KU researcher proposes strategies for political depolarization in, outside classroom

LAWRENCE — Ashley Muddiman has been ruminating on the nation’s politically polarized society. But as an associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas, she has done more than that: In two recent publications, she prescribes constructive approaches to polarization both in the classroom and in society more broadly.

Over the last 10 years, Muddiman said, she has seen the chilling effect of left-right polarization on classroom discussions and the beneficial effect that comes from shaking up the reflexive labels and positions students bring to class.

She and co-authors Brandon Boyce and Mackenzie Marquess give tips for fellow academics on breaking the red-blue deadlock in a chapter titled “Strategies for Reducing Partisan Tensions in Practical Assignments” in the new book “Teaching Political Communication” (Edward Elgar).

As for interactions among a polarized general public, Muddiman and six co-authors wrote “What Kind of Depolarization Should We Aim For? Making Communication Transformative” for the journal Political Communication. They recommend a framework they call Democratic Transformative Communication that tries to move conversations to productive ends without watering down deeply held beliefs.

All politics are local

By focusing on local and/or state issues in her campaign class, assigning members a heterodox set of policy positions and labeling them the Free State and Sunflower parties instead of Republican and Democratic, students are freed from “self-selecting” into silos that reflect their own beliefs, according to Muddiman. They must learn to argue an issue either round or flat or to say when and why they diverge from the party platform.

“I go to the Kansas Republican Party platform and the Kansas Democratic Party platform, and I pick four issues. They get two Republican positions and two Democratic positions,” she said. “I don’t give them the entire platform. I don’t mind assigning students economic policies they disagree with. I don’t like assigning them to civil rights topics that they disagree with. They can bring those things up on their own. But I do give them a mix.

“That’s the party platform. As candidates, they can either align with the party platform, or they can try to push the party platform in different ways so they don’t have to follow it, but they have to think about, ‘What are the consequences if we don’t follow the party platform?’ The other candidate might attack them for not being a true partisan, or the partisan media might give them very negative coverage because they’re not being a true Sunflower Party member.”

Muddiman said students seem to find the exercise useful — since many will go on to work in state and local campaigns — and it reduces partisan tension in the classroom.

Common humanity

Reducing polarization in the real and/or online worlds is another matter that Muddiman said she has thought deeply about — what the cliché actually means and why and to what end depolarization should be pursued. She and her co-authors presented a set of research-based recommendations.

“A lot of research papers include a sentence saying, ‘This thing that we’re testing is good because it would decrease polarization.’ And we’re asking, ‘Well, what does that mean?’”

The authors wrote that it’s not a matter of meeting in the mushy middle for its own sake but rather emphasizing common values as the best chance for persuading.

“We do have things in common, even if we don’t agree on issues,” Muddiman said. “So how can we actually talk to people who live in different places and have different ideas, and we feel very divided from them? How can we build shared identities with them?

“Sports might be one way, but other things that seem apolitical can help us in these spaces, because we’re recognizing a common humanity among us that I think sometimes is lacking, especially right now. ... I think it has to be worth trying. It’s too depressing if not.”

That doesn’t mean, Muddiman and her co-authors wrote, that anger is unjustified or should always be suppressed.

“There are good reasons to be angry,” she said. “Anger can be motivating. Then, too, there are bad actors that try to make us angry, and that can be complicated. ... It’s easier to believe misinformation when you’re really emotional.”

Muddiman and her co-authors proposed strategic moderation in communication by “researchers, journalists — anyone who wants to be an engaged community member.”

“Anger works sometimes, but it doesn’t always work, and it can be alienating,” she said. “You really have to think about whether anger is useful to build a coalition, or is it something that’s going to undermine problem solving? ... The paper says take anger, but then move it into some different emotions. Use the anger to motivate, but then have compassion, have hope, so it’s not just the anger infiltrating us.”