In the current political atmosphere, it is almost impossible to have a cordial discussion with someone from the opposite party without it devolving into an argument. Why is that the case? Does it have something to do with the ideas themselves that are being argued? If that were true, then there would have been similar levels of divisiveness in the past. So, what exactly is the catalyst for these heated debates? The media. Political polarization has been both worsened and normalized by different aspects of the media and by how people choose to consume it. 

Polarization as Encouraged by Fandom Culture

Fandom spaces are one example of intensely divisive media. While being a supporter or “fan” of something is important to be considered part of the fandom, that is not what makes the community so passionate and divisive. Rather, it is the need to distance oneself from those who are not within the fandom  which intensifies divisiveness. People often do this through actively disliking what is not a part of their fandom, even going as far as to “hate” on other fandoms for being “inferior.” “Anti” behavior is often used to describe people who engage in fandom behavior but scorn specific subsections of either other media or even parts of their own media. This often leads to arguments online, with the antis attacking the content while the fans defend it. This has become normalized to the point that it is expected in almost any online fan community. There is even an assumption that fandoms only ever become “popular” when there is arguing within them.

One specific example of a current widespread fandom is that of The Summer I Turned Pretty. This show deliberately encourages and emphasizes discourse regarding who the main character will end up with. The creators profit heavily on the division that the show creates, specifically between “Team Jeremiah” and “Team Conrad.” The competition has become a major aspect of the branding for the series, and the show’s popularity is partly due to the debates on who should be the endgame couple. Another similar, but slightly older, example is from the series Twilight. The same situation occurred: a love triangle between three characters, which the writers used to cause debates within the fanbase, sparking interest and passion for the series. The competitive aspects of The Summer I Turned Pretty and Twilight are important to their branding, turning what would be a casual watching experience into one where viewers are on the edge of their seats to find out the ending. By using this polarization as a marketing tactic, the media encourages and enforces arguing amongst the fans to capitalize off of it. The feeling of gratification from arguing for one’s own team has become ingrained in our society, spreading from the media into everyday life. 

This can also be seen within a variety of other fandoms. For example, sports are a clear example of different fans pitted against each other to create passion and interest in the subject. Without the existence of separate sides, any sporting event would become boring and meaningless. This can also be seen within K-pop. The industry uses competition as a way to encourage engagement, having music shows where, every time idol groups come out with new music, they compete against other groups for awards. The wins at these shows, while not necessarily the main goal of idols, are a major component of their popularity and income. As such, the fans of different groups can become volatile during their group’s competition period, arguing about album sales, popularity rankings, and even whether the talent within certain groups is genuine. These strongly opposing forces have become central to media-based fandoms. Most people, whether willingly or not, engage in these discourses without realizing just how polarizing they actually are. 

Polarization as Created by Political Media

Similar occurrences of polarization are seen in political debates, where instead of pushing the points that they support, debaters attack one another. The conversation will often turn into an argument with no winner; it is purely arguing for arguing’s sake. Several forms of media were created specifically for discourse between opposite ends of an ideological spectrum for this reason. Jubilee, a YouTube channel that was made to encourage political conversations between those of opposing views, started as a moderated space where discussion could be conducted. Now, it has turned into a platform for people with extreme beliefs to spread misinformation. It has given fascists a space to share their views without fear of repercussion and now focuses on “ragebait” content to reel in views. Ragebaiting, the act of using provocative terms to deliberately garner an extreme and reactive response, has also taken up residence in debates on college campuses. Influencers such as Charlie Kirk travel from campus to campus to “debate” their political ideology. He would make overly generalized and extreme claims about topics such as racism, women’s roles in society, and gun violence, then dismiss college students’ accusations of him being racist, sexist, and uncaring about death. Most of the participants who come to college campuses to debate deliberately stir up large responses by making extreme and irrational claims. Not only does this build up influencers’ fan bases by creating entertaining content, but it also encourages others to model their political opinions after extremist ideas. Kirk being assassinated due to his political standpoints and popularity online only further emphasizes the extreme beliefs that people form based off of this type of content. It has now become normalized to have these radical stances, ridiculing and scorning those who have opposite opinions rather than conversing with them. 

With the spread of easily accessible media, it has become ingrained to want to pick a side on the issue at hand. In politics, this can be clearly seen through left vs. right-wing discourse. Politics is yet another form of media that society is consuming, and the more that politicians realize and take advantage of this, the more polarized the parties will become. Politicians have begun turning their campaigns and terms into media spectacles in order to garner the extreme attention that they want. Whether they do so with the intent of polarization or are simply using media as a communicative device, it is impossible for people to escape the habit of forming divisive opinions. Trump is one example of a politician who has taken advantage of this process. He has managed to gain a die-hard, loyal fanbase almost purely through marketing himself as a savior who will “Make America Great Again,” and will continue doing so as long as polarization of the political parties benefits him. 

Conclusion

It is not as though this political polarization did not exist in the past, but it has worsened over time with the emergence of divisive media. The conditions created by TV shows, books, music, sports, and short-form media have all contributed to the formation of extreme opinions. This, combined with the need of people to define their communities by hating the “other,” has made political parties no longer based solely on policy. Rather, parties are now separated by how extreme their views are regarding the opposers. It is almost impossible to avoid falling into this mindset of polarization, but being aware of its existence can make a substantial difference, especially in political discussion.