Structural Balance in Political Ideology
Over the past couple election cycles, it seems that America has increasingly become politically polarized and contentious. On top of ideologies becoming more consistent on both sides, social media and the different ways people tend to get their news have been exacerbating this shift if not causing it. This article from the Pew Research Center discusses media habits and how they differ among Americans who align with different ideologies. Specifically, it delves into the three main methods that people tend to get information about government and politics: news media, social media, and the way people talk about politics with friends and family. Although discussion of ideological bubbles often comes up when talking about political polarization, it is nearly impossible for anyone to live in a complete bubble as there are countless interactions we face daily that expose us to varying viewpoints. However, it often seems like people indulge in and contribute to platforms that tend to affirm their already standing beliefs rather than challenge or expand them. For instance, social media connects people with their existing friends and community members who usually happen to also be like-minded in politics, so any news received in that medium will probably keep them in that so-called bubble. While a good portion of Americans still fall in the middle of the ideological spectrum and receive information from both sides of the spectrum, the article reports that the most active members that impact the political process are those that fall on the extreme ends of the spectrum, where most of the ideological polarization takes effect.
As we discussed in class, the Structural Balance Theory states that for a network to be structurally balanced, either everyone must get along or there must be two groups of mutual friends that hate each other. Obviously, the entire American population is probably too large of a network to achieve true structural balance, but when learning about it in class, I immediately thought about political polarization and how America is slowly but steadily moving towards a state of two strong ideologies that oppose each other. In this scenario, conservatives and liberals would be the two groups of mutual friends, and they would have no positive links between the two groups. Far from ideal, the goal in this case, though unrealistic, may actually be to achieve structural balance in the opposite way with everyone becoming mutual friends. This shift would require all voters to tune into a variety of news and media outlets, as well as openly discuss politics with a range of friends that could expose them to different issues and opinions. Currently, as cited by the article, conservatives tend to receive information from a narrower subset of outlets and means, while liberals focus on issue-based groups or a range of less popular outlets. On the other hand, liberals also tend to remove people from their personal social networks as a result of political difference more frequently than their conservative counterparts.
In general, structural balance is likely not possible at such a large scale like the entire population of American voters, but keeping in mind the two types of balanced graphs helps when looking at how the political climate is shifting. Currently, it is leaning closer to a weakly balanced graph where several groups of mutual friends dislike each other. However, a balanced network where everyone gets along is also possible, and this ideal scenario would foster a healthier community where ideas can be openly shared and progress can be made with a united effort.