17 February 2026
WP349 | Defining Polarisation: An Analysis and Typology
Abstract
This paper is intended to provide an analytical description of what we mean when we invoke the term “polarisation”. It begins with a six-fold typology to help identify what polarisation is, and, importantly, to predict where we see polarisation arising. The six-fold typology is: (1) refusal of dialogue; (2) framing the other as the enemy; (3) no compromise; (4) monolithic identity; (5) a discourse of danger; and (6) an absolutist ideology. Notably, these six components are not envisaged as discrete, but rather as overlapping. Next, the paper discusses some spheres in contemporary societies where we see polarised discourse. These spheres are: the distinction between cosmopolitan and anti-cosmopolitan worldviews; the perceived difference between religious and secular perspectives; the far right and its “others”; and the tension between authoritarianism and democratic impulses. Discussing the spheres helps lay out some context for understanding how polarisation arises. Two theoretical issues are then raised: first, whether polarised groups meet at their extremes, and, second, whether polarisation inevitably leads to violence. The paper ends with some conclusions that note both the theoretical and policy-relevant aspects.
Abstract
This paper is intended to provide an analytical description of what we mean when we invoke the term “polarisation”. It begins with a six-fold typology to help identify what polarisation is, and, importantly, to predict where we see polarisation arising. The six-fold typology is: (1) refusal of dialogue; (2) framing the other as the enemy; (3) no compromise; (4) monolithic identity; (5) a discourse of danger; and (6) an absolutist ideology. Notably, these six components are not envisaged as discrete, but rather as overlapping. Next, the paper discusses some spheres in contemporary societies where we see polarised discourse. These spheres are: the distinction between cosmopolitan and anti-cosmopolitan worldviews; the perceived difference between religious and secular perspectives; the far right and its “others”; and the tension between authoritarianism and democratic impulses. Discussing the spheres helps lay out some context for understanding how polarisation arises. Two theoretical issues are then raised: first, whether polarised groups meet at their extremes, and, second, whether polarisation inevitably leads to violence. The paper ends with some conclusions that note both the theoretical and policy-relevant aspects.
