Affective Polarization Within Parties: A Qualitative Interview Study of Party Subgroups in German Mainstream Parties

Affective polarization is often conceptualized as a mass-level phenomenon, driven by partisan identities, elite rhetoric, and media environments. While a growing body of research examines citizens’ emotional attachments and aversions toward political camps, far less attention has been paid to affective dynamics within political parties, especially among political elites themselves. This paper addresses this gap by examining how affective polarization is negotiated, mitigated, or reproduced inside Germany’s major mainstream parties, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). The study follows the concept of factionalism and conceptualizes parties not as unitary actors but as internally heterogeneous organizations composed of stable subgroups called factions, such as youth organizations, ideological circles, and functional associations (e.g., parliamentary caucuses or intraparty networks). While factions are said to form based on ideological differences of party members, over time they can represent distinct identities and strategic orientations, and thus constitute a crucial arena in which affective boundaries emerge next to ideological differences between factions. Building on insights from affective polarization research, organizational sociology, and party research, the paper asks: How do relationships between intraparty subgroups shape affective dynamics among party elites? And how do digital communication practices influence these dynamics, particularly in moments of heightened intraparty coordination and conflict? The paper draws on a qualitative interview study with active politicians from both parties. Twelve semi-structured interviews are conducted, six per party, with representatives of distinct and well-established factions. Methodologically, the study deliberately shifts the analytical focus away from individual personalities toward the groups they represent. Interviewees are seen as subgroup representatives, allowing for a systematic comparison of relational patterns across factions. The interviews focus on two interrelated dimensions. First, they explore the use of digital communication channels, such as messenger services, phone calls, and informal online coordination in the preparatory phase of party conventions, where policy proposals and motions are negotiated prior to formal decision-making. Second, they examine long-term intergroup relationships between factions, paying particular attention to past processes of cooperation, disagreement negotiations, perceptions of legitimacy, and willingness to compromise. The paper argues that affective polarization within parties is not merely a by-product of ideological disagreement. Rather, it is structured by subgroup identities and influenced by recurring interaction patterns and communication infrastructures. Preliminary results suggest that, in the run-up to party conferences, the larger conflicts are already being resolved digitally. In addition, there are clear differences in the relationships between the factions, which cannot be explained solely by specific issues but have rather developed over the long term. Taking a comparative perspective, the interviews show differences between the two parties, as the SPD are making less effort to resolve conflicts in the run-up to party conferences and hide them from becoming public. By foregrounding intraparty affective dynamics between factions, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of affective polarization on the meso-level. It highlights how affective divides can coexist with organizational unity and how they shape intraparty decision-making, thus complementing existing research focused on voters, media systems, and inter-party competition.