Polarisation cover art

Polarisation

Polarisation

Listen for free

View show details

About this listen

 EPISODE DESCRIPTIONIt’s getting harder to talk to each other. Not just about politics—though that’s certainly true—but about anything that touches on values, identity, or what kind of world we want to live in. We’re sorting ourselves into increasingly isolated camps, unfriending people who disagree, avoiding topics at family gatherings, dismissing entire groups as ignorant, evil, or beyond reach.Host Rahul Nair examines polarisation not as a political problem unique to our time, but as a systemic pattern showing up at every scale of human life—from geopolitical tensions to organisational culture wars to family estrangement to internal conflict within ourselves. Through psychology, philosophy, and spirituality, we discover why disagreement has become identity-threatening, why dialogue feels impossible, and where genuine agency lies in bridging divides without abandoning principles.Because here’s the thing: polarisation isn’t inevitable. It’s a pattern amplified by systems that profit from division. And patterns can be interrupted.CONTENT NOTEThis episode discusses political and social division, conflict across differences, and the psychological dynamics of tribal thinking in ways that may be challenging if you’re currently experiencing painful divisions in your relationships or communities.Important Disclaimer: The content in this podcast is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute or replace professional psychological, psychiatric, or medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you are experiencing severe distress related to social conflict, family estrangement, or mental health concerns, please consult with a qualified mental health professional or medical provider. In case of emergency or crisis, please contact your local emergency services or a crisis helpline immediately.KEY TAKEAWAYSPsychology Lens: Polarisation is rooted in how our minds work. Tribal psychology (in-group favouritism, out-group derogation) is evolutionary—distinguishing “us” from “them” once meant survival. When beliefs become tied to identity, challenging them triggers ego threat and defensive responses. Confirmation bias means we seek out information that confirms what we already believe. Group polarisation makes like-minded people more extreme over time. Moral foundations theory shows people have different moral intuitions—progressives prioritise care and fairness; conservatives add loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Neither is wrong, just differently weighted. Contempt—viewing others with disgust—is the strongest predictor of relationship breakdown and completely shuts down curiosity.Philosophy Lens: Polarisation reveals unresolved philosophical tensions. The paradox of tolerance asks: must a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? (But who decides what counts as intolerance?) There’s tension between moral relativism (morality is culturally constructed, so tolerate diverse views) and moral realism (objective moral truths exist, so some views are simply wrong). Individual rights versus collective good create genuine trade-offs. Epistemic fragmentation—we’ve moved from shared information sources to tribal “truth” ecosystems—means we no longer share a common reality. And different orientations toward change (preservation versus transformation) both have value, but clash during rapid change.Spirituality Lens: Polarisation is separation—the illusion that we’re fundamentally different, that their wellbeing and ours are unrelated. Every spiritual tradition teaches interconnection: Buddhism’s no-self, Christianity’s “love your enemy,” Ubuntu’s “I am because we are,” Advaita’s “Thou art That.” Forgetting this interconnection breeds suffering—when you dehumanise others, you diminish your own humanity. Spiritual practices for bridging divides include compassion (wishing for others’ suffering to cease even when you disagree), empathy (asking “what would make a good person believe this?”), humility (recognising your perspective is partial), forgiveness (releasing hatred that binds you), and equanimity (holding views with conviction while remaining open). True change requires remaining human while resisting what’s inhumane.The System: Polarisation isn’t just psychological—it’s structural. Media ecosystems create parallel realities with different facts and framings; algorithms maximise engagement by showing outrage-inducing content. Economic inequality creates resentment that gets directed at “the other tribe” rather than systemic causes. Political incentives reward extremism (mobilising the base) over moderation (persuading the middle); gerrymandering makes politicians fear primary challenges from extremes. Identity politics (on all sides) makes compromise feel like betrayal of who you are. Feedback loops amplify division: as groups become more extreme, moderates conform or exit, pushing boundaries further; as trust ...
No reviews yet