polarization-related books

The Anatomy of Peace: Resolving the Heart of Conflict uses a fictional narrative to explain the nature of conflict in an entertaining way. It examines how we can believe we're right (as most people in a conflict tend to believe they are) while still being wrong in how we engage with our opponents. It talks about how our hearts can be either "at war" or "at peace" with the people we're in conflict with. It shows the similarities between family conflicts and political/national conflicts. 

Dotson's The Divide: How Fanatical Certitude Is Destroying Democracy is one of the best books about this problem. He argues our problem is not misinformation or believing the "wrong things," but an unreasonable and too-common belief that we're in possession of the obvious truth. This "fanatical certainty" exacerbates anger and tensions. (And this focus aligns with something I believe: the often desperate human desire for certainty is our biggest problem.)

Sustaining Democracy: What We Owe to the Other Side, is one of the best books on American depolarization. Talisse examines the inherent challenges of democracy: that we must be fellow citizens with people who we may think are very bad people doing very bad things. He talks about the demands of democracy, and what makes us good citizens. He talks about a less examined downside of extreme polarization: how it leads to fracturing and discord even amongst politically similar people. 

Undue Hate: A Behavioral Economic Analysis of Hostile Polarization in US Politics and Beyond examines our divides with a focus on our "objectively false, and overly negative, beliefs about the other side," which cause us to "dislike them more than we should." Our distorted, overly pessimistic views of our fellow citizens is a huge factor in polarization, and this is why I think this is an important book.

How Contempt Destroys Democracy is my book. It is written for a liberal and/or anti-Trump audience and attempts to explain the problem of toxic political polarization and why that audience should care about reducing it. It examines the distorted views we have of each other, and how those misperceptions amplify tensions and animosity. It argues that our misplaced contempt for each other helps create the very things that upset and scare us.

Our Common Bonds: Using What Americans Share to Help Bridge the Partisan Divide argues that "partisan animosity stems in part from partisans’ misperceptions of one another. Democrats and Republicans think they have nothing in common, but this is not true." The book is an examination of the views that Americans have in common. Part of us growing healthier as a culture is in focusing more on what we have in common, and less on the sources of our divides, so I think this is an important book.

The Righteous Mind: How Good People Are Divided By Religion and Politics explains why people can believe such different things, and why their values can appear so different. I consider this a must-read for anyone serious about having an informed political opinion, even apart from polarization.

High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out examines the emotional roots of us-versus-them feelings, and tells real-life stories to illustrate its concepts, from a conflict resolution expert who ended up in an us-versus-them political battle despite his best efforts, to a Chicago gang member, to other stories. A great examination of how conflict grows that should be an engaging read for a mainstream audience. 

Beyond Contempt: How Liberals Can Communicate Across the Great Divide examines liberal-side contributions to our divides from a liberal perspective, which I think is important because many liberals don't see the ways in which liberals contribute to our divides (for example, the insults and condescension present in liberal-leaning news and entertainment media). In my opinion, Etelson is often overly biased against conservative stances, but I still recommend this to passionate progressives.

The Way Out: How To Overcome Toxic Polarization is by Peter Coleman, a respected conflict resolution expert. Coleman does a great job explaining the sources of polarization, in our minds and in society. He talks about our polarization problem through the lens of conflict resolution approaches. One important point he makes is that polarization has many factors, but we often make mistake of looking for a "silver bullet" cause. 

Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment examines the concept of "identity" and the role it plays in politics. Group identity-related insults and grievances drive a lot of our us-versus-them anger, and understanding identity is important. Fukuyama makes interesting comparisons between current sources of anger and past sources of anger.  

Urban is known for his Wait But Why comic series and blogging. In What's Our Problem?: A Self-Help Book for Societies, he tries to make the workings of our tribal natures accessible to a lay audience, using illustrations and regular language. 

The Depolarizing of America: A Guidebook for Self-Healing is a book by psychologist Kirk Schneider (who I interviewed for my podcast). He tackles our polarization problem through the lens of existentialist and humanistic psychology, arguing that a sense of awe and wonder about the world is part of reducing our anger and judgment. He has written several books about the "polarized mind."

One Nation, Two Realities: Dueling Facts in American Democracy relies on a lot of research to examine how people can arrive at such divergent realities. One important point they focus on: the more politically aware one is, the more likely one is to have us-versus-them anger. This book is rather pessimistic about our chances of improving things. 

Guzman works with the depolarization group Braver Angels. In I Never Thought of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times, she talks about her own life (her parents are Trump voters, she's liberal) and argues for the importance of being curious about why people believe the things they do, and not jumping to conclusions about their views. 

I haven't yet read American Rage: How Anger Shapes Our Politics, but it seems to contain important ideas: the incentives and motives to arouse political anger (basically, arousing passions to get votes), and the risks and dangers. He argues that "anger is the central emotion governing contemporary US politics, with powerful, deleterious effects."

I haven't yet read Political Tribalism in America: How Hyper-Partisanship Dumbs Down Democracy and How to Fix It, but it seems to contain important ideas. Redmond argues that us-vs-them tribalism results in elected officials "who more extreme, hostile, and willing to reject unfavorable democratic outcomes." He provides "actionable strategies designed to reduce the influence of political tribalism in our lives."

I haven't yet read Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, but I know of Mason's work and have read about her research. She's known for doing some very important polarization-related research. This book examines how our polarization has grown over time, and the emotional and psychological roots of it.

Settle has researched how social media can increase polarization. In Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America, she explains her research that shows how Facebook exacerbates polarization by making it easier to categorize people based on political-group-associated traits. (I interviewed Settle for my podcast.)

In Mutual Radicalization: How Groups and Nations Drive Each Other To Extremes, Moghaddam examines how emotional polarization makes groups more radical. Polarization leads to "intensifying aggressive actions that can even reach the point of mutual destruction." He examines real-world scenarios where he sees this playing out. 

Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization examines extreme polarization in several democratic countries around the world. (I've interviewed both Carothers and O'Donohue for my podcast.)

Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats explains core differences in the nature of the Democrat and Republican parties. In short: Republicans are more ideological, while Democrats are mainly trying to please the various groups in their coalition (who may themselves be in conflict). We often assume things that aren't true about the nature and goals of the other side, which leads to distorted perceptions.

Age of Anger: A History of the Present examines political and religious rage-filled movements over the last couple centuries, and the similar psychological and cultural processes present in those manifestations of anger. 

In Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public, the authors argue that, as Philip Converse was known for saying, most people are "ideologically innocent." They argue that "political preferences arise less from ideological differences than from the attachments and antagonisms of group life."

I haven't read The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America, but think the ideas are important. They examine the ambiguity and meaninglessness that simplistic terms like "liberal" and "conservative" and "left" and right" can have. They argue that the "left and right have evolved in so many unpredictable and even contradictory ways that there is currently nothing other than tribal loyalty" holding them together. 

I have not read Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know. One interesting point in here is that "contrary to popular belief, the 2016 election was a natural outgrowth of 40 years of polarized politics, rather than a significant break with the past." He examines systemic factors that contribute to polarization, like gerrymandered districts, partisan primary nomination systems, and the private campaign finance system. 

I have not read Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America. One interesting part of this book is that Campbell "challenges the widely held belief that polarization is the product of party and media elites, revealing instead how the American public in the 1960s set in motion the increase of polarization. American politics became highly polarized from the bottom up, not the top down, and this began much earlier than often thought."

I have not read Preventing Polarization: 50 Strategies for Teaching Kids About Empathy, Politics, and Civic Responsibility. From the publisher's description: "In an era that has become incredibly polarized, we can help our students learn how to come together despite differences."