Social polarization: towards the text mining study
Keywords:social polarization, opinion groups, social identity theory, cleavages theory
This article suggests a way to concretize the concept of social polarization, which will be most suitable for a) empirical operationalization; b) a complete description of existing social conflicts; c) will be consistent with existing sociological theories. The implementation of this task opens the way to studying this phenomenon through the method of text mining. We see two main problems with the concept of social polarization in sociology: (1) Social polarization is used as a beautiful metaphor to describe contemporary political situations, not as a strong operationalized concept. The concept must create vast opportunities to study social reality, interpret more processes; (2) The mathematic interpretation of social polarization is conducted on somewhat idealized distributions; there is a lack of real empirical data verification. These two problems also create one big problem: mathematical conceptualization of social polarization and empirical studies of social polarization are unrelated. We propose a way to solve this problem through the construction of our social polarization theoretical framework. The way that allowed us to do this was in the concretization of social polarization and its connection with sociological theories of conflict. The article’s key idea is to show that this concept is suitable for operationalization for two reasons: its ability to describe the causes and nature of social conflicts and its measurability.
This article also discusses the main modern social polarization theories, their features, advantages, and disadvantages. Since the concept of social polarization is mostly the focus of political science research, the author’s goal was to find opportunities to use this concept in sociology and the ideas that will allow it. There are currently two approaches to studying this issue: the party association approach and the opinion-based group approach. An important task, which was also solved in this article, is the concept’s connection with the sociological concepts of conflict. The path was found using the concept of Lipset and Rokkan. This concept’s key advantage is the combination of social inequality, conflict, attitudes, and social distance. Typically, these concepts are used separately to explain social cleavages. The concept of polarization, in this case, allows them to be integrated into a single whole
Andersen, H. T. (2004). Spatial – Not Social Polarisation: Social Change and Segregation in Copenhagen. Επιθεώρηση Κοινωνικών Ερευνών, 113(113), 145. https://doi.org/10.12681/grsr.9356.
Baldassarri, D., Bearman, P. (2016). Dynamics of Political Polarization. 72(5), 784–811.
Baum, S. (1997). Sydney, Australia: A global city? Testing the social polarisation thesis. Urban Studies, 34(11), 1881–1902. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098975295.
Bliuc, A. M., McGarty, C., Reynolds, K., & Muntele, D. (2007). Opinion-based group membership as a predictor of commitment to political action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.334.
Boyko, D., Zaporozhchenko, R., Lytovchenko, A., Nekhaienko, O., Yashkina, D. (2021). Group Nominations as an Instrument of Electoral Struggle: Ukrainian Discourse of 2019 Parliamentary Elections. Sociological Studios, 2 (19), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.29038/2306-3971-2021-02-41-52.
Bramson, A., Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Fisher, S., Berger, W., Sack, G., & Flocken, C. (2016). Disambiguation of social polarization concepts and measures. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 40(2), 80–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2016.1147443.
Dalton, R. J., & Dalton, R. J. (2008). Its Measurement , and Its Consequences, 41(7), 899–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414008315860.
Druckman, J. N., & Levendusky, M. S. (2019). What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003.
Esteban, B. Y. J., & Ray, D. (2010). On the Measurement of Polarization. The Econometric Society Stable, 62(4), 819–851. Retrieved April 12, 2020 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2951734.
Hamnett, C. (1994). Social Polarisation in Global Cities: Theory and Evidence. Urban Studies, 31(3), 401–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420989420080401.
Hobolt, S., Leeper, T., & Tilley, J. (2020). Divided by the vote: affective polarization in the wake of the Brexit referendum. British Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 1476-1493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123420000125.
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(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034.
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.
Johnston R. (2019). Affective Polarization in the Canadian Party System 1988-2015. Prepared for presentation at the 2019 annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Vancouver, BC, 4-6 June 2019. Retrieved May 10, 2020 from https://rgcjohnston.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/johnston-polarization-cpsa-2019-text.pdf.
Kyrychenko, R. (2021). Typology of Tasks of Machine Analysis of Texts in Contemporary Sociology. Sociological Studios, 2(19), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.29038/2306-3971-2021-02-41-48.
Lauka, A., McCoy, J., & Firat, R. B. (2018). Mass Partisan Polarization: Measuring a Relational Concept. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218759581.
Levendusky, M. S., & Malhotra, N. (2013). The Effect of False Polarization: Are Perceptions of Political Polarization Self-Fulfilling Prophecies? Annual Meeting and Exihibition of the American Political Science Association, 2(6), 1–34.
Luttig, M. D. (2017). Authoritarianism and affective polarization: A new view on the origins of partisan extremism. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(4), 866–895. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx023.
Mason, L. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12089.
Mason, L. (2018). Ideologues without issues: The polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(S1), 280–301. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy005.
McGarty, C., Bliuc, A. M., Thomas, E. F., & Bongiorno, R. (2009). Collective action as the material expression of opinion-based group membership. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 839–857. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01627.x.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202.
Tworzecki, H. (2019). Poland: A Case of Top-Down Polarization. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218809322.