The Problem with Polarization Research in an Age of Extremism

This piece critiques the dominant assumption in social and political psychology, as well as in political science and other disciplines, that polarization is inherently undesirable and should therefore be reduced under all circumstances. We argue that this premise reflects a neutrality bias (or depoliticizing bias) that obscures the asymmetrical nature of contemporary political conflict. We distinguish democratic polarization—agonistic contestation among actors who accept multicultural pluralism, democratic institutions and election outcomes, civil and human rights, and epistemic accountability—from anti-democratic polarization, in which conflict is strategically mobilized to delegitimize opponents, erode institutional constraints, and normalize dehumanization, scapegoating, misinformation, anti-scientific, and conspiratorial narratives as a route to political power. In a global context marked by the growing strength of extremist anti-democratic and authoritarian movements, such distinctions are essential for understanding the normative implications of political conflict for democratic societies. These anti-democratic movements frequently rely on coordinated campaigns that undermine public trust in science and factual reasoning. Under such conditions, polarization cannot be assumed to reflect good-faith disagreement among citizens who share commitments to fair allocation of resources, empirical truth, and evidence-based governance. Treating polarization in these contexts as ordinary democratic conflict risks misdiagnosing authoritarian mobilization as symmetric disagreement rather than recognizing it as a strategic assault on the epistemic and institutional foundations of democracy. Accordingly, when conflict itself is treated as undesirable, research risks inadvertently reinforcing authoritarian dynamics by discouraging legitimate dissent and critical engagement. We call for a reorientation of polarization research toward examining how the suppression of conflict and appeals to consensus and civility may obfuscate meaningful asymmetry and facilitate authoritarian consolidation.