Many of us have become immersed in debates with family about a contentious political issue, or found ourselves on the other side of a political divide than our friends. In these contentious times, it can be all too easy for courteous debate to devolve into polarized discord.
From tariffs and sovereignty to politics and conflict, there’s no shortage of controversial topics for us to grapple with. Canada just emerged from a divisive federal election, while in the United States, President Donald Trump signed a record 143 executive orders in his first 100 days in office, many of which touched on contentious topics.
We recently conducted a study on the debate around harm reduction. Here in Canada, supervised consumption sites is one issue that has generated support and opposition from community members, healthcare and government agencies, police, addiction services and many others. And it has led to some becoming entrenched in polarized positions.
Our research traced a path which led participants farther apart. Eventually, opposing camps became deeply divided and unwilling to engage with anyone holding different views, and it didn’t happen at random.
What went wrong, and what set opposing groups on the path to discord?
Signposts on the path to polarization
Through an in-depth qualitative case study of addiction services in Alberta, our analysis showed that when the topic of harm reduction was first introduced, arguments were based mostly on evidence and reason.
Harm reduction proponents pointed to the life-saving benefits of harm reduction and the inadequacies of traditional approaches, whereas opponents talked about the effectiveness of more traditional approaches.
We saw genuine, and sometimes successful, efforts to persuade those who disagreed to change their minds.
However, we identified a systematic progression from civil discourse to the formation of echo chambers. From that, we offer ways to steer conversations from developing into irreconcilable echo chambers.
Phase 1: Emotion deepens the divide
In the case of the harm reduction debate, an opioid crisis shook Alberta. A steep increase in overdose deaths heightened urgency and intensity around the debate and ushered in more emotionally charged arguments. Before long, a moral component developed in the debate.
When emotions rise, people talk less about the pros and cons of an approach and more about what should be the right approach.
Disagreements escalate as the discussion veers away from logic and arguments become more morally and emotionally charged. This heightened a sense of being right, and the opposite view being wrong, provides fertile ground for polarization.
This phase is where there is the greatest opportunity to change course. Be aware of the rising emotional energy. If the debate is getting heated, avoid framing arguments in terms of what’s right and wrong and stay focused on evidence and reason.
Phase 2: Heightened hostility
This is where things get personal.
As emotional rhetoric takes hold, participants pull farther apart and animosity grows. They start characterizing people on either side of the debate as morally right or wrong.
Just as we saw in phase one, a watershed event deepened the divide in Alberta. A newly elected provincial government took a distinctly different approach than the previous government, leaving advocates on one side feeling vindicated and their opponents shocked, dismayed and angry.
In phase two, the issue itself takes a back seat, and participants started blaming their opponents for making matters worse. There is less dialogue about an approach being right or wrong, and more about the people involved being right or wrong.
This is possibly the last chance to turn things around. At this point, we should be mindful about the importance of neutral and respectful language. One way to do this is by avoiding making things personal, such as blaming one another for a situation.
Phase 3: Disdain, disgust and self-isolation
By now, logical arguments have been abandoned, replaced with intense expressions of disgust and disdain for opponents. No longer interested in persuading the other side, the focus shifts to solidifying a position as both sides withdraw from debate and only engage with like-minded people.
In our study, this phase, like the previous phases, was brought on by a distinct event. A second provincial election ushered in an abrupt reversal in leadership and harm reduction policies. Any attempts to work together were abandoned and participants started entrenching themselves in self-constructed echo chambers.
In this most devastating and possibly irreparable phase, we noted that the rhetoric wasn’t even about what was right or wrong anymore. It was more about expressing disgust toward one another, leaving no room for facts, evidence or even different opinions, firmly establishing two entrenched sides.
Moral convictions and emotions play a critical role in escalating disagreements. The damage caused when civil arguments are subtly replaced with moral convictions and moral emotions can impact how we co-operate and interact with one another, even in our day-to-day conversations with families and friends.
In the context of addiction services in Alberta, there has now been an extended period of “cooling down” where both sides are taking a wait-and-see approach. We suggest that this is creating a climate where an engaged discussion with fact-based arguments can again be possible.
But even better would be a more proactive approach where participants of a debate recognize the warning signs and take actions early.
Trish Reay received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council that supported this research.
Elizabeth Goodrick, Emma Lei Jing, and Jo-Louise Huq do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
