This panel focuses on ongoing debates about global issues such as climate change, migration and security policies that are characterized by significant tensions and political conflicts and polarize the public in many countries. The goal is to discuss the discursive dynamics of different forms of polarization (e.g., positional, interactional, affective) and manipulative strategies that seek to increase the polarization of these debates in online publics (e.g., via disinformation, trolling, coordinated social media manipulation). The panel contributions seek to better understand the nature of discursive networks from three distinct yet interrelated perspectives. First, actors such as political parties, civil society groups, movements and individual leaders may act as polarization entrepreneurs that use social media to promote certain views or even manipulate public opinion. Second, social media platforms such as Telegram or TikTok often facilitate far-right communication that fuels polarization. Third, polarization entrepreneurs may employ communication strategies aimed at activating and mobilizing followers for their goals, including spreading misinformation, feeding conspiracy beliefs, and promoting hate speech. However, the dynamics of social media communication may not only entail negative consequences for society: they may also enhance solidarity networks and increase the visibility of brokers.
Considering the diversity and ambivalence of discursive actors in contemporary democracies, existing and emerging political cleavages, platform affordances, and repertoires of communicative strategies, the panel shall discuss the following questions:
1) How can polarizing and depolarizing forces, as well as manipulative actors, be identified in online publics and how do they vary over time?
2) How and to what extent do platform affordances or algorithmic features help or hinder the polarization and manipulation of debates around contentious issues?
3) Under what conditions are persuasion strategies effective at (de-)polarizing communication around contentious issues and how are their messages related to civic (dis-)engagement?
To approach these (and related) questions and shed light on the structures, tonality and contents of polarized information environments, contributions may employ methodologies such as network analysis, content analysis, digital ethnography and/or case study approaches. Theoretical papers may discuss the integration of concepts like symbolic networks, connective action logics, affordances, intergroup emotions, social identities vis-à-vis language-based polarization.