On the evolution of polarized views and beliefs: Nonprofit sector and civil society origins

Abstract

Polarization is a “process whereby the normal multiplicity of differences in a society increasingly align along a single dimension and people increasingly perceive and describe politics and society in terms of ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’” (McCoy, Rahman & Somer 2018). This process evolved over decades but accelerated in recent years. Increasingly, views on disparate issues held by individuals and organizations become firmer and aligned. Adherents of “the right” have similar views on many unrelated issues and on “the left” have mostly opposing view on the same issues; “the middle” moves left or right. In the US, the issues include immigration, gun control, vaccinations, unions, masking, abortion rights, climate change, , religion, interpretation of history, culture, race, and more. These collections of loosely related views have grown into worldviews. How did this happen? In this paper, I argue that this process is partly driven by reorientation of positions by nonprofit sector and civil society (NPCS) organizations. Many people spend a lot of their non-work time in such organizations: youth groups, schools, religious institutions, child care centers, hobby groups, clubs, cultural organizations, abortion rights groups, gun rights organizations, and so on. In these organizations values and views are shaped, absorbed and transmitted across generations. Many organizations have roots in ethnic, racial, religious, cultural and other identities. The NPCS is born out of diversity. Diversity in demand for local public goods such as education, culture, and religious services. These have been supplied at insufficient levels to non-dominant ethnic, racial, cultural, and religious groups. These were forced to provide themselves, requiring donations and volunteers. Sustainability necessitated strengthening members’ commitment by fortifying identities, often emphasizing in-group orientation, at times by cultivating negative attitudes towards out-group. Furthermore, to more resources, organizations sought alliances with similar organizations in terms of identity or services, or both. The ability to connect and coalesce with like-minded individuals and organizations, identifying issues of common concern and devise common action improved as transportation and communications were revolutionized around the middle of the 19th century. These were enhanced gradually through the 20th century, with a dramatic increase in capacity and speed in the 21st century. The greater ease and scope for collaboration have facilitated the formation of regional, then national and even international identity-based organizations. The economic, social, cultural and other interests of some ome groups, not all identity-based, were affected in similar directions by social, economic and cultural changes. They found common ground to advance their interests, but to sustain collaboration, they aligned their views. Identity entrepreneurs have played a role in affecting convergence among different groups. Many people are affiliated with identity-rooted organizations, but many are not, or they and their organizations have more muted identities. As this process has evolved, conflict has intensified, and many of these individuals and groups found it necessary to take sides. The benefit of belonging to a larger camp has grown. This process has origins in the diversity of the nonprofit sector and civil society admire by de Tocqueville, but now it contributes to polarization. The attached paper is a chapter in a forthcoming volume, closely related to the topic of the proposed paper. The principal argument is similar, but the development of the argument differs, and some empirical evidence will be adduced.