The ’every day’ of polarisation in schools; understanding polarisation as (not)dialogue

ABSTRACT

This paper analyses how ‘polarisations’ in which social tensions between the religious, ethnic and socio-economic groups are believed to increase are experienced and understood by secondary school teachers in the Netherlands. Based on the idea that polarisation is present in everyday interactions, this study contributes to an everyday perspective on polarisation by unravelling the everyday contradictions, tensions, and incongruities that constitute and keep polarisation in place. Borrowing from critical discourse analyses and linguistic ethnography perspectives the analyses shows that the everyday reproduction of polarisation in schools consists not only of the local reproduction of existing minority and majority viewpoints, but also reproduces the interactive dynamics that make it hard to maintain dialogue in concrete situations of polarisation. Making use of Lyotard’s idea that heterogeneous narratives produce different languages of justice, the paper explains polarisation not just as a clash between incommensurable world views, but between different rules of ‘how to play the game’. Such a view also explains why it is complicated to use dialogue to overcome incommensurable worlds. The paper ends by providing conditions that can help overcome the reproduction of existing controversies in schools through dialogue.

KEYWORDS:

• Polarization
• dialogue
• othering
• controversial issues
• Lyotard
• differend

Introduction: increasing discomfort with diversity and the mission of schools

In the past decade, concerns about increasing levels of polarisation and threats to social cohesion have been rising around the world. While such concerns might be considered as part and parcel of modern, pluralistic democracies marked by socio-economic, political or cultural differences, these concerns can also be different in nature and felt more strongly at particular times and under particular circumstances (McCoy, Rahman, and Somer 2018). Such circumstances could be related to the rise of socio-economic, political, cultural or religious divides, and in particular to how these are perceived (Santos et al. 2014). An example an enhanced experience of polarisation like this is Molina and Casado’s (2014) suggestion that Europe is experiencing a new sense of diversity in which diversity is increasingly being seen as a problem and causing fear in large sectors of the population. Following the same line of thinking it has been suggested that the increased co-presence of culturally diverse groups (in line with globalising forces) are responsible for increasing feelings of polarisation worldwide. Lianaki-Dedouli and Plouin (2017), for instance, point out that, while globalisation has imposed co-existence on different cultures, we have not yet produced the collective capacity to imagine a common future.

The Netherlands, where this study was carried out, is currently considered to be a society in which citizens are experiencing increased ‘polarisation’. The tensions between immigrant and non-immigrant groups, which revolve partly around the role of religion in the public domain, in particular the position of Islam, has been identified as a focal point of recent experiences of polarisation (Kleiwegt 2016, Verloove et al. 2020, Albada, Hansen, and Otten 2021).

Educational spaces such as schools are often seen as sites where polarisation might be tackled given that in schools youths with different origins come together, need to learn to deal with ‘diverse others’ and must be prepared to become democratic citizens. However, presently these educational spaces themselves seem to experience increasing polarisation. For instance, as Gindi and Erlich (2018) report, in many Western countries, schools experience a lack of social cohesion in their communities, stronger expressions of prejudice and an inability to deal with the ‘differences’ which are often associated with students coming from a wide variety of backgrounds.

In the Netherlands similar tensions are experienced in schools. According to a report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Education, students live increasingly separate lives, express different political loyalties, opposite opinions and versions of the ‘truth’, and have only a limited interest in other viewpoints. Teachers are concerned about the increasingly radical voice of students with a Muslim background as well as about right wing and nationalist discourses among other groups of students. Teachers often do not feel equipped to deal with the tensions that result from these disparities in their schools (Kleiwegt 2016).

Recent literature reviews show that professionals in education often find it extremely hard to address tensions and so-called ‘controversial issues’ and reportedly they tend to ignore such issues (Ho, et al. 2017, Wansink et al. 2018). Not addressing such issues is considered a serious problem – it can hamper schools’ educational mission to prepare students to deal with pluralism and to teach them to oppose exclusion, prejudice, conflict, and violence (Abu-Nimer and Smith 2016, Pilecki and Hammack, 2014). Given this context, and using the Netherlands as a case, this paper explores how polarisation manifests in schools to gain a better understanding of what can be done through education to prevent polarisation.

Theory: a perspective on polarisation

Based on notions of othering, normal complexity and diversity (as specified below), I define polarisation, as the process – at the level of whole societies or larger communities – that drives groups apart and:

1. is marked by a perceived (increasing) sense of ‘us’ versus ‘them’, also called ‘othering’,

2. can be understood as a disbalance or salience of the ‘normal complexity’ of pluralistic societies, and which is

3. ‘fuelled’ by underlying turbulence of diversity and power differences.

Below, I elaborate these points which each add a different layer to this understanding of polarisation. After this I will address Lyotard’s point that a fundamental problem of pluralistic societies is that they lack some sort of universal vocabulary through which potential conflicts and discussion about common interests can be addressed. I end this section by explaining how, given this perspective on polarisation, an interactive, ‘in situ’ or everyday perspective on polarisation can provide insight into its dynamics.

Othering as the marker of polarisation

Çelik, Bilali, and Iqbal (2017) define othering as the primary psychological and socio-interactive marker of polarisation. Othering is the process by which us/them distinctions are made, both at an interpersonal and intergroup level, by increasing feelings of non-identification with the ‘other’ group. Distinctions can be made based on, for example, real or imagined cultural, socio-economic, religious, or moral boundaries. It is important to realise that othering, like the concept of ethnicity, is not related to difference ‘as such’, but to the interactive making of difference (see for example, Haan de and Leander, 2011). As social identity theory argues, identity formation processes always occur in relation to some specific out-group (Tajfel and Turner 1979, Abrams, Lalot, and Hogg 2021). Theories of othering, that come from feminism, post-colonial theory, and psycho-analysis (Jensen 2011), make the additional point that ‘the other’ is constructed in relation to a dominant, normative self. As such and by definition, othering points to the underlying power dynamics inherent in demarcations between self and other. Since the other exists ‘against’ a particular normative identity such as male, white, or the West, there is always a problematic connotation to this othering that might include a form of delegitimating. Such delegitimating might again go together with stereotyping, prejudice or discrimination (Çelik, Bilali, and Iqbal 2017).

Polarization as disbalance or salience of the ‘normal complexity’

Identifying othering as one of the foundations of polarisation implies that polarisation is about perceived difference. One could argue that, in line with the notion of ‘identity salience’ (Hurtado et al. 2011), there is something like perceived ‘polarisation salience’. Whereas ‘identity salience’ means that certain elements of one’s individual identity can become cognitively central, in the process of polarisation, inter-identifications can also become more visible, and become the carrier of already existing contradictions or agonies. The circumstances under which already existing contradictions become salient are, for instance, violent attacks or politicised debates involving and representing the respective groups (Hochshild, 2016). Recent examples of such saliences are the current political polarisation in America (Hochshild, 2016, Druckman et al. 2021) or the increasing anxiety between Muslim populations and non-Muslim populations after international terrorism in Europe (Albada, Hansen, and Otten 2021). Others have argued that polarisation might intensify when differences in a society increasingly align along a single dimension, ‘aligning otherwise unrelated divisions, emasculating cross-cutting cleavages, and dividing society and politics into separate, opposing, and unyielding blocks’ (McCoy et al. 2018, 18). Or that polarisation worsens when ‘middle grounds’ disappear: those spaces where opposing voices can meet and struggle for their viewpoints and construct mediating relationship to keep conflicts manageable and avoid more severe opposition (Kuper 1977).

Polarization as driven by the ‘turbulence of diversity’

Other than explaining the ‘salience’ of existing differences or fluctuations in its perception, a more fundamental question is what drives polarisation in the first place. The vision I defend here postulates that polarisation is part of the ‘normal complexity’ which is inherent in pluralistic societies that represent diverse groups (McCoy et al. 2018). This notion acknowledges the fact that there is always a potential disharmony and that balancing is a necessary and ongoing process that requires effort.

By default, pluralistic societies get defined by the so called ‘turbulence of diversity’ – the underlying tensions that living with diversity creates and which constantly need to be addressed. These tensions are fuelled by at least two different issues. First, pluralistic societies accommodate different subgroups that might in part inhabit different ‘life worlds’, that is, the way they understand and talk about the world might be particularistic, which can in turn produce different versions of ‘the truth’. As Papastergiadis (2000) argues, confronting such differences in a dialogue can only result in a partial translation of the truth of the other. It is this imperfect translation from (and to) the life world of the other that causes instability while this diversity is constantly reproduced in different ways. As Papastergiadis says: ‘Identity is constituted through the oscillations between what can and what cannot be translated across difference. Translation is always an encounter with the resistance of the untranslatable’ (139). A second problem faced by pluralistic societies and that fuels polarisation is that these confrontations happen in political contexts infused with power dynamics. Mouffe (1999) has argued that differences are often the product of subordination and produce an ongoing ‘agony’ which needs to be confronted in the political domain. These power dynamics might concern majority-minority relationships, socio-economic differences, or other group relationships characterised by unequal power positions. Such disharmonies and power differences need to be constantly confronted and ‘domesticated’ and are, in fact, a part of healthy modern democracies (Mouffe 1999).

The lack of a universal language of judgement

This imperfection in the ability to translate leads to a fundamental problem for pluralistic societies as they, as Lyotard (1988) argues, lack a universal vocabulary or instrument of communication through which potential conflicts and the discussion of common interests can be addressed. An implication of this view is that the ‘turbulence of diversity’ which drives polarisation cannot be addressed in any universal, rational, univocal or neutral way. Papastergiadis (2000), partly based on Lyotard, calls this the limits of equal representation. In some conflicts there is no rule of judgement or system to sort out conflicts since rules cannot be applied equally to the arguments of both parties given their different logics, rationalities (Papastergiadis 2000) or power differences (Mouffe 1999). If such a rule is lacking, we must speak of a ‘differend’ (Lyotard 1988). According to Lyotard, a differend is ‘a case of conflict, between (at least) two parties, that cannot be equitably resolved for lack of a rule of judgement applicable to both arguments’ (Lyotard 1988, xi, cited in Peter 2006, 313). Lyotard describes the failure to use (common) language in the case of a differend as: ‘…the unstable state and instant of language wherein something which must be able to be put into phrases cannot yet be … the human beings who thought they could use language as an instrument of communication, learn through the feeling of pain which accompanies silence (and of pleasure which accompanies the invention of a new idiom’ (1988, 13). According to Lyotard, lacking a meta level principle, our only option is to play out such differends at the level of local confrontations, ‘as forms of customary, cultural or ethnic knowledge – a ‘knowing how’, “knowing how to live: and ‘knowing how to listen’’ (in Peter 2006, 309).

The ‘everyday’ polarisation in schools

Following up on Lyotard’s and Mouffe’s idea of the importance of the local level of confrontations, and in line with studies that have argued the importance of a local and everyday perspective on peace-making and reconciliation (Mac Ginty, 2014, Charalambous, Zembylas, and Charalambous 2020), my aim here is to provide more insight into the everyday of polarisation in schools. Although processes such as polarisation (just as reconciliation and peace-making) are usually treated as a socio-political project at the macro-level of societies, they are also played out, held intact, etc. in everyday encounters. As Mac Ginty (2014) argues, there is a local, every day and agency dimension to deeply divided societies that relates to people’s routine practices in navigating such divides. People develop routines and coping mechanisms in such situations such as the avoidance of contentious subjects in the company of the other or maintaining certain ambiguities to conceal identities or opinions. Shedding more light on the everyday dimensions of divided societies could reveal significant mechanisms, obstacles, and contradictions that keep such divides intact, as well as ways to open them up. As Charalambous, Zembylas, and Charalambous (2020) state, a perspective that looks at those tensions and divides ‘in situ’, and at how such tensions are negotiated in concrete interactions, helps to pay attention to the tensions, paradoxes, resistances, and the potentially contradictory meanings that are given to these tensions, paradoxes etc. by local actors.

In this paper my aim is to shed light on the interactive, everyday nature of polarisation, particularly in the contexts of schools. My goal is to understand the role dialogue (or lack of it) plays in keeping in place everyday polarisations, with the final goal of creating knowledge about how dialogical spaces can be designed to find openings to counter polarisation. In order to reach this goal, I studied round table conversations between secondary schools teachers in the Netherlands. These conversations were directed at the analyses of the increasing polarisation in their schools that represent both minority and majority students. My ‘first level’ questions were: ‘How do secondary school teachers understand polarisation?’, ‘Who are the groups involved in polarisation according to these teachers?’ and, ‘What are the root causes of polarisation according to these teachers?’. However, since I was dealing with interactive data, and given that in the conversations not one univocal answer was given to these questions, I added a ‘second level’ of questions that, in line with the research goal to understand the everyday nature of polarisation, focused on the interactive dynamics between the parties involved in the conversation. These second level questions were: what were the different perspectives represented in the conversation about who are the groups involved in polarisation, and the, according to these groups, underlying roots of polarisation? And, what can be said about the dynamics between these perspectives while they are interactively brought into conversation with each other?

Research methodology

This research is part of a project in which researchers worked together with the municipality and school boards of a large city in the Netherlands to find solutions to prevent further polarisation in the city’s schools. The organisation of round tables, which provided the data for this study, was the first step in the project. The round tables were designed to reach agreement on the problem, the underlying causes, and possible directions for action.

Participants and data processing

The round tables took place in the university buildings. All city secondary schools were invited to send representatives. The round tables were primarily focused on teachers, but school principals were also invited. Two different round tables were organised, and each had three sessions. Nineteen professionals participated of whom 18 were teachers and one was a school principal. These 19 participants came from 10 different schools (from a potential pool of 28 schools). Although we did not ask the teachers to provide their background data, they represented a large variety of schools, both in terms of the kind of school tracks they represented (school ‘tracks’ represent different school levels in the Netherlands) as well in terms of the student background of the schools (see Table 1 for details). The participating schools ranged from ‘elite’ schools with almost only majority (‘native Dutch’) students, to schools with both minority (students with an ‘immigrant background’) and majority student populations and schools with almost exclusively minority students. Although terms such as ‘majority’, ‘minority’ and ‘migration background’ are highly debated in the Netherlands – especially the question of the point at which a citizen with a migration background should (cease to) be associated with that background – these terms continue to be used in the everyday discourse of the schools involved in the study. I continue to use this terminology to enable the reader to understand how these terms were used in the data from the study. Furthermore, for the understanding of the result section, it is important to know that minority students and teachers were mostly also identified and self-identified as students/teachers with a Muslim background. Although most of the teachers came from a majority background, teachers with a minority background were represented in all the round tables. In addition, five researchers, on average two researchers per round table participated (see Table 1). The author participated as one of the researchers. The researchers had facilitating roles (e.g., conversation leaders, note takers), introduced the topic, made sure that all participants were given a turn, asked clarifying questions, and provided summaries, but did not engage in the discussion ‘itself’. Examples of questions asked include: ‘What is the situation in your school given the topic of this round table?’ ‘What initiatives do you take as teacher to address this situation?’. Participants were eager to contribute to the conversation by providing their insights, analyses, views and opinions and the atmosphere was constructive (in so far as the researchers were able to assess). The round table dialogues were audio recorded with the written informed consent of the participants. The dialogues lasted 1.5 hour per round and were transcribed verbatim. The research was carried out with the permission of the Faculty Ethics Review Board of Utrecht University, reference number 22–103.

Table 1. Who participated when & background characteristics participating schools.

Teacher x School	15/1	17/1	22/1	23/1	29/1	30/1	Background characteristics of participating schools
Teacher1SchoolA	15/1			23/1		30/1	SchoolA-multi-track-mostly majority students SchoolP-lower tracks-mostly minority students SchoolI-school for refugees students SchoolS-higher tracks-mostly majority students SchoolC-highest track-mostly majority students SchoolT-multi-track-mostly minority students SchoolR-multi-track including highest track-mixed minority-majority student population SchoolL-multi-track-including highest track-mixed minority-majority student population SchoolK-lower track-mostly minority students SchoolB-multi-track-including highest track-mixed minority-majority student population SchoolG-lower track, mixed minority-majority student population
Teacher2SchoolA	15/1			23/1		30/1
Teacher1SchoolP	15/1		22/1		29/1
Teacher1SchoolI	15/1		22/1		29/1
Teacher1SchoolS	15/1
Teacher2SchoolS	15/1
Teacher1SchoolC	15/1					30/1
Teacher1SchoolT	15/1			23/1
Teacher2SchoolT	15/1				29/1
Teacher1SchoolR	15/1
Teacher2School R	15/1				29/1
Teacher1SchoolL	15/1		22/1		29/1
Researcher1	15/1	17/1	22/1	23/1	29/1	30/1
Researcher2	15/1					30/1
Researcher3	15/1		22/1
Researcher4	15/1		22/1		29/1	30/1
Teacher 2SchoolL		17/1		23/1
Teacher1SchoolK		17/1				30/1
Teacher1SchoolB		17/1	22/1		29/1
Teacher2SchoolB		17/1		23/1		30/1
Teacher2SchoolI		17/1		23/1		30/1
Researcher5		17/1
Researcher6		17/1		23/1
Teacher1School G			22/1		29/1
Researcher 7			22/1
Teacher3School A				23/1
Teacher3School G				23/1
Researcher8				23/1

Analyses

As explained in the introduction, I analysed conversations on polarisation between teachers in order to understand how ‘polarisation’ was experienced, defined, and understood by secondary school teachers in the Netherlands. Analysing these conversations as interactive data, in which participants took turns in a dialogue, enabled me to access the interactively organised nature of polarisation. The fact that the teachers in this study identified differently with the groups that according to them were involved in ‘polarisation’ (which, as we shall see below, is primarily associated according to them with a divide between the majority and the minority populations), and started to defend these positions in the conversation, allowed me to study polarisation as a ‘micro cosmos’. Although overall teachers who identified as minority in the conversation, also defended a minority position in the conversation (and vice versa for the majority teachers), this correspondence was not absolute. Therefore, in the analyses, I will not focus on who (which participant) identified with which position but direct my analyses to how minority and majority perspectives related and developed in the conversation. My focus is not just on describing the difference between these positions, but mostly on how these positions created tensions and incongruencies when they were ‘acted out’ in concrete interactions. This perspective allowed me to create insight into the re-active and dynamic nature of polarisation.

In other words, my purpose has been to understand how societal divides are evoked and expressed interactively in communication between participants, as well as how these relate to societal contexts, perspectives, repertoires, power differences, histories, etc. ‘elsewhere’. The approach was inspired by critical discourse analyses (Fairclough 2001), which asks that attention is paid to how distinctions, perspectives, and power relations that are also present elsewhere in societies are evoked, represented, and reconstructed through dialogue. In addition, the analysis is inspired by linguistic ethnography, which implies an awareness that meaning making takes shape ‘within specific social relations, interactional histories and institutional regimes, produced and construed by agents with expectations and repertoires’ (Rampton 2007, 585). Both are essential in making the link between understanding polarisation as a societal divide and its everyday interactive manifestation.

In line with the explanation of polarisation in the introduction, ‘othering’, or ‘us-them’ distinctions that were made by participants in the conversations were taken as the starting point for the analyses. Every occasion on which one of the participants mentioned a distinction between ‘self’ and ‘other’ was registered as an ‘us-them’ distinction. Next, it was noted which groups were involved in these ‘us-them’ distinctions. For instance, when someone said ‘students from a lower socio-economic background hardly communicate with these rich kids’ the us-them distinction was ‘students with low socio-economic background versus rich students’. In line with how othering was defined, only us-them distinctions that the participants considered problematic were considered.

Taking these us-them distinctions as a starting point for our analyses, and in line with the definition of polarisation as laid out in the introduction, the underlying roots of polarisation were registered for each us-them distinction as they were described by the participants, paying attention to what participants gave as reasons for the polarisation. Lastly, we mapped indications of the salience of polarisation, when they were mentioned by the participants, mostly related to indications of how recent the phenomenon of polarisation was or the context in which polarisation became salient.

Next, in line with an interactive perspective on the ‘everyday’ of polarization, the analyses focused on how the interactions between the participants revealed potential differences in perspective on polarization, how different perspectives were juxta-positioned and what kinds of tensions and coping mechanisms such juxta-positioning would create ‘in situ’.

In the results section below I start to answer the ‘first level’ questions addressing these ‘us-them’ demarcation points ‘themselves’ in the section On Othering; Who is ‘Us-Them’? I then continue with the underlying roots of polarization according to the participants in the section What is the turbulence of polarization? Underlying roots of polarization according to majority and minority perspectives.

Continuing with the ‘second level’ questions in which my aim was to study polarisation as a micro cosmos, in the section Is this a ‘genuine’ dialogue? I focus more explicitly on how the variety of root causes brought into the conversation were positioned in relation to one another. Are they brought into dialogue with each other? Or do they fail to enter into a ‘genuine’ dialogue in which partners acknowledge each other’s positions and react on each others’ claims?

Results

On othering: who is ‘us-them’?

In terms of what us-them distinctions were placed in the conversations, the overall distinction between the (‘white’) majority versus and the minority (‘migration background’) group was the distinction that prevailed. Not only was this distinction the one that was mentioned most often (see Table 2) but, as a topic, it was also central to the argumentation and the conversations. While researchers were careful to not specify polarisation, an example of this distinction was the following: at the start of the round tables, teachers were invited to provide an account of whether polarisation was an issue at their school and if so, what their understanding of it was. In excerpt 1, a teacher responds to this invitation, making a distinction between ‘children from a different background’ and the undefined ‘rest’. These ‘children from a different background’ were located mostly in the big cities and formed an increasingly large part of the student population of this school. The teacher stated that ‘they’ formed a separate group and ‘they’ feel not represented, which is a problem that he wants to address.

Table 2. Overview of us-them distinctions made in the round tables.

‘Us-them’ distinctions	Amount of times an us-them distinction was related to majority/minority relations in the data set (absolute numbers)	% relative to the total amount of us-them distinctions.
Majority versus minority students/teachers/population	49	63
Other kind of us-them distinctions: Majority category versus ‘the rest’: Stupid, blond students versus ‘the rest’ Different minority categories: Students with a migration background who do not conform with Dutch customs and those that are willing to do so Minority/majority overarching categories: Students from poorer neighbourhoods versus students from well off neighbourhoods	29	37
Total us/them distinctions in all round tables	78	100

Excerpt 1: us-them-2018-01-17-2

I think, since about 10 years ago, we have a big influx of children from the city. Before, we were a school [that attracted children] from the surrounding villages. And I noticed that in our school these children with a different background, especially in grade 4 and 5 (students aged 15–17 years), form a separate group within our school. And [name of city area] is a rather chic neighbourhood, and I think that a part of these students do not feel represented in our school. (Teacher 1, School B)

The relevance of the divide that this teacher raised was not a point of disagreement between the participants at the round table. However, the divide was reframed in several different ways, that is, by applying different kinds of othering including ‘children of a different background’, also called ‘students with a migration background’, ‘students with a Muslim background’, ‘students that were less successful at school’, ‘students that were given fewer opportunities on the labour market’, ‘students that were discriminated against’, and ‘students that do not identify with the Netherlands’. All these identifications were implicitly or explicitly contrasted with those students that did not fall into these categories. From this reframing of the same divide in their student population with multiple forms of othering it was obvious that, according to the participants, the divide was held together by more than one dimension. This is illustrated by excerpt 2, in which a teacher from the same school continued the conversation four minutes after the teacher in the first excerpt. This teacher pointed to the fact that these children were ‘Moroccan’ and that they performed poorly in school. Therefore, these children were all getting extra educational support and this was why the students themselves called it the ‘Moroccan after-school class’.

Excerpt 2: us-them-2018-01-17–3

[They] call themselves the Moroccan class. And then I say, come on, come on. And then they say, ‘but Miss, look’. Yes, this is a form of polarisation. […] [the existence of] different groups becomes suddenly clear in a painful way, because these are children that do well at primary school and they all run into problems of status. (Teacher 2, School B)

While in excerpt 2 the teacher downplays her students’ self-assigned coincidence of divides between them and their fellow students (as she says to them, ‘come on, come on’), she acknowledges in the round table that the way these different divides coincide (ethnic, school success and status) is a form of polarisation. Lack of school success, ethnic identity and lack of status create divisions between various different factors. With her final remark she suggests that this is no coincidence but needs to be seen as a form of systematic segregation, of which perhaps the school is also responsible.

Although the minority/majority divide was the one referred to almost two third of the times when us-them statements were made (see Table 2), the participants also brought in other us-them distinctions. However, these other us-them distinctions can be seen as commentaries on the main majority-minority divide which was the centre of attention. For instance, once the distinction between Muslim students and other students had been made, teachers argued that Christian students were also religious students. Or they would state that among the Muslim students were those who believed in conspiracy theories and those who did not. These other us-them distinctions cannot, therefore, be interpreted as new distinctions, but rather as reactive to the dominant divide in the conversation. In fact, they might be read as unsuccessful conversational attempts to move away from this divide.

In the next section, I delve deeper into what participants saw as the root causes of polarisation, while paying attention to how majority and minority positions represented in the conversation might differ in this respect. As already indicated in the method section, I only pay attention to how the minority and majority viewpoints were represented in discourse, and not to how (particular groups of) participants identified with one or the other viewpoint.

What is the turbulence of polarisation? Underlying roots of polarisation according to majority and minority perspectives

Although not all us-them distinctions were presented within a particular time frame, the most frequent context in which participants mentioned an increase in polarisation were either the increased international tensions relating to the terrorist attacks in Europe or the war in Syria, or the fact that the composition of their school had changed with more diverse groups coming in (as expressed in excerpt 1, above). The fact that the composition of their schools had changed, was however not the main problem according to the participants. It was rather their capacity to deal with difference that had changed and was causing them problems.

There was a striking difference between how, from the minority perspective, the root cause of polarisation was approached versus to how this was done from a majority perspective. Overall, the minority position was reportedly that the divide between both groups was brought about by the discrimination and prejudice against minorities by the majority population, as well as a lack of opportunities to participate. The majority position reported overall was that the minority was not well adapted to ‘the’ cultural codes and did not want to cooperate when it came to the preferred strategy to address a problem between them, such as having a ‘decent’ conversation. These positions and some of the dynamics between them are illustrated in excerpts 3 and 4 (below) and were consistently present throughout the data.

In another round table the first ‘us-them’ distinction was marked by a teacher working for a school with almost only students with a migration background. As excerpt 3 shows, this teacher stated that us-them distinctions came into being on social media when ‘they’ (majority) wrote about ‘us’ (minorities) after ‘something happened’ which minorities has been accused of. At the time the round tables were held (early 2018), ‘events’ were understood in the context of the terrorist attacks in Europe and the war in Syria. According to this teacher, us-them thinking is triggered by a bias against minorities (as minorities are associated with the ‘events’) and such us-them distinctions are then enlarged by the dynamics on social media and in the public domain (the teacher called this ‘the street’). This eventually resulted in minorities seeing majorities as the enemy, and as ‘also bad’ which then again resulted in minorities feeling excluded, being seen as ‘allochthonous’. Allochthonous (in Dutch ‘allochtoon’), which literarily means ‘not from here’, is a term that is used to refer to outsiders; those that do not belong here or those who are not Dutch (Wekker 2016).

Excerpt 3: us-them-2018-15-01-1

Often, I see students [who] watch a lot on social media and read a lot of reactions. And about this ‘us-them’, and, they write this about us, and that about us. And when something happens, they are very concerned, which makes this ‘us-them’ even bigger, and they will then also behave like that on the streets. So, then when they see someone that is not like them, they see those people as the enemy. Yes, and they see them also as bad. So, they have the feeling when they walk in the streets that they are really seen as immigrant [literally she says: as ‘allochthonous’]. (Teacher, School T)

About one minute later, in the same conversation, a teacher from a school with a mixed majority-minority population reacted on the theme of an ‘us-them’ distinction from a very different perspective as can be seen in excerpt 4. This teacher did this while sharing an incident that had happened the previous year in her school in which two boys from Dutch-Moroccan descent acted aggressively against a concierge [caretaker] when they were punished, claiming that they were being punished for being Moroccan. The teacher expressed her disapproval with the victim role that these boys adopted asking herself how she can keep the conversation about such incidents going with these boys and also accuses the boys of refusing to engage in a respectful dialogue with her.

Excerpt 4: us-them-2018-15-01-1

Well, about this us-them thing, ehm, last year, I was specifically shocked about this in terms of statements made by eh ehm, two Moroccan boys. That they really, like, but you, and we are always the victim, but really like in terms of we Moroccans and you white people. […]

You know, if you do not agree with each other is one thing, but we should in any case be respectful towards each other and attempt to understand each other. (Teacher, School A)

Is this a ‘genuine’ dialogue?

Making use of these two examples (3 and 4), I argue that they both ignore, silence or de-legitimise each other, and are therefore ‘non-dialogical’. The minority position, as voiced in excerpt 3, is that the minority is unfairly associated with violence, with the enemy, and is therefore excluded, or othered. This othering is, in their view, the main problem. This claim of being a victim of the majority was then de-legitimised from a majority perspective by stating that the othering, as voiced by the minority, was shocking and out of place (‘I was specifically shocked about this in terms of statements made by eh ehm, two Moroccan boys’). The majority position, as voiced in excerpt 4, that the minority does not want to comply with the rules to overcome conflict (‘[we should] attempt to understand each other’) and does not obey the rules of a decent conversation. This so-called reasonability and adaptability discourse of the majority is rejected by the minority position by stating that they are excluded from such a discourse in the first place.

The way these positions were brought into conversation with each other demonstrates that they do not follow the same logic and cannot be judged against each other according to the same regime of judgements. On the one hand, the discrimination discourse of the minority is de-legitimised by the majority’s discourse that stresses the need to be reasonable, the need to adapt, and importance of engaging in a ‘decent’ dialogue. On the other hand, the reasonableness and adaptability discourse of the majority was de-legitimised by the minority position that claimed they were not included in the conversation to start with. Therefore, although each discourse ‘reacts’ to the other, and perhaps even fuel each other, they also delegitimize and exclude each other.

Different norms on how to address polarisation

Apart from the fact that minority and majority discourses on polarisation exclude one another to some extent, these discourses also represented different norms about how polarisation should be addressed. This difference referred both to how explicit us-them distinctions can be talked about, as well as to the role dialogue should play in the repair of polarisation.

While the majority position was that any ‘us-them’ polarisation should not be stated publicly, this was something that the minority position felt needed to be held up to the light (as in excerpt 3). Excerpt 5 illustrates the reluctance to mention us-them distinctions from a majority perspective. This teacher is reacting to a statement made by a colleague from another school with mostly minority students stating that students were just ‘rough’ and clear about ‘us-them’ distinctions using terms as ‘Dutch’ and ‘Moroccan’ explicitly. In this example students asked: ‘Miss, why do I need to work with those Dutch students?’. The teacher in excerpt 5, from school B, makes the opposite statement when she explains that these ‘decent’ white kids in her school know that, according to the rules of the white majority, you cannot just name these us-them distinctions. She assumes that her students are likely to be aware of these distinctions and the associated feelings but keep them under the surface.

Excerpt 5 us-them-2018-17-01-6

These very decent white kids in our school, with almost all white teachers, that also know, you cannot say (these things) out and loud. So perhaps these sentiments, that come out in your school directly, might be there under the surface. (Teacher 2, school B)

Such differences about how to address the underlying tensions between the two positions was also present in the role ‘dialogue’ should play in sorting things out (as already shown in excerpt 4). This difference surfaced mostly in relation to so-called controversial issues. Whereas minorities would want to push the us-them distinctions into the open, majorities wanted to address them in dialogue. Controversial issues often related to clashes about what was culturally acceptable. Sexual diversity was one of these topics; while the majority teachers wanted to stimulate an open conversation on this theme, it was met with resistance and reserve by minority students and teachers. This is illustrated in excerpt 6 in which a teacher from a majority background who teaches at a school with mostly minority students shares how she tried to give a lesson about sexual diversity. She was confronted with severe resistance from both students and colleagues with Muslim backgrounds who did not think a lesson about sexual diversity was necessary. She explained that she forced a dialogue about the topic both with the students and her colleagues (‘I really want to you to try harder for this’), which she described as ‘hard work’.

Excerpt 6: us-them-2018-15-01-23

Yes, I saw a student struggle with this lesson. […]

I did have the idea that I needed to have that dialogue with a number of colleagues, because they asked me why do we need to teach this’ […]

… I really want you to try harder for this, so that the students can see that we can all just talk to each other, but yes, it was certainly hard work for everyone. (Teacher, School T)

As both excerpts 5 and 6 indicate, minorities and majorities had different ideas about what should be on the agenda, what should be discussed, and what should be left untouched and preferably hidden. Such differences in what should be addressed and what should be hidden, formed another element of the non-dialogical nature of the process, and indeed, the polarisation itself.

Discussion and conclusion

In this discussion, I would like to reiterate my intention to develop a perspective on the everyday nature of polarisation and to show how, from such a perspective, we can gain insight into the phenomenon of polarisation more broadly. I do this in three steps. First, I demonstrate how polarisation at a societal level is also represented in everyday conversations. Second, I argue that polarisation can be visible in everyday interactive processes and their dynamics. In particular, and making use of Lyotard’s notion of a differend, I show that such conversations are ‘non-dialogical’ in multiple ways. Finally, I reflect on how a perspective of the everyday nature of polarisation is adding to current approaches to polarisation and how this can be useful for the design of interventions to tackle polarisation.

Existing discourses of polarisation and corresponding divides

My first point is that this study contributes to a perspective on polarisation arguing that, at a societal level, polarisation is represented and visible in everyday conversations. As well as being able to read the data from the perspective of what teachers say about polarisation, they can also be read to think about how teachers represent and act out the polarisation that they talk about. When teachers engage in dialogue with each other, they are actors in the reconstruction of the different positions they bring to the conversation. Following such a perspective, the results of this study can be seen as a ‘micro cosmos’ of the polarisation that takes place in society at large. Recognition of this sort of connection between talk at a micro level and larger social structures has been argued for by critical discourse analysts who believe that language is an irreducible part of social life and dialectically interconnected with social life more generally (Fairclough 1992, 2001). According to this perspective, analysis always finds itself caught between the level of concrete texts and the ‘order of discourse’, as Fairclough calls it. In Fairclough’s terminology, the analysis moves between the relatively durable structuring of language and the relatively durable structuring of social practice. By applying this to polarisation, we can say that through the analysis of concrete conversations, we are approaching ‘the order of discourse’ of polarisation that is both a momentary representation and reworking of some sort of polarisation practice. Given the nature of polarisation, this ‘order of discourse’ consists of multiple, and often opposing voices which are already out there in some other form. Our findings showed that the participants indeed took advantage of the existing discourses of polarisation and corresponding divides. The claims made and explanations given for polarisation were not particularly new, and represented familiar arguments and positions that can also be found in, for instance, the Dutch media or public discourse about polarisation. Charalambous, Zembylas, and Charalambous (2020) have already argued that it is difficult to move beyond existing discourses of polarisation, and this aspect of our data confirms this.

The non-dialogical nature of minority and majority discourse

My second point is that the data revealed something about polarisation that is not readily observable elsewhere but becomes particularly visible when studying it through language and interaction. In other words, the study supported the claim that polarisation can become visible in the everyday interactive processes and their dynamics. When we assume that polarisation of society at large is visible in everyday conversations, what did this study reveal about the dynamics that either hold polarisation in place, or perhaps provide openings for new dynamics?

We introduced polarisation as a shift in salience of us-them distinctions as related to some form of delegitimating. Underlying such delegitimizing of the other lie all kinds of social and cultural processes that we have termed ‘the turbulence of diversity’. This turbulence basically stands for how different groups compete with each other to address their interests according to their own heterogenous logics, logics which are only partly translatable to each other.

Lyotard's notion of a ‘differend’, as explained in the introduction of this paper, can illustrate such heterogeneity and in particular how it hinders dialogicality. His insights into the heterogeneity of narratives and the different rules of judgement that follow this heterogeneity are useful tools for understanding how the majority and minority viewpoints in this study were radically non-dialogical when they engaged in conversation with each other. The rest of my second point must be read therefore, as an account of the different ways in which the conversation between a majority and minority discourses in this study are ‘non-dialogical’.

Ideological discrepancies as the driver of a differend

In what follows I argue how slightly different forms of ‘differends’ that we found in our analyses show the non-dialogical nature of these conversations and also point to how such a ‘differend’ plays out in interactive dynamics. In the first kind of ‘differend’ that we found in the conversations the ideological discrepancy was most prominent. The teachers often raised such ideological differences as problematic and a reason for polarisation. In excerpt 6 we gave an example of an ideological difference. The teacher in excerpt 6 defended a ‘liberal’ viewpoint on sexual diversity against one in which such diversity was rejected and that we termed ‘conservative’. This can be called an ideologically driven ‘differend’. From a liberal viewpoint, people with different kinds of sexual identities have the same status. Therefore, the rejection of the concept of sexual diversity attacks their idea of equality. From a conservative viewpoint, sexual identities are not equal as they are judged against a higher order religious principle. As a result, while one party addresses the issue from a discourse of equality, the other party addresses it from a religious discourse. This discrepancy means that they were applying different rules to their judgements about ways address the conflict. This situation created a further tension with respect to how and whether this issue should be addressed in the public domain of the school. Again, this demonstrates how closely ideological disparity is related to the different forms of interactive legitimation one might make to support one’s position. While it was in the interest of the liberal viewpoint to push a dialogue about the recognition of diversity, it seemed in the interest of the conservative-religious driven viewpoint not to engage in that debate positioning the topic as ‘not up for dialogue’, or non-dialogical. Therefore, these examples must, not only be seen in terms of incommensurability or heterogeneity but, in line with Lyotard, they must also be seen from the perspective of a game played to defend oneself, or to claim control. As Lyotard says ‘To speak is to fight, in the sense of playing, and speech acts fall within the domain of a general agonistics’ (Lyotard, 1984, 10, as cited in Peter 2006, 311). This point relates to our second type of differend.

Different narratives of justice as the driver of a differend

A second type of ‘differend’ was present in the opposing discourses around who is to blame for polarisation. According to the majority perspective, the main problem was the minorities’ lack of identification with the Netherlands and their reluctance to conform either to cultural norms or ideologies ‘themselves’, or to the terms under which such differences of opinion could be restored (e.g., their refusal to have a ‘decent conversation’ about what went wrong after the incident in the school with the concierge). However, according to the minority viewpoint, the lack of acknowledgement by the majority along with subtle and not so subtle discrimination was the main problem. Here again the taken positions could not be addressed using the same logics or addressed and solved in terms of the system of justice of the other. A claim to discrimination cannot be properly addressed in a logic of adjustment and a claim for adjustment cannot be properly addressed in a logic of discrimination. Instead, both discourses hold each other captive as each delegitimizes the other using their own logic of justice. It is as easy to continue to claim that aggressively protesting against discrimination is not civilised or adapted as it is to continue claiming that assertions of not being civilised are clearly discriminative. This kind of ‘differend’ does not rest primarily on ideological difference but suffers from mutually circular blaming and delegitimizing and a disagreement about the key narrative of justice. This is another way in which these conversations were non-dialogical, which was also clear from the fact that there was no discussion about how these two regimes should be weighted.

Different norms about how to talk about polarisation as the driver of a differend

In addition to these two kinds of ‘differends’ that each created their own non-dialogue, there was a third way in which these conversations were non-dialogical. This third aspect related to what was appropriate in talking about polarisation, in particular, as it related to naming and pointing to distinctions. As our analyses demonstrated, according to the participants, minorities have an interest in bringing these distinctions to the fore, mostly in the context of victimhood, while majorities seem to think it is not politically correct to point at this distinction at all. Parties thus disagreed about where the problem was supposed to live under the surface, and where above it.

To sum up my second point, the study of polarisation at the level of a concrete conversation provides insights into how polarised positions and controverses are kept intact. The analyses showed how these positions were non-dialogical in particular ways. It became clear how familiar explanations of polarisation were juxtaposed but not addressed, confronted but not resolved, made visible but then resisted, voiced but then silenced. It became clear how these opposing viewpoints are not ‘just’ different from each other but also produce obstacles for dialogue in situations of polarisation.

The study of polarisation at the level of everyday interactions

A third point that needs to be addressed is ‘representativity’. Can something more general be said about the (non)dialogical nature of polarisation beyond the particular dynamics of polarisation in the Netherlands? The fact that our analyses confirmed some of the characteristics of polarisation in the Netherlands, such as a focus on minority-majority opposition and controversies related to Islam as others have also noted (Kleiwegt 2016, Verloove et al. 2020, Albada, Hansen, and Otten 2021) does not imply that the issues discussed are thematically representative.

However, the results, and in particular what was revealed about the non-dialogical nature of these positions, show why some of these well-known positions and oppositions are difficult to address in dialogue in this specific context. At such a concrete level the study does not reveal much about polarisation in other regions of the world. However, in line with Mac Ginty’s (2014) concept of everyday peace, and Charalambous’s et al. (2020) related concept of everyday reconciliation, I believe that this study is justified and useful for the study of polarisation at the level of everyday interactions. The analyses of polarisation at the level of everday interactions allow us greater awareness of how specific positions can constrain or encourage a common vision of what a problem is, what hinders and could enable mutual understanding, and what stops parties from engaging in interactions to work on these problems. The concrete form of polarisation adopted in this study is only a casus to make this point.

I believe that Mac Ginty’s (2014) point that we need to draw attention away from the macro- or top-down level of the politics of peace and towards everyday peace, and Charalambous’s et al. (2020) point that looking at a ‘reconciliatory ethos’ can help people become aware of how specific actions and activities may constrain or encourage mutual understanding, can provide inspiration for how we understand and tackle polarisation. Shifting our attention to concrete practices of polarisation allows us to unravel the contradictions and impossibilities situated in concrete and everyday dialogue. This move will also help us pay attention to which contradictions and tensions need to be addressed to help teachers and developers of interventions address these points and push for their transformation in concrete classroom situations. Asking what useful points of entrance can be found for such interventions, based on these ideas, develops my final point.

Designing spaces for dialogue

In designing relevant interventions while taking into account the power differences that typified the dynamics of polarisation exemplified in this study, we can draw inspiration from Mary Louise Pratt’s (1992) notion of the ‘contact zone’. In particular, her idea that in contact zones marked by a level of agony and in which speaking is fighting, new forced forms of co-presence are created, and these open new ways to survive, resist, and reproduce the cultural order. However, such spaces will only be transformative, and not a reproduction of existing controversies, when certain conditions are met.

What conditions might schools need to create such spaces? First, such spaces should be experimental, or ‘dared spaces’ (Ponzoni, Ghorashi and Badran 2020), in which the rules for designing these spaces are open for discussion and the ‘blind spots’ of both parties are explored. Second, in line with Pratt (1992), it is important to pay attention to and manage the subtle mechanisms of resistance and cultural survival of the marginalised in front of those in power. Third, as Mouffe (1999) states, in such spaces we should not strive for complete consensus as this is a false ideal, but see the outcome of negotiations as the ‘result of a provisional hegemony’ while at the same time challenging such hegemonic realisations. Lastly, drawing upon the work of MacIntyre, and also in line with Lyotard’s vision that a meta language is not always present, in order to bridge particularistic and incommensurable rationalities of two or more parties, it is important to avoid one dominating vocabulary or rationality. According to MacIntyre (1987), a third language needs to be learned that is ‘equidistant from both, having no prior allegiance to either, and possessing the conceptual range to comprehend accurately and represent the two (or more) other competing languages’ (in Papastergiadis 2000, 154). In very practical terms, this means that alternative vocabularies are sometimes needed that are informed by the heterogeneity of those in conflict. These vocabularies can serve as alternatives for normative models and languages of mediation, which are self-evident to majorities, but experienced as imposed and oppressive by minorities. Examples of alternative vocabularies which might inspire dialogue and interaction with others are discourses of a common humanity and solidarity inspired by an ethos of respect for equal dignity (Council of Europe 2008). But such alternative languages can also rise from local confrontations and result of ‘“knowing how”, “knowing how to live” and “knowing how to listen”’ (Peter 2006, 309).

Finally, although the focus of this paper is the ‘risk side’ of diversity for a pluralistic society, I would like to end by saying that I believe strongly in the constructive, innovative potential for diverse groups coming together. As Wittgenstein has argued, we need a certain level of resistance and friction to be able to live (together): ‘We have got on the slippery ice where there is no friction and so in a certain sense the conditions are ideal, but also, just because of that, we are unable to walk: so we need friction. Back to the rough ground’ (Wittgenstein 1958, 146e). And, in line with Lyotard’s suggestion that legitimation between parties happens at the level of the confrontation between local narratives, the study of dialogue is a good place to seek out the equilibrium that we need as part of the ‘normal complexity’ inherent in pluralistic societies.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Koen Damhuis, Pomme van de Weerd, and Bjorn Wansink for their critical comments on the first draft of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).