Social polarization and communication

In recent years, social polarization has become a prominent and frequently discussed feature of American life. My recent trip to Russia and the polarization I observed there made me think of social polarization as a global phenomenon whose roots and solutions are tied to communication

Polarization in Russia is certainly not something new.  In early 2012, on the brink of the Russian Presidential Elections, an acquaintance of mine traveled from the U.S. to Russia to participate in protests at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow against Putin’s candidacy. Although he hadn’t seen his elderly father for some time, his mom suggested not to visit him to avoid inevitable confrontation. The political divide between the father, who was a strong Putin’s supporter, and the son, who came to Russia to protest against him becoming President, was so deep and unbreachable that the mother thought it would be better if they stayed away from each other. For years, Putin’s personality and his politics have been one of the most divisive issues in Russia. But after Crimea’s events of the 2014, the situation has become even more complicated. Although public opinion polls indicate high approval of Putin, during my January’s visit to Moscow, I repeatedly heard Putin’s opponents questioning the legitimacy of these numbers.  Also people strongly disagree on what has been happening in Ukraine. Some argue that the annexation of Crimea has triggered the war, which would’ve not happened otherwise, while others insist that the violence was unavoidable and that it would’ve taken place in Crimea if the peninsula remained a part of Ukraine. Both sides cite pundits’ opinions and discuss first-hand accounts of Crimeanians. There is also disagreement on the causes of the current crisis in the country and on the appropriateness of the steps taken by the government. While some believe that the Russian government has been doing everything possible in this difficult situation to protect the country and its people from the cynical and self-serving West that wants to weaken and dominate Russia, others feel that freedom in the country has been dwindling and that Stalin's style repressions are coming. But when I asked for specific examples of the reduced freedom, many struggled to come up with anything substantial to illustrate these claims. I’m certain, if we talked a week or two ago, they would’ve mentioned the recent assassination of Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov, which many blame on Putin’s regime. But once again, there is no agreement. On the popular talk show “Воскресный вечер с Владимиром Cоловьевым,” which brings together politicians, pundits, and intellectuals with different points of view, guests were sharply divided: one group argued that Putin is directly responsible for Nemtsov’s death, and the other group insisted that Putin’s circle had nothing to gain from this death and that the assassination had been orchestrated by the outside forces that want to destabilize Russia.

Another media example of social polarization in Russia is “КсенияСобчак и Виктор Баранец: Две правды о войне на Украине.” In this radio program, Kseniya Sobchak and Viktor Baranets talked about the war in Ukraine and its media coverage. Sobchak is a Russian TV journalist, socialite, and member of political opposition. She is also a daughter of the first democratically elected mayor of Saint Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak and sometimes is described as "Russia's Paris Hilton." Baranets, on the other hand, is a retired colonel, journalist, and confidant of President Putin. These two people belong to different generations, different genders, different political views, etc. Their communication styles also are very different. During the radio program, Sobchak seemed more assertive and poised than Baranets, who easily lost his cool and became defensive. Their interaction was prompted by Sobchak’s recent criticism of Komsomol’skaya Pravda (the newspaper where Baranets works) and its coverage of the war in Ukraine. The conversation between Sobchak and Baranets was heated. It also was emblematic of the deep social polarization existing in the Russian society. Both sides showed little consideration and respect for the opponent. Each was focused on proving one’s point and presenting the other’s argument as irrational, baseless, and harmful for the country. In other words, Sobchak and Baranets’s  conversation was monological.

Monologue prevails when each speaker perceives his/her own ideas as right, and the opposing ones as wrong (Bakhtin, 1986). Such a conversation becomes a duel of realities. Participants listen only long enough to plan their next line of attack; they are not driven by a genuine interest to understand the opponent. According to Arnett and Anderson (1999), this way of communication is common in a polarized society. Social polarization and monologic communication can be viewed as mutually constitutive; they create conditions for and reinforce each other. Monologic communication dehumanizes the opponent and shifts the focus from respect and understanding to manipulation and control, which results in polarization. At the same time, social polarization erodes common ground between the opponents, makes constructive interaction difficult, and affects the overall climate in society. This interrelation suggests that shifting from monologic communication to dialogic communication may prevent and overcome social polarization.

Bakhtin (1929/1984) juxtaposes monologue to dialogue. According to him, life is intrinsically dialogical; it’s full of different voices, whose ideas and points of view often seem incommensurable. Through dialogue, these voices become richer and clearer; they interilluminate each other and jointly generate new meanings and understandings. Dialogue requires moving toward the other and being open to change that may result from the interaction. Bakhtin, however, views these conditions as intrinsically human. “For Bakhtin as for Buber the person does not dwell within himself but on the boundary; for his self-consciousness is constituted by his relationship to a Thou” (Friedman, 2001, p. 27). But if so, why so often, both in public and private life, are people unable to engage in dialogue? Why are they unable (or unwilling) to offer “a sense of grace to the other—space to live and communicate”—that Arnett and Anderson (1999) view as a corner stone of dialogic civility (p. 286)? I think it happens because oftentimes the others’ right to live and communicate is perceived as infringing on the one’s own rights and beliefs. Should someone whom I view as a homophobe be entitled to free speech? What about racist or sexist expressions? Is there a way to separate the message from the messenger, preserving the humanity of the latter? Any easy and straightforward answer would lead to monologue. The way of dialogue, on the other hand, is “the narrow ridge” with abysses of certainty on either side (Buber, 1907/1995). It’s a difficult path to follow.

References

Arnett, R. C., & Anderson, P. (1999). Dialogic civility in a cynical age. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Ed. & Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1929).

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986b). Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.; V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Buber, M. (1995). The legend of the Baal-Shem (M. Friedman, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1907).

Friedman, M. (2001). Martin Buber and Mikhail Bakhtin: The dialogue of voices and the world that is spoken. Religion & Literature, 33(3), 25-36.