Qualifying Dislike: Rethinking Remedies for Affective Polarisation by Distinguishing Between Different Types of Out-Group Dislike

Against the background of growing concerns with affective polarisation – in other words, with increasing dislike between different political groups or camps – this paper takes a step back and asks what it actually means to “dislike” one’s political out-group, whether it always means the same, and, consequently, whether “dislike” is necessarily a problem for democracy or whether some types of dislike might be more detrimental and in need to be remedied than others. To address these questions, this paper builds on insights from a qualitative empirical study of citizens’ attitudes towards their political out-groups in the context of the German debate around climate change between 2022 and 2024. Combining cognitive interviewing techniques with in-depth narrative interviews and participant observation, this study inductively explores what it means to citizens themselves to “dislike” their political out-groups, and what reasons they provide for disliking them in a particular way. Bringing these empirical insights into conversation with existing debates in democratic theory, the paper develops three main arguments: First, it proposes a conceptual distinction between different types of dislike in affective polarisation: It argues that it makes an important normative and analytical difference whether, firstly, “dislike” is directed at the political position an out-group represents or at the out-group members of that group as such. Secondly, in either case, dislike can be qualified, differentiated and counter-balanced by additional considerations, or it can be unqualified and absolute. In light of this conceptual distinction, and in contrast to ongoing searches for remedies to affective polarisation that aim at reducing out-group dislike tout court, the paper, second, suggests that it might be more promising to focus on changing the quality of dislike by strengthening citizens’ capacity to qualify their dislike, to differentiate, and look beyond the black-and white. Third, analysing the reasons citizens themselves provide for disliking their political out-groups in a particular way, it provides first insights into what might motivate citizens to qualify their dislike. It concludes by outlining potential avenues for future research into ways to address the more harmful variants of affective polarisation without depoliticising legitimate political struggles and disagreement.