More in Common’s Miriam Juan Torres discusses polarization and resiliency in the UK and Europe

Miriam Juan Torres is a senior researcher with More in Common, a Toward Belonging partner that works to identify and address the underlying drivers of fracturing and polarization, and build more united, resilient and inclusive societies. Toward Belonging’s Sara Grossman recently spoke with Miriam about More in Common’s latest research on polarization in the UK and other countries.

You recently co-authored a report looking at areas of common ground and difference amongst the British public. What was the most surprising finding you made? 

Over the past few years, we have heard the words “divided” and “polarized” tossed around very liberally to describe the United Kingdom. To me, it was very interesting to see to what extent those adjectives do not reflect the reality of the UK at all and to observe the strength of the social fabric. 

We identified different segments within society, based on their core beliefs (the hidden architecture of their inner psychology) and with differing views, but across a range of issues the groups at the extremes were different and the “alliances” between groups of people also shifted. It’s similar to a kaleidoscopic effect, we come together in different formations depending on the issue at hand – much like the pieces of coloured glass in a kaleidoscope which combine in different patterns as the instrument is rotated.

This has given British society strong resilience. When speaking of polarization, we often refer to a phenomenon known as conflict extension: when members of the group converge across a range of issues. This is not happening in the UK. In fact, there are issues such as climate and the protection of nature and the countryside where we see widespread agreement and a shared desire for change. 

Many analysts point to attitudes towards Brexit as the key indicator of an individual’s identity and political alignment. Yet More in Common’s research paints a more complicated portrait of British identity and political attitudes. Can you discuss the nuances you uncovered?

The impact of the Brexit referendum on people’s identities is absolutely undeniable. While they might be a proxy for many other things — and the Brexit process surfaced and aggravated many other issues, e.g. “Leaver” and “Remainer” identities have certainly formed and have come to the forefront of people’s political identities. They are in fact much stronger than partisan identity in the UK. The picture, however, is far more complicated and a bit more positive that it might seem at first glance. 

Only 32 percent of Britons identify with a political party. About half of those who identify with Leave or Remain identities say this is an important identity to them but only 21 percent state that this is very important. When we focus our attention on the divides and vitriol, we are focusing on the hyper-partisan or the hyper-polarized, in this case on the Brexit issue, but that is only a part of the population, a very active and vocal one, but not the majority. Similarly, it’s only a part of people’s lives. If we look for conflict, we are likely to find it in politics. But we can look to other aspects of people’s ideas and lives.

In addition, in the UK, those that identify with each of those newer identities are heterogeneous, making widespread conflict a bit less likely. This is not to say there are no reasons to be concerned – there are. There are many wounds in the UK polity and social fabric and while the desire to heal is there, they could easily be reopened. Yet there is also a strong appetite for a better society, addressing collective challenges together, and a renewed sense of agency in communities, which I also find very encouraging. 

How do the responses from the UK survey compare to findings in other European countries and the US? Did you uncover any larger trends across Europe?

In all countries where we have done research, we have found at least two groups that are highly engaged politically, mobilized, and dominate public discourse. They lead the conversation online and influence what gets covered in the media. This can trickle down to the rest of the public. We see levels of trust in institutions crashing across the board (although with significant differences across countries, much lower trust and higher polarization in the United States, for example, and greater stability in Germany), but we also see a stronger faith in the power of community and each other, showing that maybe there are two tracks: how we feel about the political realm and how we feel about society. 

That being said, there are significant differences across countries that require a tailored approach in each of them. The United States is by far the most polarized country and suffers from hyper-partisanship. At the same time, discourse on polarization in the US often obscures that there is common ground on many issues and that most people who identify with a political party but not do so as strongly. If policies are not framed as a partisan issue, perhaps they are more likely to earn greater support. 

In both France and the UK, we have seen how tackling environmental challenges has the potential to unite society – or is perhaps a unifying concern already. 

Something I would say is true of all places is that understanding the public solely through the lens of party identification (or another political identity) reduces our understanding, provides a much more negative view of society, and is an impediment to progress and greater empathy. As people who want a fair and just society, we need to have a new approach to understanding others, and More in Common’s core beliefs model in a sense is an attempt to provide that approach. 

In your research, how has the experience of Covid-19 shifted people’s attitudes or beliefs towards the system, society, and/or towards each other? Has this shared crisis opened any opportunities for belonging to flourish?

This pandemic has proved to be a formative period, one in which attitudes fluctuate much more than in normal circumstances. It has created a moment where people are more consciously evaluating their views and faith in the system and each other. It is impossible to tell as of now whether at the end of the tunnel people’s attitudes and beliefs will be more positive or negative than pre-pandemic. 

In March and April, we went through a honeymoon phase where we saw collective efforts to challenge the pandemic and in return we felt warmer toward others. In the summer and late 2020, with new lockdowns and images of antisocial behaviour circulating, many experienced disappointment. 

But in the UK, for example, we have seen a consistent upward trend in people’s sense of agency in their communities – the idea that people in our area are able to find ways to improve things around them when they want to. This is encouraging, particularly for grassroots organizations and practitioners who work at the community level. 

All of these changes open a window of opportunity for reevaluating our social contract, how we interact with each other, and our rights and responsibilities as citizens, which is all intrinsically related to othering and belonging. It is clear—as trite as the sentence might now be—that we are all weathering the same storm but in extremely different boats. In all of the countries where we have done research, the majority of the population claims that the pandemic has helped them see how different people’s lives are. Can we build on those realizations? Can we do so suspending judgment and with empathy to construct a better future? Most people want to move on with their lives and are focused on their work, family, and loved ones, not on examining social and political dynamics, but maybe now is the time when we can engage more and examine those questions. 

How can practitioners across Europe working in a range of sectors (public sphere, nonprofits, activists, etc), operationalize the findings from More in Common’s research on bridging and breaking across Europe?

More in Common’s research offers two key sets of tools that I think can be useful in helping others: one is a different understanding of the public. First, through our segmentation studies, we identified different subgroups within the population. Non-profits, activists, and business people could all analyze the work they do through the lens of those segments. Who are they trying to reach? Who are they reaching? Who should they reach? 

Second, our core beliefs models provide a toolkit to understand people in a more holistic way based on their core beliefs and psychology, rather than just reducing people to one or a collection of their demographic traits, as is often done in polling. In approaching the public in this way, it is possible to be more empathetic and also to design communications, policies, and programs that are more likely to resonate and be successful with that group of people.