic and social issues.

Affective polarisation symbolises the failure of rational mechanisms. Indeed, these failed and undermined the importance of what they were discouraging or suppressing. From the late 1970s onwards, the ‘post-modernists’ rejoiced this failure by romanticising emotion, intuition and impulse. But by doing this (through academic means, marketing, religious revivals and pop culture) they ended up thoroughly demonising rationality.

The result was not really societies brimming with joyous, free and tolerant people, but societies pregnant with mistrust, emotional chaos and an overindulgent misuse of certain vital democratic notions, especially freedom of speech.

Published in Dawn, EOS, November 23rd, 2025

Source link