Introduction

At its most basic level, the term “polarization” refers to the process of moving to opposing poles, to opposing ends of some spectrum or underlying dimension. In the realm of politics, political scientists often distinguish two kinds of political polarization, ideological versus affective polarization: Whereas ideological polarization refers to the polarization of people’s political beliefs (think of party preferences or policy preferences), affective polarization refers to people’s feelings about opposing groups (how do we feel about people holding different political views?). While these two kinds of polarization are distinct, ideological polarization seems to increase affective polarization.

Next to distinguishing different kinds of polarization and their relationships, we can also ask about whether (a particular kind of) polarization is actually happening and if so, what its causes are. In the case of the Netherlands, Sjoerd Beugelsdijk has argued that polarization is caused by four interlocking elements of conflict: National identity (universalists versus traditionalists), globalization (globalists  versus nationalists), individualization (international versus  local we) and new political orientations (open versus closed).

But next to such descriptive questions about polarization, there is also the normative question of whether polarization is something that we want, whether it is good or bad. Are there maybe situations where there is too little polarization? And if polarization is bad, there remains the question of what can or should be done about it.

In this book, students of the MA Philosophy program of the University of Groningen thought about how one might apply philosophical tools and methods to this question. Philosophical methods, as discussed, e.g., in Schönwälder-Kuntze, are ways of philosophical thinking such as hermeneutics or phenomenology that can be used to approach a topic like polarization, yielding a particular set of questions and a particular way to approach these questions. Philosophical tools, as discussed in Fosl & Baggini, may comprise these philosophical methods but also cover more specific, smaller-scale philosophical notions or ideas such as fallacies or the is-ought gap, which can yield interesting insights for thinking about polarization.

For this book, students chose a particular philosophical tool or method which they thought might yield interesting insights about polarization. In each chapter, a different philosophical tool is first introduced and then applied to one or more specific issues related to polarization. Students made an effort to describe the philosophical tools in a simple way so that readers are hopefully enabled to apply the tool themselves. To further encourage this, each chapter contains philosophical exercises intended to stimulate such philosophical exploration.

The reader interested in applying philosophical tools to topics other than polarization may want to consult two other open educational resources: Philosophical Tools for Climate Change and Migration: A Philosophical Toolkit.

References:

Sjoerd Beugelsdijk, De verdeelde Nederlanden, Uitgeverij Balans, 2021.

Peter Fosl & Julian Baggini, The Philosopher’s Toolkit, 3rd edition, Wiley-Blackwell, 2020.

Tatjana Schönwälder-Kuntze, Philosophische Methoden zur Einführung, Junius, 2015.