Don't call it polarization: Rethinking the problem in American politics.

摘要

By many accounts, ideological polarization is the problem in American politics today. Yet, a wide range of antagonistic behavior cannot sufficiently be explained by policy divergence. In this dissertation I argue that the problem in American politics is not political polarization; rather polarization is a symptom of the problem. Scholars have largely looked for contextual explanations for why polarization has risen so dramatically in recent years. Scholars have been less inclined to search for underlying factors that explain why polarization has historically been a common occurrence in America. I propose that intergroup conflict, as formulated through social identity theory, provides such a foundation.;In this dissertation I examine two ramifications of political conflict. First, social groups engage in a discursive battle to define social reality. Second, individuals process social information in a way that promotes the interests of the ingroup. In order to examine political conflict at both the societal and psychological levels, I employ a mixed-method approach.;First, I perform a grounded theory analysis of campaign speeches from 2008 and 2012 presidential candidates. Results demonstrate that politicians engage in a competitive battle to define (1) the political ingroup, (2) the political outgroup, and (3) American identity. Ultimately, policies provide the language through which political actors attempt to legitimize the political ingroup, while delegitimizing the outgroup.;This inductive analysis leads me to propose two underlying psychological mechanisms: (1) Threats to American exceptionalism produce psychological uncertainty, which motivates partisans to derogate the outgroup. (2) Political conflict motivates partisans to adopt policy positions that are more distinct from the outgroup.;I test these hypotheses by performing two experimental manipulations. The results of Experiment 1 fail to find support for the first hypothesis. Experiment 2 provides evidence that as partisans' perception of political conflict goes up, so too does ingroup/outgroup reasoning and ideological polarization. The results of Experiment 2 suggest that the context of political conflict may be driving ideological polarization.;Taken together, this dissertation demonstrates that political polarization relies upon symbolic boundaries, which are constructed through communication and used in individual heads as a means of navigating social reality.