I WAS in Davao when former president Rodrigo Duterte was arrested, and I had a firsthand observation and interview of people around the city. Authentic emotions poured and knee-jerk reactions range from depressing sadness to cursing anger. Philippine history is not replete with political polarization. It has only gone to the worst, with the whole world watching.
The term “polarization” is used to describe both the division of a society into opposing groups (political polarization), and a social psychological phenomenon (group polarization), whereby people adopt more extreme positions after discussion (Smith et al., 2024).
There is a considerable and growing amount of evidence that politics is having a negative effect on a broad range of health outcomes (Smith, 2024). This is coming from different scholars using different data, approaches and measures, and it all triangulates on the same inference: Politics isn’t very good for us.
Political polarization threatens mental health, causing stress and anxiety. In the United States, a national survey indicates that 40 percent of Americans reported politics as a major stressor, with 20 percent reporting sleep disturbances due to political news (American Psychological Association). Political concerns, which affect both mental and physical health negatively across a broad swath of the population, topped the list of stressors in America (APA’s 2024). On a daily basis, diary studies show that political events can make self-reported emotional reactivity and physical health worse (Neupert, et al., 2021).
Polarization is linked to decline in physical health — the more distant an individual feels politically from the average voter in their state, the worse the health outcomes he/she reports (Fraser, et al., 2022).
In the Philippines, anecdotal and news reports point at emotional and psychological distress derived from disturbing political engagements. Mental disturbances are evident in many characters in social media.
Damaged social health
Political polarization also injures our social health — causing disrupted relationships even among relatives and friends. Furthermore, it exacerbates social division, potentiates violence and weakens confidence in government institutions.
Social connection clearly makes a difference, but some social ties are more helpful than others (Panagopoulos, et al. 2022). In polarized communities, they found that bonding ties or bonds between people who are politically similar were linked with better physical and mental health (International Political Science Review, 2022). Bridging ties — connections with dissimilar people — were associated with worse overall health for people who were politically isolated
Human tendency to polarize
Why would people hold certain beliefs so deeply that they become immovable holding on to their intractable ideology and dogma — even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary?
Cognitive rigidity — the inability to adapt one’s thinking when confronted with new information — is a key driver of political polarization. Coupled with intolerance of ambiguity — a mindset of black-and-white thinking — makes it difficult to engage with opposing views. There is a lack of respect for diversity in perspectives.
Research suggests that individuals who experience economic instability, social marginalization or political exclusion are more likely to embrace rigid ideologies. Then leaders take advantage and promise stability and order (Fritsche et al., 2013) hence, the psychological need for power and control to exploit vulnerability or disempowerment.
Also, narcissism, and moral grandiosity or superiority of some individuals make them fixated on their moral infallibility that dismisses alternative viewpoints, stifling meaningful collaboration (Karpowitz and Mendelberg, 2014). By framing their beliefs as the sole path to righteousness, individuals driven by moral grandiosity contribute to an environment with scarce capacity to compromise and empathize.
Human as social animal
Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) explains why individuals demonstrate in-group cohesion while throwing negative opinions of those outside the social group. As individuals aggregate in groups, shared identities promote cohesion and create a positive attitude toward fellow members. The “us versus them” mindset encourages out-group discrimination.
Instrumental model explains how voters align along party lines based on ideological beliefs. Bloc voting is not being campaigned unmindful of individual competencies of candidates. While the rational choice paradigm may lead the logical electorate to collectively leverage voting power, even the well-informed electorate can be affected by bias, emotion, social pressures and conflicting personal interests — even irrational behavior in decision-making.
Expressive model, an anti-thesis of the instrumental model, posits that voter choice is based on social reality rather than rational decision-making — leading to erosion of institutions and principles, irrational policymaking, dehumanization of rivals — and increasing political polarization.
False polarization distracts voters from crucial issues and creates a political system based on simplified ideological heuristics — shortcuts — instead of logical rubrics that define true public service (Onyeogulu, 2024). The bandwagon bias is at work through political surveys bastardizing the science of research.
Weaponized polarization
Social media has been weaponized. Netizens, bold behind anonymity, amplify virtual harassment and online bullying. The social media algorithm spreads divisive content and false information in an echo chamber that reinforces group-think biases.
Perhaps the greatest threat to humanity is the grip of entrenched ideologies (Ragland, 2025). These ideologies — fueled by rigid thinking and identity fusion — undermine our ability to think rationally, critically, collaboratively and innovatively.
The more polarized we become, the weaker humanity becomes (Maltz, 2021) as others are concerned that these pose existential threats to democracy. The challenges of polarization are real, but they are not hopeless.
Polarization’s good side
In the past, mass movements challenged the inequalities in gender or color, overturning dictatorship, among others. These were anchored on social psychological processes of polarization that have driven people to act collectively. These movements have elevated human rights and access, far from diminishing humanity.
The outcomes of polarization can be revolution and social change on one hand, and intergroup hostility and conflict on the other. We need to see the psychological processes that are common to these disparate outcomes.
Thus, it is important to recognize the important role that polarization plays in fostering political engagement, which is itself critical for democracies in particular and the pluralistic societies in general.
The Filipinos need to appreciate a more balanced view of the origins, nature and effects of polarization along with its psychological science that can explain its sensemaking.
Polarization should not be pathologized as a social ill — polarization is not bad, in and of itself, and can be a tool for positive social change. A society with no division and polarization, breeds citizens who are homogeneous in their views. It would equate with a static, totalitarian society with no prospect for change.
Collective action derived from polarization can be progressive (promoting greater rights, access, freedoms for people); promoting revolutionary change in ways that are good for democracy; reactionary (seeking to protect rights and access of privileged people and groups); and promoting oppressive change in ways that may see societies slide back toward authoritarianism or encourage commitment to political violence (Smith, et al., 2024).
As a nation, we should nurture our shared vision and values, foster intellectual humility and model constructive dialogue. Our differences need not divide us but rather inspire us to live together.
Appreciating polarization at its root is the first step toward positivizing its effects and leading a more constructive, less polarized nation … if we can!
-END-
SOURCE: The Manila Times
The term “polarization” is used to describe both the division of a society into opposing groups (political polarization), and a social psychological phenomenon (group polarization), whereby people adopt more extreme positions after discussion (Smith et al., 2024).
There is a considerable and growing amount of evidence that politics is having a negative effect on a broad range of health outcomes (Smith, 2024). This is coming from different scholars using different data, approaches and measures, and it all triangulates on the same inference: Politics isn’t very good for us.
Political polarization threatens mental health, causing stress and anxiety. In the United States, a national survey indicates that 40 percent of Americans reported politics as a major stressor, with 20 percent reporting sleep disturbances due to political news (American Psychological Association). Political concerns, which affect both mental and physical health negatively across a broad swath of the population, topped the list of stressors in America (APA’s 2024). On a daily basis, diary studies show that political events can make self-reported emotional reactivity and physical health worse (Neupert, et al., 2021).
Polarization is linked to decline in physical health — the more distant an individual feels politically from the average voter in their state, the worse the health outcomes he/she reports (Fraser, et al., 2022).
In the Philippines, anecdotal and news reports point at emotional and psychological distress derived from disturbing political engagements. Mental disturbances are evident in many characters in social media.
Damaged social health
Political polarization also injures our social health — causing disrupted relationships even among relatives and friends. Furthermore, it exacerbates social division, potentiates violence and weakens confidence in government institutions.
Social connection clearly makes a difference, but some social ties are more helpful than others (Panagopoulos, et al. 2022). In polarized communities, they found that bonding ties or bonds between people who are politically similar were linked with better physical and mental health (International Political Science Review, 2022). Bridging ties — connections with dissimilar people — were associated with worse overall health for people who were politically isolated
Human tendency to polarize
Why would people hold certain beliefs so deeply that they become immovable holding on to their intractable ideology and dogma — even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary?
Cognitive rigidity — the inability to adapt one’s thinking when confronted with new information — is a key driver of political polarization. Coupled with intolerance of ambiguity — a mindset of black-and-white thinking — makes it difficult to engage with opposing views. There is a lack of respect for diversity in perspectives.
Research suggests that individuals who experience economic instability, social marginalization or political exclusion are more likely to embrace rigid ideologies. Then leaders take advantage and promise stability and order (Fritsche et al., 2013) hence, the psychological need for power and control to exploit vulnerability or disempowerment.
Also, narcissism, and moral grandiosity or superiority of some individuals make them fixated on their moral infallibility that dismisses alternative viewpoints, stifling meaningful collaboration (Karpowitz and Mendelberg, 2014). By framing their beliefs as the sole path to righteousness, individuals driven by moral grandiosity contribute to an environment with scarce capacity to compromise and empathize.
Human as social animal
Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) explains why individuals demonstrate in-group cohesion while throwing negative opinions of those outside the social group. As individuals aggregate in groups, shared identities promote cohesion and create a positive attitude toward fellow members. The “us versus them” mindset encourages out-group discrimination.
Instrumental model explains how voters align along party lines based on ideological beliefs. Bloc voting is not being campaigned unmindful of individual competencies of candidates. While the rational choice paradigm may lead the logical electorate to collectively leverage voting power, even the well-informed electorate can be affected by bias, emotion, social pressures and conflicting personal interests — even irrational behavior in decision-making.
Expressive model, an anti-thesis of the instrumental model, posits that voter choice is based on social reality rather than rational decision-making — leading to erosion of institutions and principles, irrational policymaking, dehumanization of rivals — and increasing political polarization.
False polarization distracts voters from crucial issues and creates a political system based on simplified ideological heuristics — shortcuts — instead of logical rubrics that define true public service (Onyeogulu, 2024). The bandwagon bias is at work through political surveys bastardizing the science of research.
Weaponized polarization
Social media has been weaponized. Netizens, bold behind anonymity, amplify virtual harassment and online bullying. The social media algorithm spreads divisive content and false information in an echo chamber that reinforces group-think biases.
Perhaps the greatest threat to humanity is the grip of entrenched ideologies (Ragland, 2025). These ideologies — fueled by rigid thinking and identity fusion — undermine our ability to think rationally, critically, collaboratively and innovatively.
The more polarized we become, the weaker humanity becomes (Maltz, 2021) as others are concerned that these pose existential threats to democracy. The challenges of polarization are real, but they are not hopeless.
Polarization’s good side
In the past, mass movements challenged the inequalities in gender or color, overturning dictatorship, among others. These were anchored on social psychological processes of polarization that have driven people to act collectively. These movements have elevated human rights and access, far from diminishing humanity.
The outcomes of polarization can be revolution and social change on one hand, and intergroup hostility and conflict on the other. We need to see the psychological processes that are common to these disparate outcomes.
Thus, it is important to recognize the important role that polarization plays in fostering political engagement, which is itself critical for democracies in particular and the pluralistic societies in general.
The Filipinos need to appreciate a more balanced view of the origins, nature and effects of polarization along with its psychological science that can explain its sensemaking.
Polarization should not be pathologized as a social ill — polarization is not bad, in and of itself, and can be a tool for positive social change. A society with no division and polarization, breeds citizens who are homogeneous in their views. It would equate with a static, totalitarian society with no prospect for change.
Collective action derived from polarization can be progressive (promoting greater rights, access, freedoms for people); promoting revolutionary change in ways that are good for democracy; reactionary (seeking to protect rights and access of privileged people and groups); and promoting oppressive change in ways that may see societies slide back toward authoritarianism or encourage commitment to political violence (Smith, et al., 2024).
As a nation, we should nurture our shared vision and values, foster intellectual humility and model constructive dialogue. Our differences need not divide us but rather inspire us to live together.
Appreciating polarization at its root is the first step toward positivizing its effects and leading a more constructive, less polarized nation … if we can!
-END-
SOURCE: The Manila Times