Polarisation is often linked to division, conflict, and social unrest. Yet there is still no universal agreement on exactly what it is or how it works in different societies. Building on political scientist Mark Freeman’s (2023) eight hallmarks of polarisation, this study explores how people understand and talk about polarisation in their everyday lives.
The research analyses 38 idiomatic expressions collected from 20 languages, primarily from Indonesia and Southern Africa. By examining common sayings and expressions, the study investigates how different cultures describe, interpret, and navigate social division. Rather than focusing only on academic theories, it looks at the language people use in daily conversations to uncover deeper social meanings.
Using a combination of qualitative analysis and simple quantitative coding, the study finds that many of these expressions reveal not only how polarisation is understood, but also what people see as its causes, consequences, and possible solutions. While about half of the expressions portray polarisation and its hallmarks negatively, as a source of conflict or division, around one-third present it in a more positive light. In these cases, polarisation is viewed as a way of protecting shared values, preserving social norms, or strengthening community bonds.
The study also identifies important differences in how languages describe those seen as “outsiders.” Several expressions make subtle distinctions between different types of outsiders, reflecting varying social responses based on factors such as perceived threat, status, or behaviour. These linguistic nuances provide valuable insight into how communities define belonging and difference.
The findings suggest that views on polarisation are deeply shaped by cultural values, social experiences, and moral beliefs. Rather than dismissing positive perceptions of polarisation, the study argues that they often reflect long-standing community priorities, including the protection of cultural identity, social cohesion, and moral order.
By grounding its analysis in everyday language, the study offers practical insights for policymakers, civil society organisations, and practitioners seeking to address polarisation in culturally sensitive ways. It highlights the importance of recognising that efforts to promote inclusion, coexistence, and acceptance may not always be universally welcomed. For some individuals and communities, such initiatives can be perceived not only as challenges to material interests, but also as threats to deeply held social norms, values, and ways of life.
Understanding these perspectives is essential for developing more effective and culturally attuned approaches to reducing polarisation in the Global South and beyond.
