The Public Career of Political Polarization: From Academic Concept to Actionable Crisis

• In Event: Political Sociology Section Roundtables
  In Refereed Roundtable (60 minute): Conceptual Clarification 101 (Table 12)

Abstract

The refrain "we are polarized!" has fueled an emergent field of bridge-building organizations that frame political polarization as a demise of discourse and a communicative failure among citizens. This emergence represents the latest iteration of professionalized nonprofits seeking to repair the public sphere through top-down civic interventions. Drawing on the "new structural transformation" of the public sphere, this research investigates the cultural and institutional mechanisms through which scholarly concepts are retrieved and adapted to justify privatized initiatives of civic repair. Following Gusfield (1981), the study assumes that "public problems" are cultural constructions rather than objective conditions, examining how organizations vie for the authority to define the reality of polarization and claim control over its solutions.

I posit that the rise of the depolarization field reflects broader trends toward the hybridization and marketization of civil society, where elite-funded nonprofits act as "civic entrepreneurs" to curate discourse and define the boundaries of legitimate public concern. Utilizing the concept of applicative flexibility, the study asks: How did political polarization become a public idea, and in what ways did field leaders adapt it into a cause for intervention? This mixed-method study employs a 2004–2024 sampling frame to trace the concept's career. Following Hallett et al. (2019), full-text searches of top media outlets are coded to examine usage of the idea as an object, an interpretant, or a credibility signal.

Furthermore, mission and issue statements from top depolarization nonprofits serve as a record of "fit-making," where actors shape the concept to fit specific organizational goals. Triangulating these findings determines how academic ideas are translated into actionable problems uniquely suited for professionalized intervention. Ultimately, the institutionalization of the polarization idea signals the privatization of civic repair. By framing polarization as a psychological failure rather than a consequence of systemic inequality, these organizations may moderate participant speech in favor of professionally managed civility, potentially suppressing authentic citizen perspectives.

Author

• Nicole San Juan, University of Massachusetts-Boston