Polarisation is no longer simply “a topic from the news”. You notice it in conversations at school, in youth work, among friends, on social media, and sometimes even in a single remark that lingers. It concerns major social divides, but just as often something small within a group. Someone feels attacked, a joke cuts a little too deep, “us-versus-them” language changes the atmosphere, or participants disengage because the discussion becomes too confrontational. In moments like these, people tend to react more quickly from their jackal than from their giraffe.
Anyone who facilitates groups quickly realises that dealing with polarisation requires more than knowledge of a particular topic. Above all, it requires facilitation skills. You want young people to be able to explore an issue without the discussion spiralling out of control. You want to preserve space for disagreement without people losing connection with one another. And you want a workshop to become more than “just a conversation”. It should be a learning process in which participants develop their language, empathy, boundaries and ability to see different perspectives. This also means helping young people recognise when a conversation is becoming more rigid, when pressure to choose sides is increasing, and when they themselves — or others — are reacting reflexively.
Our approach therefore starts from a simple observation. Polarisation is often reinforced by echo chambers and the repeated confirmation of one’s own views, which can reduce empathy for other perspectives. Depolarisation requires deliberate steps that make dialogue and mutual understanding possible again. Youth work plays a crucial role in this process because it can provide a safe and supportive environment in which young people develop social skills and learn to build bridges between different lived experiences.
On this page, we set out the framework clearly. What exactly do we mean by polarisation? When does it become dangerous? How does Bart Brandsma’s framework work, and why is it so useful in practice? What strengthens polarisation today, and why is depolarisation sometimes necessary?
Polarisation in a Nutshell
Polarisation is not synonymous with disagreement. Disagreements are part of a diverse society and of groups in which young people are exploring who they are, testing boundaries and developing their views of the world. Polarisation arises when differences are increasingly reduced to opposing camps. The group becomes divided into “us” and “them”, while the space in between gradually disappears. Curiosity and nuance give way to moral certainty, mistrust and sometimes hostile stereotypes.
Many researchers describe polarisation as a process in which both positions and group identities move further apart, while emotional distance increases. The latter is often referred to as “affective polarisation”. People do not necessarily have to hold extremely different views to develop strongly negative feelings towards “the other side”.
It is also important to recognise that polarisation is not inherently “bad”. Polarisation can create movement. History shows that social progress has sometimes emerged precisely because people took a clear position against injustice. Consider women’s rights, civil rights or labour rights. In this sense, Bart Brandsma has described polarisation as “a beautiful thing”, because it can generate energy and drive change. The crucial question is whether polarisation can continue to function within a democratic and humane space, or whether it escalates into dehumanisation and conflict.
Polarisation as a Dynamic
One of the most useful insights is that polarisation is primarily a dynamic. It is something that happens between people, groups and narratives. This means that polarisation cannot be understood solely by looking at individual opinions. You also need to consider group pressure, social identity, framing, status, fear and the need to belong.
Social identity theory helps explain this process. People derive meaning from the groups they identify with, and differences between groups can quickly become emotionally charged and linked to loyalty. In such contexts, it becomes easy to fall back on oversimplification. The other person becomes “that kind of person”, and complexity disappears.
Polarisation can therefore often be recognised through three mutually reinforcing characteristics.
First, language becomes narrower. Nuance is treated with suspicion, and doubt is seen as weakness. Next, pressure to choose sides increases. It begins to feel as though you must pick a camp, even if you do not want to. Finally, the conversation takes on a moral logic. It is no longer about “what works”, but about “who is right” or “who is morally acceptable”. The Flemish Peace Institute describes how such processes can lead to hardening positions and reduce the space available for dealing with conflict non-violently.
Bart Brandsma’s Framework
Bart Brandsma is a Dutch philosopher and trainer who developed an influential practical framework for understanding and managing polarisation. His work is widely used in education, local government and the social sector, and has also been incorporated into European practice publications on polarisation management.
What makes Brandsma’s approach particularly useful is that he understands polarisation as a dynamic involving roles and pressure to choose sides. He starts with a simple axis. At either end are two opposing poles, each with its own identity. Between them is a large group that is less outspoken. And it is precisely this middle that often becomes the real target of polarisation. Pushers want the middle to choose sides. Depolarising therefore does not mean “standing between the two poles”, but rather strengthening the middle.
The Roles in Brandsma’s Model
Brandsma’s framework identifies five recurring roles.
There are pushers. These are voices or actors who actively fuel the us-versus-them narrative. They sharpen the language, frame the conflict in terms of identity and increase pressure on the middle.
There are joiners. They align themselves with one of the poles, sometimes out of conviction, sometimes out of fear of being seen as being on the “wrong” side, and sometimes because belonging to the group provides a sense of security.
There is the silent middle. This is usually the largest group. These are people who have doubts, can see different sides of an issue, or simply do not want to join a camp. During polarisation, this group is often made invisible, even though it is crucial to depolarisation.
There is the bridge-builder. This is the person or organisation that tries to create connections between opposing poles. Brandsma adds an important nuance here. Trying to build bridges too early can be counterproductive, because pushers may portray bridge-builders as naïve or even as “traitors”. Bridge-building tends to be most effective when there is sufficient support for it and when the middle has already been strengthened.
Finally, there is the scapegoat. In situations of intense polarisation, one person or group is often turned into a symbol of “the problem”. This enables pushers to keep their narrative simple and maintain pressure to choose sides. Depolarising therefore also means recognising and interrupting this mechanism.
Four Game Changers That Often Work
European practice publications that draw on Brandsma’s model frequently highlight four strategic interventions.
First, you shift your attention towards the middle, because that is where pressure to choose sides can be reduced. Second, you change the subject of the conversation, moving away from the identity narratives of the opposing poles and towards the shared concerns and interests of the middle. Third, you change your own position, so that you are not standing “above” or “between” the camps, but visibly within the middle. And fourth, you change the tone, because polarisation is rarely resolved by facts alone. A mediating style of communication that encourages people to remain engaged is often more effective.
For youth workers, this is highly recognisable. If you focus only on the loudest voices in a group, it can seem as though “everyone is divided”. In reality, there is often a large middle that is willing to listen, has doubts, or primarily needs a sense of safety. Brandsma gives language to this practical intuition and turns it into a workable compass.
What Strengthens Polarisation
Polarisation rarely develops from a single cause. Usually, it results from several factors that reinforce one another.
Groups can become more polarised through their own internal dynamics. One classic mechanism is group polarisation. When like-minded people discuss an issue together, their positions tend to become stronger and more extreme on average, even without any “bad intentions”.
Cognitive processes also play a role. People do not process information neutrally. We tend to look for information that confirms what we already believe, while information that challenges our views may be interpreted as further proof that “the other side” is wrong. This phenomenon has been well documented under the concepts of biased assimilation and attitude polarisation.
The online environment can also accelerate polarisation. Algorithms reward engagement, and outrage or conflict often generates engagement more quickly. Research into news consumption on social media shows that people may encounter less diverse information not only because of algorithms but also because of their own choices, which can reinforce echo-chamber effects.
Finally, contextual factors matter. Uncertainty, experiences of crisis, declining trust in institutions and the feeling of not being seen or heard can all create fertile ground for polarisation. The Flemish Peace Institute describes how polarisation can more easily develop into a conflict logic under such circumstances and emphasises the importance of actively maintaining social cohesion.
Polarisation and Escalation
Polarisation becomes particularly dangerous when it triggers escalation. Escalation does not simply mean that a conflict becomes “more intense”. It means that the underlying logic of the conflict changes. People stop looking for solutions and instead focus on victory, punishment or self-protection. Conflict studies describe this as a shift from win-win to win-lose and ultimately to lose-lose, where people may even accept harm to themselves as long as the other side suffers too.
Glasl’s conflict escalation model is a well-known framework for understanding how conflicts can gradually move from tension to hostile stereotyping and eventually towards destruction. In a youth work context, the objective is not to “diagnose” every stage. The model can, however, help you recognise when you are approaching the point at which learning and dialogue become increasingly difficult. The higher the level of escalation, the less space there is for nuance and for allowing people to save face. And as that space shrinks, people are more likely to fall back on reflexive responses.
As escalation increases, several recurring patterns often become visible. Language becomes harsher and humour turns into a weapon. People interpret each other’s intentions negatively and room for doubt disappears. People are reduced to their opinions and their camps. The conversation becomes a competition, and “giving in” feels like losing face. At that stage, people are less interested in understanding and more interested in receiving confirmation from their own group.
The Flemish Peace Institute emphasises that escalation within polarisation is particularly risky because it can quickly contribute to dehumanisation and to the normalisation of rigid us-versus-them frameworks. This makes recovery more difficult, even after the immediate incident has passed.
This also makes clear why our approach continues to aim for win-win outcomes. Not in the naïve sense of “everyone has to be happy”, but as a deliberate facilitation strategy. Win-win means preserving the relational space in which young people can later repair relationships, reconsider their position and continue working together. It means maintaining minimum conditions within your activities and conversations. People need to feel seen, they need to be able to set boundaries without being humiliated, and they need to feel that there is still a way back. Once that disappears, the group becomes vulnerable to a form of escalation that reinforces itself.
Why Depolarise?
Depolarisation does not mean eliminating differences or making everyone “moderate”. It means strengthening the social and psychological conditions that allow differences to remain discussable and prevent people from reducing one another to caricatures.
Social psychological research shows that contact between groups can, under certain conditions, contribute to reducing prejudice and increasing mutual understanding. Allport already argued that equal status, shared goals and support from the surrounding context are crucial conditions. Large-scale meta-analyses have since confirmed that intergroup contact is generally associated with lower levels of prejudice, while also showing that the quality of that contact is decisive.
In youth work, this translates into a task that is both simple and complex. You are not trying to create “perfect harmony”. Instead, you create settings in which young people can practise listening, setting boundaries, expressing themselves and tolerating difference. You create space for the silent middle to speak. You help young people move beyond reflexive reactions and find language that does not immediately push the conversation towards hostile stereotypes.
Brandsma’s framework adds a strategic dimension to this. Depolarising is not only about creating “more understanding”; it is also about reducing pressure to choose sides. By strengthening the silent middle, interrupting scapegoating mechanisms and building bridges at the right moment, you protect the space in which learning remains possible. European practice publications on polarisation management describe the process in similar terms: focusing on the middle, paying attention to tone and positioning, and choosing interventions that do not unintentionally give pushers more influence.
Depolarisation is therefore not “soft” work. It is a deliberate choice to prevent escalation and strengthen groups. This is particularly important when working with young people, because group pressure, identity formation and online influences can be especially intense during this stage of life. Depolarisation therefore means investing in skills that young people can carry with them throughout their lives.
Further Exploration
Anyone working with young people or groups benefits from more than theory alone. That is why we connect this framework to practical tools and personal stories.
Looking for reliable background literature on polarisation and communication?
On our Literature page, we have collected relevant publications and research.
Bring the theory of polarisation to life through practical activities.
In the Toolbox, you will find exercises and formats for classrooms, training sessions and group activities.