Communications in Humanities Research ISSN: 2753-7072
Home> Volumes> Volume CHR Vol.27> Article
Research Article

Relationship Between Profanity and Political Polarization

Adeline WeiBasis International School Guangzhou*

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

This paper delves into the contentious issue of political polarization and explores the psychological underpinnings of anger within social media profanity and its contribution to political polarization, emphasizing its role in pushing individuals to adopt extreme viewpoints and resist compromise. First of all, it highlights the role of social media in shaping political discourse and its dominance in terms of political discussion platforms. While social media platforms provide a diverse space for individuals to express different viewpoints, they also foster echo chambers, reinforcing existing beliefs and isolating users from differing perspectives. It emphasizes the effect of the use of profanity and strong language on social media intensifying emotional reactions, pushing individuals toward extreme political positions, and deepening polarization. Profanity signals group membership and leads to more negative perceptions of opposing groups, exacerbating the polarization cycle. In conclusion, the essay calls for a critical examination of the impact of profanity and aggression in political discussions, especially on social media. It underscores the need for responsible and respectful discourse to mitigate the growing problem of political polarization. Ultimately, it emphasizes the importance of thoughtful communication in fostering a more constructive political environment.

Keywords: Political polarization; echo chamber; in group effect; profanity
Published: March 1, 2024
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/27/20231546
Volume: CHR Vol.27
pp. 230-235
Download PDF

References

  1. politics. (2023). https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/politics
  2. Duca, J. V., & Saving, J. L. (2016). INCOME INEQUALITY, MEDIA FRAGMENTATION, AND INCREASED POLITICAL POLARIZATION. Contemporary Economic Policy, 35(2), 392–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/coep.12191
  3. Foa, R. S. & Mounk, Y. (2017). THE SIGNS OF DECONSOLIDATION. JOURNAL OF DEMOCRACY, 28 (1), pp.5-15. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0000.
  4. Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00237.x
  5. Kalmoe, N. P. (n.d.). Fueling the Fire: Violent Metaphors, Trait Aggression, and Support for Political Violence. Political Communication, 31(4), 545–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.852642
  6. Ingroups and Outgroups: How social identity Influences people. (n.d.). https://effectiviology.com/ingroup-outgroup/
  7. Kessler, T., & Hollbach, S. (2005). Group-based emotions as determinants of ingroup identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(6), 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.01.001
  8. Echo Chamber - ECPS. (n.d.). ECPS. https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/echo-chamber/
  9. Shewale, R. (2023). Twitter Statistics In 2023 — (Facts After “X” Rebranding). DemandSage. https://www.demandsage.com/twitter-statistics/#:~:text=Twitter%20has%20528.3%20million%20monthly%20active%20users.
  10. Mitchell, T. (n.d.). Political Behavior on Twitter among U.S. adults | Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/16/politics-on-twitter-one-third-of-tweets-from-u-s-adults-are-political/
  11. Fiske, A. P., & Shakti, T. (2015). Virtuous violence: hurting and killing to create, sustain, end, and honor social relationships. Choice Reviews Online, 52(11), 52–6178. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.190088
  12. Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (n.d.). Motivated Rejection of Science (Vol. 25). SAGE Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416654436
  13. Gervais, B. T., Evans, H. K., & Russell, A. (2019). Fear and loathing on Twitter: exploring negative rhetoric in tweets during the 2018 midterm election. In Springer eBooks (pp. 31–52). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19819-0_3
  14. Reiter, F., & Matthes, J. (2021). “The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly”: A panel study on the reciprocal effects of negative, dirty, and positive campaigning on political distrust. Mass Communication and Society, 25(5), 649–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2021.1934702
  15. Rosenberg, S. (2021, July 27). Americans’ trust in government, each other, leaders | Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/07/22/trust-and-distrust-in-america/