SpringerLink
Log in

Getting Down in the Muck: Polarization and Online Debate

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fandom and Polarization in Online Political Discussion

Abstract

This chapter will set up the main argument of the book by outlining the problems with existing theoretical approaches to polarization in online discussion. It will argue the need to view polarization online beyond a problem caused by technological affordances and examine it holistically as an affective practice. The chapter will conclude by arguing for a conceptualisation of polarization that moves away from viewing this phenomenon as a difference between the policy positions of political parties or even purely an intense dislike of the opposing side. It will argue a different approach from the frame of rational deliberative discussion when examining online political discussion common on social media platforms and instead advocate for understanding polarization as an affective positioning which informs online commenting behaviour through its role in identity performance. It will argue that it is this method of understanding polarization that is more effective for examining its pervasiveness in the interactions of citizens on social media platforms such as Facebook, the central focus of this book

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 106.99
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 139.09
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
EUR 139.09
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Achen, Christopher H., and Larry M. Bartels. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, Princeton Studies in Political Behavior. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, Sara. 2014. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. 2nd ed. Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arceneaux, Kevin, and Martin Johnson. 2015. More a Symptom than a Cause. In American Gridlock: The Sources, Character, and Impact of Political Polarization, ed. James Thurber and Antoine Yoshinaka, 309–336. Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aslanidis, Paris. 2016. Is Populism an Ideology? A Refutation and a New Perspective. Political Studies 64 (1_suppl): 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bail, Christopher A., Lisa P. Argyle, Taylor W. Brown, John P. Bumpus, Haohan Chen, M.B. Fallin Hunzaker, Jaemin Lee, Marcus Mann, Friedolin Merhout, and Alexander Volfovsky. 2018. Exposure to Opposing Views on Social Media Can Increase Political Polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences—PNAS 115 (37): 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakshy, Eytan, Solomon Messing, and Lada A. Adamic. 2015. Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook. Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 348 (6239): 1130–1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barberá, Pablo. 2015. Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data. Political Analysis 23 (1): 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpu011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2020. Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization. Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform 34. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barberá, Pablo, John T. Jost, Jonathan Nagler, Joshua A. Tucker, and Richard Bonneau. 2015. Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber? Psychological Science 26 (10): 1531–1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, Renee. 2018. Uncovering Online Commenting Culture: Trolls, Fanboys and Lurkers. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barnidge, Matthew. 2017. Exposure to Political Disagreement in Social Media versus Face-to-Face and Anonymous Online Settings. Political Communication 34 (2): 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1235639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlant, Lauren. 2008. The Female Complaint. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822389163/HTML.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, Jeffrey M., and Sarah Sobieraj. 2013. The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility, Studies in Postwar American Political Development. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betz, Hans-Georg. 2002. Conditions Favoring the Success and Failure of Radical Right-Wing Populist Parties in Contemporary Democracies. In Democracies and the Populist Challenge, ed. Yves Meny and Yyes Surel, 197–213. Palgrave Macmillan UK.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bonikowski, Bart, and Noam Gidron. 2016. The Populist Style in American Politics: Presidential Campaign Discourse, 1952–1996. Social Forces 94 (4): 1593–1621. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sov120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • boyd, danah. 2010. Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, ed. Zizi Papacharissi, 9–58. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, Marilynn B. 2001. The Many Faces of Social Identity: Implications for Political Psychology. Political Psychology 22 (1): 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bright, Jonathan. 2018. Explaining the Emergence of Political Fragmentation on Social Media: The Role of Ideology and Extremism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 23 (1): 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmx002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, Axel. 2019. Are Filter Bubbles Real? Digital Futures Series. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandran, Nyshka. 2018. Obama to David Letterman: Media is Dividing Americans. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/12/former-president-barack-obama-warns-on-polarizing-media-us-electoral-system.html.

  • Chen, Gina M. 2017. Online Incivility and Public Debate: Nasty Talk. Springer International Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coe, Kevin, Kate Kenski, and Stephen A. Rains. 2014. Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments. Journal of Communication 64 (4): 658–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, Lincoln. 2001. Democracy via Cyberspace: Map** the Rhetorics and Practices of Three Prominent Camps. New Media and Society 3 (2): 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440122226038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, James N., Samara Klar, Yanna Krupnikov, Matthew Levendusky, and John Barry Ryan. 2021. Affective Polarization, Local Contexts and Public Opinion in America. Nature Human Behaviour 5 (1): 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01012-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engesser, Sven, Nayla Fawzi, and Anders Olof Larsson. 2017. Populist Online Communication: Introduction to the Special Issue. Information, Communication & Society 20 (9): 1279–1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeden, Michael. 2003. Ideology: A Very Short Introduction. Vol. 95. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freelon, Deen. 2010. Analyzing Online Political Discussion Using Three Models of Democratic Communication. New Media & Society 12 (7): 1172–1190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809357927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Discourse Architecture, Ideology, and Democratic Norms in Online Political Discussion. New Media & Society 17 (5): 772–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813513259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, A. 2011. Affect Theory and Audience. In The Handbook of Media Audiences, ed. Virginia Nightingale, 251–266. Maldon, MA: John Wiley & Sons.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauwaert, Steven M. Van, and Stijn Van Kessel. 2018. Beyond Protest and Discontent: A Cross-national Analysis of the Effect of Populist Attitudes and Issue Positions on Populist Party Support. European Journal of Political Research 57 (1): 68–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heatherly, Kyle A, Yanqin Lu, and Jae Kook Lee. 2016. Filtering out the Other Side? Cross-Cutting and like-Minded Discussions on Social Networking Sites. New Media & Society, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816634677.

  • Hsueh, Mark, Kumar Yogeeswaran, and Sanna Malinen. 2015. ‘Leave Your Comment Below’: Can Biased Online Comments Influence Our Own Prejudicial Attitudes and Behaviors? Human Communication Research 41 (4): 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, Shanto, and Kyu S. Hahn. 2009. Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use. Journal of Communication 59 (1): 19–39. https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/59/1/19/4098357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, Shanto, Yphtach Lelkes, Matthew Levendusky, Neil Malhotra, and Sean J. Westwood. 2019. The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science 22: 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juarez Miro, Clara. 2021. Who Are the People? Using Fandom Research to Study Populist Supporters. Annals of the International Communication Association 45 (1): 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karppinen, Kari. 2007. Against Naïve Pluralism in Media Politics: On the Implications of the Radical-Pluralist Approach to the Public Sphere. Media, Culture & Society 29 (3): 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443707076192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, Donald R., and Nathan P. Kalmoe. 2017. Neither Liberal nor Conservative. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klar, Samara. 2014. Partisanship in a Social Setting. American Journal of Political Science 58 (3): 687–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia. 2015. The Selective Exposure Self- and Affect-Management (SESAM) Model: Applications in the Realms of Race, Politics, and Health. Communication Research 42 (7): 959–985. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214539173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosloff, Spee, Jeff Greenberg, Toni Schmader, Mark Dechesne, and David Weise. 2010. Smearing the Opposition: Implicit and Explicit Stigmatization of the 2008 U.S. Presidential Candidates and the Current U.S. President. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 139 (3): 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, Ernesto. 1977. Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory: Capitalism, Fascism. NLB: Populism.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavine, Howard G., Christopher D. Johnston, and Marco R. Steenbergen. 2012. The Ambivalent Partisan: How Critical Loyalty Promotes Democracy. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lelkes, Yphtach. 2018. Affective Polarization and Ideological Sorting: A Reciprocal, Albeit Weak, Relationship. The Forum 16: 67–79. De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans, Chicago Studies in American Politics. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Why Do Partisan Media Polarize Viewers? American Journal of Political Science 57 (3): 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Ro’ee. 2021. Social Media, News Consumption, and Polarization: Evidence from a Field Experiment. American Economic Review 111 (3): 831–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchal, Nahema. 2022. ‘Be Nice or Leave Me Alone’: An Intergroup Perspective on Affective Polarization in Online Political Discussions. Communication Research 49 (3): 376–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211042516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, Lilliana. 2018a. Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities. Public Opinion Quarterly 82 (S1): 866–887. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018b. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Massaro, Toni M., and Robin Stryker. 2012. Freedom of Speech, Liberal Democracy, and Emerging Evidence on Civility and Effective Democratic Engagement. Arizona Law Review 54 (2): 375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcpherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27 (1): 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffitt, Benjamin. 2017. The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. On the Political. Thinking in Action. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. The Democratic Paradox. Radical Thinkers. London: Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, Cas. 2004. The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition (London) 39 (4): 541–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, Cas, and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser. 2018. Studying Populism in Comparative Perspective: Reflections on the Contemporary and Future Research Agenda. Comparative Political Studies 51 (13): 1667–1693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018789490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muddiman, Ashley, and Natalie Jomini Stroud. 2017. News Values, Cognitive Biases, and Partisan Incivility in Comment Sections. Journal of Communication 67 (4): 586–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukerjee, Subhayan, and Tian Yang. 2021. Choosing to Avoid? A Conjoint Experimental Study to Understand Selective Exposure and Avoidance on Social Media. Political Communication 38 (3): 222–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, Diana C. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Effects of ‘In-Your-Face’ Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition. The American Political Science Review 101 (4): 621–635. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540707044X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, Stephen P. 2012. Polarizing Cues. American Journal of Political Science 56 (1): 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00541.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, J. Eric, and Wendy M. Rahn. 2016. Rise of the ‘Trumpenvolk’: Populism in the 2016 Election. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667 (1): 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216662639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostiguy, Pierre. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Populism. In The Oxford Handbook of Populism, ed. Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, Paul A. Taggart, Paulina Ochoa Espejo, and Pierre Ostiguy, 73–97. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Zizi. 2004. Democracy Online: Civility, Politeness, and the Democratic Potential of Online Political Discussion Groups. New Media & Society 6 (2): 259–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York; London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015a. Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015b. Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Affective Publics and Structures of Storytelling: Sentiment, Events and Mediality. Information, Communication & Society 19 (3): 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1109697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. A Networked Self and Platforms, Stories, Connections. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2021. After Democracy: Imagining Our Political Future. Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pariser, Eli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, Ian. 2015. Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News User Comments Across Platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 59 (4): 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, Carlos, David Domingo, Josep Lluís Micó, Javier Díaz-Noci, Koldo Meso, and Pere Masip. 2011. Public Sphere 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics 16 (4): 463–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, Heidi, Marlene Mauk, and Jonas Linde. 2020. How populism and polarization affect Europe’s liberal democracies. Politics and Governance 8 (3): 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settle, Jaime E. 2018. Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, Laura, Christine Huang, and Kyle Taylor. 2019. In Emerging Economies, Smartphone and Social Media Users Have Broader Social Networks. Pew Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobieraj, Sarah, and Jeffrey M. Berry. 2011. From Incivility to Outrage: Political Discourse in Blogs, Talk Radio, and Cable News. Political Communication 28 (1): 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spruyt, Bram, Gil Keppens, and Filip Van Droogenbroeck. 2016. Who Supports Populism and What Attracts People to It? Political Research Quarterly 69 (2): 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912916639138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavrakakis, Yannis. 2014. The Return of ‘the People’: Populism and Anti-Populism in the Shadow of the European Crisis. Constellations (Oxford, England) 21 (4): 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavrakakis, Yannis, and Giorgos Katsambekis. 2014. Left-Wing Populism in the European Periphery: The Case of SYRIZA. Journal of Political Ideologies 19 (2): 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569317.2014.909266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroud, Natalie Jomini. 2010. Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure. Journal of Communication 60 (3): 556–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. Oxford University Press on Demand.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stroud, Natalie Jomini, Joshua M. Scacco, Ashley Muddiman, and Alexander L. Curry. 2015. Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations’ Facebook Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20 (2): 188–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stryker, Robin, Bethany Anne Conway, J. Taylor, and Danielson. 2016. What Is Political Incivility? Communication Monographs 83 (4): 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2016.1201207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suhay, Elizabeth, Emily Bello-Pardo, and Brianna Maurer. 2018. The Polarizing Effects of Online Partisan Criticism: Evidence from Two Experiments. The International Journal of Press/Politics 23 (1): 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217740697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, Cass R. 2001. Echo Chambers: Bush V. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggart, Paul. 2004. Populism and Representative Politics in Contemporary Europe. Journal of Political Ideologies 9 (3): 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356931042000263528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, Henri, ed. 1978. Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, Henri, and John Turner. 1979. An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. William G. Austin and Stephen Worchel. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talisse, Robert B. 2019. Overdoing Democracy: Why We Must Put Politics in Its Place. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, Joshua A, Andrew Guess, Pablo Barberá, Cristian Vaccari, Alexandra Siegel, Sergey Sanovich, Denis Stukal, and Brendan Nyhan. 2018. Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature. In Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature, March 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin. 2019. Emotions, Media and Politics. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, Benjamin R. 2010. Segmenting the Electorate: The Effects of Exposure to Political Extremism Online. Communication Studies 61 (4): 430–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2010.497069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, Brian E. 2015. Emotions, Partisanship, and Misperceptions: How Anger and Anxiety Moderate the Effect of Partisan Bias on Susceptibility to Political Misinformation. Journal of Communication 65 (4): 699–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell, Margaret. 2012. Affect and Emotion: A New Social Science Understanding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weyland, Kurt. 2017. Populism: A Political-Strategic Approach. In The Oxford Handbook of Populism, ed. Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, Paul A. Taggart, Paulina Ochoa Espejo, and Pierre Ostiguy, 48–72. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, Maria Petrova, and Ruben Enikolopov. 2020. Political Effects of the Internet and Social Media. Annual Review of Economics 12: 415–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, Australia

    Renee Barnes

Authors
  1. Renee Barnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renee Barnes .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Barnes, R. (2022). Getting Down in the Muck: Polarization and Online Debate. In: Fandom and Polarization in Online Political Discussion. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14039-6_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation