Political Polarization Viewed Through Two Different Lenses

Sam Carpenter

Prof. Allison Bocchino

03/17/2024

Political polarization is an often undermined concept, however is a very critical aspect of

our political climate today. Political polarization depicts the growing division between political

parties that provokes various conflicts, and problems in our society. It can be examined through

various lenses, the most interesting I believe are the academic disciplines of history and

psychology. These two disciplines are very important to understanding political polarization

however they examine this topic differently. Political polarization has been a catalyst throughout

history and a driving factor for many historical conflicts. However, a key way to examine the

drivers behind political polarization is to look at it through a psychological lens. The article

”How Empathetic Concern Drives Political Polarization”1 bridges the gap between psychology

and political polarization and employs empathetic concern as a driving factor. The article “The

Bush Effect: polarization, turnout, and Activism in the 2004 presidential election”.2 focuses on

modern political history with the Bush presidency and its contribution to political polarization.

Although both focus on the causes of political polarization, psychology attempts to understand

the cause of political polarization in terms of the human mind and behavior. In stark contrast,

history looks at the cause of political polarization through specific instances in the past. The

different goals of each article heavily change the way in which they are presented. Throughout

1
Elizabeth N Simas, Scott Clifford, and Just H Kirkland, “How empathetic Concern Fuels Political
Polarization,”American Political Science Review 114, no. (October 31, 2019) : 258–69.
2
Alan I, Abramowitz, Walter J Stone, “The Bush effect: polarization, turnout, and activism in the 2004 presidential
election,"Presidential Studies Quarterly 36, no. 2 (June 2006): 141+

1
this essay, these different approaches from psychology and history will be seen through the

differences in evidence, jargon and tone, and organizational structure.

Differences in Evidence

In all academic articles, authors use evidence as a way to support their claims, however,

the type of evidence used often varies depending on the academic discipline being used. In the

Article “How Empathetic Concern Drives Political Polarization”3 there is a use of scientific

studies and scenarios to tailor to the psychology discipline of the paper. Furthermore, the author's

intention for adding specific types of evidence is to demonstrate logos that are relevant to the

academic discipline of the article to effectively back up their claims. An example of this is seen

in “Individuals report taking greater pleasure in misfortunes such as troop casualties and

economic downturns when those misfortunes are attributed to the opposite party”.4 Simas and

Clifford, authors use psychological scenarios to back up their claims that are based on

psychology to create relevance and coherence within the academic article. The evidence and the

article's claims both use the academic discipline of psychology employing the importance of

relevant logos in an academic discipline.

Contrastingly throughout the history article, things like past presidential elections were

used as evidence to back up the claims made about modern political history through a historical

lens. The use of logos is vital to any academic article, however, different types of logos are used

depending on the academic discipline. One example of historical evidence being used in the

history article is “1972, 42 points for Jimmy Carter in 1980, 52 points for Ronald Reagan in

1988, 55 points for Bill Clinton in 1996, and 71 points for George W. Bush in 2004”.5 The use of

3
Simas, Clifford, and Kirkland, “How Empathetic Concern Fuels Political Polarization”.
4
Simas, Clifford, and Kirkland, “How Empathetic Concern Fuels Political Polarization”,1.
5
Abramowitz,Stone, “The Bush effect: polarization, turnout, and activism in the 2004 presidential election”.

2
historical timelines and references to past events differs heavily from the types of scientific

evidence being used in the psychology article. The article's different use of evidence indicates

how the logos used vary between academic disciplines, and the use of relevant logos strengthens

the claims made by the authors.

Other types of evidence in the psychology article were seen with scientific studies. One

specific statistic from a study is “1,181 respondents from their opt-in internet survey panel and

matched 1,000 respondents to the population on gender, age, race, ideology, political interest,

voter registration, and partisanship”6. This piece of evidence using scientific studies further

employs the focus on psychology more specifically the human mind

and body.The scientific studies represent how the evidentiary approach

in the psychology discipline uses science, rather than references to

history like the historical article to remain relevant to the academic

discipline of psychology. Furthermore, both articles use visual

representations and graphs as forms of evidence. The history article also uses graphs, and charts

as a way to show the historical progression or regression of political polarization dating back to

1952. One graph that stuck out to me was Figure 17 Figure 1. Not only does the graph show the

progression of political polarization, but it uses history as a way to further emphasize the effect

of Bush.Contrastingly the psychology article utilizes graphs to

support their psychological studies, seen in Figure 28. This

figure in particular is being used to support the second study

of the academic article “Study 2: Censorship, and

6
Simas, Clifford, and Kirkland, “How Empathetic Concern Fuels Political Polarization”.
7
Abramowitz,Stone, “The Bush effect: polarization, turnout, and activism in the 2004 presidential election”.
8
Simas, Clifford, and Kirkland, “How Empathetic Concern Fuels Political Polarization”.

3
schadenfreude”9, and emphasizes the scientific evidence used throughout the psychology article.

It is important in both articles that visual representations are used as a form of logos, however,

the context, and message of these visual representations differ heavily between each article due

to the different academic disciplines being used. The psychology article uses these graphs to

support their scientific studies, while the history article uses them to demonstrate the historical

progression of political polarization. This demonstrates the difference in logos for these

disciplines in order to fit specific expectations for each discipline. Overall the evidence used in

each article is dependent on the academic discipline in which the article falls. It is important that

the evidence used remains relevant to the academic discipline of the article to best back up

claims, and to add coherency.

Differing Tone and Jargon

When discussing different disciplines there is often a very different tone and jargon, as

there is often a very different target audience. The Jargon in the psychology article consists of

complex terminology, and psychological jargon some examples being “SCHADENFREUDE”

“dispositional empathy” Salient group identities”10. The implementation of this specific

psychological jargon emphasizes the target audience being people who have an understanding of

psychology and who will understand this jargon. Different jargon is seen in the history article

which has a much more focus on the intersection between politics and history creating consistent

references to political and historical jargon. This is specifically seen with “the rational choice

theory of turnout proposed by Anthony Downs: polarization energizes voters and stimulates

participation”. The use of rational choice theory, a political science term being applied to the

modern political history of the Bush election, emphasizes this intersection between political

9
Simas, Clifford, and Kirkland, “How Empathetic Concern Fuels Political Polarization”.
10
Simas, Clifford, and Kirkland, “How Empathetic Concern Fuels Political Polarization”.

4
polarization and history, and the specific jargon of this article. This highlights the audience being

both historians and political scientists, to which various jargon in both disciplines is used. The

differing jargon emphasizes the psychology focus on the human mind, while the historical focus

is on specific instances from the Bush Presidency, which helps indicate the target audience of

each academic article.

Furthermore, the psychology article has a challenging tone towards previous scientific

studies specifically challenging the positive effects of empathy “While the experience of

empathy toward an individual or group can reduce bias in some circumstances, individuals in the

real world may rarely place themselves in situations that would encourage them to do so”. The

history article consists of a much more informative and argumentative tone. I reached this

conclusion due to the various times these tones were used in this article, an example is seen in

the article with “ In the 2004 presidential election, Americans were closely divided, but they

were not ambivalent or uncertain about George W. Bush”.11 It is clear that not only are the

authors informing the reader of the political climate during this time, but argue about how

Americans felt about George W Bush. These differing tones highlight the different approaches

between these academic disciplines. Psychology focuses on political polarization's connection to

the human mind and behavior with empathetic concern, while history establishes the historical

context for the Bush Presidency and its connection to political polarization.

Organizational Structure

How academic articles are structured is dependent on the academic discipline in which

they fall under. The specific types of structures in both articles help to both carry continuity

throughout the article and construct the academic discipline being used in the articles. The

structure acts as an indicator to the audience about academic discipline being applied and shapes
11
Abramowitz,Stone, “The Bush effect: polarization, turnout, and activism in the 2004 presidential election”.

5
the scholarly community of the academic discipline. One main structural difference between

these two articles is the subheadings. The subheadings in the psychology article consist of

“connecting empathy and polarization” as the initial subheading, followed by two studies the

first being “ Study 1: affect and social distance” This is followed by “ Study 2: Censorship and

Schadenfreude”.12 The authors present this structure in the introduction as “First, using a large,

national sample…..Second, using an experimental design”.13 This article uses a scientific

structure based on samples, studies, and experimental designs to align with the structure seen in

articles using the discipline of psychology. This is in stark contrast to the history article, which

lacks a formal structure and is more focused on contextualizing the historical state of 2004

throughout the article, which makes sense due to the importance of contextualization in history

articles. Furthermore, the history article has more playful and catchy subheadings like “George

W. Bush: From Uniter to Divider”.14 This differing organizational structure and rhetoric

especially with subheadings emphasizes how although these different disciplines discuss the

same topic, the impact and message conveyed are very different due to the organizational

structure.

In addition, the abstract in both articles is very important to establishing foundational

knowledge and tying all the points together. However, the conventions of the abstract in each

article differ heavily. In psychology articles the abstract heavily focuses on laying a framework

for the entire article, which I believe is due to the complex structure of psychology and scientific

articles. However the history article focuses on contextualizing the historical setting of the Bush

presidency, and predicting the future historical state. These differences in the abstract speak to

the structural differences that come with different disciplines. These differences are needed to

12
Simas, Clifford, and Kirkland, “How Empathetic Concern Fuels Political Polarization”.
13
Simas, Clifford, and Kirkland, “How Empathetic Concern Fuels Political Polarization”.
14
Abramowitz,Stone, “The Bush effect: polarization, turnout, and activism in the 2004 presidential election”.

6
differentiate the academic disciplines from one another and to conform to the scholarly

community of each academic discipline. One aspect of the structure that is the same is the last

subheading before the conclusion presents a question in both articles. In the psychology article

the question of “PERSPECTIVE-TAKING TO THE RESCUE?”15 is proposed. In the history

article the question of “Did Bush Benefit from the Politics of Division?”16 is proposed. This

similarity I believe demonstrates the author's goal to get the reader thinking about the topic of the

paper, further engage them.Now although this structural similarity takes place with both articles

there is a wide variety of differences that represent the difference in approaches and focus for

these academic disciplines.

Conclusion

Overall, although both articles focus on political polarization the discipline in which it is

explored affects the presentation of evidence, tone/jargon, and organizational structure. In “How

Empathetic Concern Drives Political Polarization”17 evidence is scientific with a focus on the

human mind and body. In “The Bush Effect: polarization, turnout, and Activism in the 2004

Presidential Election”18 evidence uses historical references to support the claims demonstrating

the change in evidence between articles to stay relevant to the academic discipline being applied.

Additionally, tone and jargon employ the different scholarly communities to which these articles

are tailored. Lastly, the organizational structure specifically with subheadings and the abstract

employs the different setup that is within each article. Overall psychology attempts to understand

the cause of political polarization in terms of the human mind while history looks at the cause

through specific instances in the past, altering the conventions of each article.

15
Simas, Clifford, and Kirkland, “How Empathetic Concern Fuels Political Polarization”.
16
Abramowitz,Stone, “The Bush effect: polarization, turnout, and activism in the 2004 presidential election”.
17
Simas, Clifford, and Kirkland, “How Empathetic Concern Fuels Political Polarization”.
18
Abramowitz,Stone, “The Bush effect: polarization, turnout, and activism in the 2004 presidential election”.

7
 Bibliography

Alan I, Abramowitz, and Walter J. Stone. “The Bush effect: polarization, turnout, and activism
in the 2004 presidential election”. Presidential Studies Quarterly 36, no. 2 (June 2006): 141+.
Gale In Context: Biography (accessed January 31, 2024).
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A147615306/BIC?u=ucsantabarbara&sid=bookmark-BIC&xid=3
9b4e7b7.

Simas , Elizabeth N, Scott Clifford , and Justin H . Kirkland. “How Empathic Concern Fuels
Political Polarization.” American Political Science Review 114, no. October 31, 2019 : 258–69.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000534.