Polarisation spectrum

Researchers distinguish between issue polarisation and affect polarisation, as well as elite polarisation, where political party' leaders are unable to work together, and mass polarisation, where the population is divided (Abramowitz 2010) (Lev- endusky 2009). Violent extremist groups and foreign governments also have a strategic goal of increasing polarisation. Four sets of stakeholders—civil society', violent extremist groups, government and foreign states—use social media in ways that impact degrees of polarisation and how conflict is handled in society'. These stakeholders illustrated in Figure 2.3 are shaded accordingly in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 illustrates a spectrum of types of polarisation and manifestations of conflict. Any particular society' may experience more than one of these forms of polarisation. Table 2.3 also points readers towards examples from the case studies

Figure 2.3 Social Media Stakeholders in Social Cohesion and Polarisation

Degrees of Conflict and Polarisation	Description	Examples from the Case Studies in this Book
Social cohesion and issue polarisation	People of different identity groups disagree on certain issues, but share a sense of common ground, wellbeing and trust in public institutions.	In Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan and India people use social media to generate social cohesion.
Affect polarisation, hate speech, dangerous speech	People of different identity groups feel strong emotions of anger, distrust or hate towards people of other groups. While there is little organised violence between groups, there arc attacks against individuals based on their identity. People make comments that dehumanise an individual or identity group. People actively condone, justify or encourage direct violence towards an individual or identity group.	In India, Zimbabwe and Northern Ireland some use social media to mobilise anger at other social groups. Young people in Northern Ireland are using social media to arrange cross-community fights. In Brazil, hateful disinformation on social media led to violent attacks on individuals. In Sri Lanka, people used social media platforms to incite hate and mob violence against Muslims.
Nonviolent social movements	Organised social groups use nonviolent tactics or “people power” such as protests or boycotts to press for increased democracy and human rights or to challenge state or corporate powers.	In Egypt, India and Pakistan, nonviolent movements use social media to organise in support of democracy and peace.
Contested elections	People distrust public institutions and opposing political groups to the point where people distrust the outcome of elections.	In Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Nigeria, Egypt and India social media is playing a role in elections.
Violent extremist groups	Violent extremist and terror groups aim to “purify” society by killing or pushing out other identity' groups.	In Nigeria and Egypt, violent extremist groups use social media to recruit new members and communicate about their goals.
Structural violence	Institutional policies give access to jobs, housing, education, healthcare and other goods to some groups and not to others based on their identity, resulting in deaths and disabilities of people in marginalised groups.	In India, political parties use social media to justify' structural violence against Muslims.

(Continued)

Degrees of Conflict and Polarisation	Description	Examples from the Case Studies in this Book
State repression and violence	State security forces (military and/or police) use social media and/or armed force to suppress some groups in society' and protect the interests of an elite group.	In Venezuela and Zimbabwe, state security forces disappear human rights activists, particularly those who speak out against the government on social media. In Myanmar and Sri Lanka, government actors used social media to generate public support for violence against Muslims.
Civil or international war	State security forces engage in direct violence with organised armed internal non-state groups, or with the security forces of another state.	None of the case studies in this book includes civil war, though several of the countries appear to be polarised enough to sit on the precipice of civil war.
Foreign cyber attacks	Foreign political or economic forces side with a faction of a divided society to amplify polarisation and to cause chaos.	In the US election and the Brexit referendum in the UK, Russia planted divisive propaganda intending to undermine democracy and increase polarisation.

in this book. The remainder of this chapter provides an overview of research and case studies that illustrate how these four stakeholders use social media for the spectrum of social cohesion to waging war.

The US population illustrates each of these facets of polarisation. In the US, Republicans and Democrats have moved from disagreement on issues to emotion- based dislike for people across party lines, with each viewing the other side as “hypocritical, selfish, and closed-minded” and holding a growing contempt for talking to people across party lines (Iyengar et al. 2019, 30). Evidence suggests that Americans are becoming more polarised (Iyengar and Westwood 2015). In the US, political affiliation is reinforced by religious, educational, racial and geographic identities. Structural violence in the US is evidenced by systemic racism, including unequal treatment under the law, and unequal access to healthcare, education, jobs and housing. The US has significant nonviolent social movements, like Black Lives Matter and MeToo, that gained support on social media. Violent extremism has increased online, with the spread of white supremacist terror groups aiming to overthrow the government and establish a whites-only society. State security forces have been used to suppress nonviolent protests. Fears over worsening mass polarisation in the US imagine civil war as the penultimate expression of division. In the US, there is an open conversation about the prospects for a second civil war (The Atlantic 2019). The 2016 and 2020 US elections have both been contested on social media. The US Senate documented Russian foreign interference in 2016 to plant false and inflammatory social media stories to increase division and anger among Americans and undermine trust in democratic institutions (Select Committee on Intelligence 2019).