Sociology Department, New York University, New York, NY 10003;
Dondena Centre for Research on Social Dynamics, Bocconi University, 20100 Milan, Italy.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Dec 14;118(50). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2116863118.
We provide commentaries on the papers included in the Dynamics of Political Polarization Special Feature. Baldassarri reads the contribution of the papers in light of the theoretical distinction between ideological partisanship, which is generally rooted in sociodemographic and political cleavages, and affective partisanship, which is, instead, mostly fueled by emotional attachment and repulsion, rather than ideology and material interests. The latter, she argues, is likely to lead to a runaway process and threaten the pluralistic bases of contemporary democracy. Page sees the contribution of the many distinct models in the ensemble as potentially contributing more than the parts. Individual papers identify distinct causes of polarization as well as potential solutions. Viewed collectively, the papers suggest that the multiple causes of polarization may self-reinforce, which suggests that successful interventions would require a variety of efforts. Understanding how to construct such interventions may require larger models with greater realism.
我们为《政治极化动态特刊》中的论文提供了评论。Baldassarri 根据理论上对意识形态党派偏见(通常根植于社会人口和政治分歧)和情感党派偏见(更多地由情感依恋和排斥而非意识形态和物质利益驱动)的区分来解读这些论文的贡献。她认为,后者可能导致失控的过程并威胁到当代民主的多元化基础。Page 认为,组合中许多不同模型的贡献可能超过部分之和。个别论文确定了导致极化的不同原因以及潜在的解决方案。从整体上看,这些论文表明,极化的多种原因可能会自我强化,这表明成功的干预措施需要各种努力。理解如何构建此类干预措施可能需要具有更大现实性的更大模型。