Political polarization in contemporary democracies 3500-FAKANG-PPiCD
This course examines political polarization, its forms,
determinants, and consequences in 21st-century democracies.
Participants will become familiar with sociological, social
psychological, and political science approaches to the study of
political divisions, ideological conflicts, the fragmentation of public
opinion, and their causes and consequences.
The course is divided into four parts. The first part examines the
social foundations of political divisions and introduces the nature
and types of polarization, distinguishing between ideological and
affective polarization and examining polarization among both
political elites and the mass public. The second part focuses on the
main drivers of polarization, particularly the role of the media,
populism, and radical parties. The third part explores the
consequences of polarization for political participation, the spread
of conspiracy theories, and the functioning of democracy. The
fourth part considers strategies proposed by scholars and
practitioners for reducing polarization.
The course also introduces the main methodological approaches
used in polarization research, including survey data analysis,
survey experiments, case studies, and comparative research. The
assigned readings draw on survey data, administrative data, and
other sources commonly used in political sociology. Classes are
based on the critical reading of academic literature and the
development of skills in interpreting and evaluating empirical
research findings.
Rodzaj przedmiotu
Tryb prowadzenia
Efekty uczenia się
K_W04 The graduate demonstrates an advanced understanding of
the assumptions and key propositions of major contemporary
sociological theories, as well as the current state of sociological
debate
K_W05 The graduate demonstrates advanced knowledge and
understanding of the causes, nature, and consequences of political
polarization in Poland and globally
K_U01 The graduate is able to identify and evaluate data sources
and study designs used in analyses of social and political
phenomena, including their advantages and limitations
K_U02 The graduate demonstrates the ability to critically interpret
information in the form of data and results of scholarly analyses,
drawing on English-language sources
K_K01 The graduate demonstrates readiness to critically evaluate
scientific and public discourse in the field of political sociology
Kryteria oceniania
Assessment is based on active participation in class discussions,
including preparation for classes and critical engagement with
assigned readings, as well as on presentations of selected
academic articles or research studies. Regular class attendance is
required.
The use of generative artificial intelligence tools (e.g. ChatGPT) in
completing course assignments is not permitted unless explicitly
allowed by the instructor. Any use of AI tools must be clearly
indicated and appropriately documented (e.g. by describing how
they were used or citing the tools employed). Students are fully
responsible for all content, analyses, and interpretations prepared
with the use of AI tools.
Literatura
Mair, P. 2006. Cleavages. In R. Katz & W. Crotty (Eds.), Handbook
of Party Politics (pp. 371–375). United Kingdom: Sage.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. 2018. Cleavage theory meets Europe’s
crises. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(1), 109–135.
Lindner, A., F. Novokmet, T. Piketty, and T. Zawisza. 2020. Political
conflict, social inequality and electoral cleavages in Central-Eastern
Europe, 1990-2018. World Inequality Lab – Working Paper N°
2020/25. https://wid.world/www-
site/uploads/2020/11/WorldInequalityLab_WP2020_25_ConflictIn
equalityCleavages_Central-EasternEurope.pdf
Rostbøll, C.F. 2025. Polarization and the Democratic System: Kinds,
Reasons, and Sites. Perspectives on Politics 23(1), 76–92.
Iyengar, S., G. Sood, & Y. Lelkes. 2012. Affect, not ideology: A social
identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76,
405–431.
Finkel, E. J., C. A. Bail, M. Cikara, P. H. Ditto, S. Iyengar, S. Klar, L.
Mason, M. C. McGrath, B. Nyhan, D. G. Rand, L. J. Skitka, J. A.
Tucker, J. J. Van Bavel, C. S. Wang, & J. N. Druckman. 2020. Political
Sectarianism in America. Science 370(6516): 533–36.
Ellger, F., H. Hilbig, S. Riaz, & P. Tillmann. 2024. Local newspaper
decline and political polarization – Evidence from a multi-party
setting. British Journal of Political Science, 54(4), 1256–1275.
Bischof, D., & M. Wagner. 2019. Do voters polarize when radical
parties enter parliament? American Journal of Political Science,
63(4), 888–904.
Ahn, C., & D. C. Mutz. 2023. “The Effects of Polarized Evaluations
on Political Participation: Does Hating the Other Side Motivate
Voters?” Public Opinion Quarterly 87(2):243-266.
Dalton R. & H-D. Klingemann (eds.). 2007. The Oxford Handbook of
Political Behavior, Oxford Academic. Selection.
Borbáth, E., S. Hutter, & A. Leininger. 2023. Cleavage politics,
polarisation and participation in Western Europe. West European
Politics, 46(4), 631–651.
Benson, J. 2024. Democracy and the Epistemic Problems of
Political Polarization. American Political Science Review, 118(4),
1719–1732.
Svolik, M.W. 2019. “Polarization versus Democracy.” Journal of
Democracy, 30(3), 20–32.
Kwiatkowska, A. & K. Walecka. 2026. Polarized democracy:
Diverging attitudes towards democracy. In K. Walecka, S. Guerra, &
F. Casal Bértoa (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Polish Politics.
Voelkel, J., et al. 2024. Megastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce
antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity. Science,
386(6719), eadh4764.
Levendusky, M.S. & D.A. Stecula. 2023. We Need to Talk: How
Cross-Party Dialogue Reduces Affective Polarization. Cambridge
Elements in Experimental Political Science. Cambridge University
Press.
The full list of readings will be presented in the first class meeting.