When I applied for the research fellowship on polarisation at The Center on International Cooperation (CIC) at New York University (NYU), I imagined the outcome would be a practical guide for funders on its implications for the human rights and social justice sector. I was excited to work with Raquel Jesse, author of From Rhetoric to Reality: Uncovering Strategic Division and the Linkages Between Polarization and Inequality, and to understand her framework for addressing the root causes and mechanisms of polarisation. But spending a month with Raquel and the team at NYU CIC opened many more avenues to explore. Three months later, I’m still discovering.
Even at the start of the fellowship, I wasn’t convinced that “polarisation” was the right concept to focus on. It feels jargon-heavy, overused in public discourse—perhaps why it became Merriam-Webster’s 2024 Word of the Year—and difficult to define. Polarisation is invoked both as a symptom and a driver of social crises; it undermines trust, intensifies conflict, and makes other political and social challenges harder to address. It reflects deeper systemic dysfunction: eroding trust in fairness, exposing failures of representation, and weakening shared social identities.
My concern with how the term is often used is that it emphasizes binary divisions, us vs. them, and treats polarisation as inevitable. That mindset flattens complexity and reinforces zero-sum thinking, when social justice work aims for the opposite.
Thinking about polarisation made me reflect on my early activist years in post-war Croatia and the reconciliation initiatives I was part of, as a way to navigate my own complicated family situation. What drew me to reconciliation processes then, and what resonates today, is the resistance to simplification. Social change lies in nuance, not certainties. In the 1990s, in the region, nation-states were building narratives to justify division, while reconciliation happened through individual stories and shared experiences.
The question of framing and language followed me throughout the research. I discussed it often with Fernando Marani, Program Director of Justice, Inclusion, and Equality at NYU CIC, especially in the context of the backlash against human rights and the dismissal of social justice work as “woke” or “elitist”. How do we speak about justice without being boxed into a specific political narrative?
As I was interrogating my own feelings about polarisation, I was delighted to be invited to the first Global Forum on Depolarization, organized by the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT). The Forum reframed the conversation, moving from analysing polarisation to exploring depolarisation in practice, which I found to be very useful. Again, we returned to the lessons of peacebuilding and reconciliation.
We discussed examples from Northern Ireland to Colombia. Many of these approaches echoed the peacebuilding strategies I had seen in the 1990s, yet with recognition that the world has changed. As one participant put it: “The world’s gone digital—so why are we still thinking in analogue?” A simple question, but a meaningful one. It reminds us that the tools we use to challenge human rights backlash, attacks on social justice advocates, and anti-rights narratives must evolve. And we cannot do that without considering the role of media, especially social media.
In an interview about his book Why We’re Polarized, Ezra Klein describes social media as “a polarization accelerant”. It may not have created the divides, but it magnifies them. Platforms are built around engagement, rewarding content that keeps us scrolling. Research on algorithmic extremism confirms this: these systems push not only toward division, but toward ever-greater division—creating echo chambers and zero-sum narratives.
I had a similar insight in my conversation with Dr. Daniel J. Rogers, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index. I left with a strong conviction that big tech must be regulated. Algorithms prioritise content that captures attention, flattens perspectives, strips out nuance, and amplifies the extreme, all in service of keeping us on our screens. However, the toxicity that creates has not gone unnoticed, and Europe has an opportunity to lead in regulation. I’m reassured by the strong voices in the digital rights sector who are ensuring accountability for the digital space we all inhabit is not left to the platforms themselves.
And yet, grabbing attention is not merely the goal of social media platforms, it’s also a deliberate political strategy. As we’ve seen in recent election campaigns—and 2024, an “election super-year” with votes in more than 70 countries, offered plenty of examples—capturing attention by any means necessary has become an effective tactic. This is where the rise of authoritarian populism comes in, a term I first heard defined by Míriam Juan-Torres González from UC Berkeley’s Othering & Belonging Institute as a form of politics that “cultivates a strong sense of in-group identity rooted in fear and grievance toward an identified ‘other,’ fostering belonging through othering.”
There’s much more to say about authoritarian populism and many examples of leaders who thrive on its tactics: closing civic space, curbing dissent, and sowing division. But that’s a topic for another blog. Here, I want to return to the original aim of my research and share a few guiding principles, small but essential antidotes to polarisation for those of us working in human rights and social change.
Resist the temptation to fall into binary, us-versus-them narratives. Make room for nuance. It uncovers shared interests and opportunities for alignment that are often missed when we rely on assumptions.
Don’t be afraid to disagree. I’ve noticed how conflict-averse human rights and social justice spaces have become. We keep conversations polite and safe, often at the cost of honesty and depth. Respectful disagreement is healthy. It’s how we learn, grow, and begin to understand one another.
Language matters. Avoid keeping conversations ‘safe’ by staying superficial or hiding behind jargon. Speak in a way that your aunt, or your neighbour, would understand. Real connection depends on clarity and authenticity.
Engage with the digital. Technology shapes every part of our work, even if digital rights aren’t your main focus. Learn from initiatives like Weaving Liberation, which is building the foundations for anti-colonial and liberatory digital futures, and reminding us that justice must extend to the digital world too.
Bring peacebuilding lessons into today’s world. People still care about peace and justice, and they want to live in a world that reflects those values. We can learn from the past, what worked to depolarise, to foster understanding and collaboration, and adapt those lessons to today’s context.
Promote the vision of justice and solidarity. Most people do not want to live in a dystopia. Support and amplify narratives that inspire hope rather than fear, that foster solidarity rather than division. And if you need inspiration, just look to the human rights defenders and social justice movements leading the way.
These may not be the exhaustive guidelines I hoped to develop, but I finish this research more hopeful than when I began. And perhaps the part that gives me hope is the most important insight: while polarisation shrinks—our imagination, our communities, our agency—the most radical act is to expand. To make space for nuance, for diversity, for our stories, for our shared humanity.
This piece was published based on reflections from Renata's Visiting Fellowship at The Center on International Cooperation, New York University.
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Atlantic Fellows for Social and Economic Equity programme, the International Inequalities Institute, the London School of Economics and Political Science, or The Center on International Cooperation, New York University.
Renata Ćuk
Director of Programmes, Ariadne – European Funders for Social Change and Human Rights
Renata Ćuk is an Atlantic Fellow for Social and Economic Equity and the Director of Programmes at Ariadne – European Funders for Social Change and Human Rights, where she supports philanthropic responses to the growing backlash against human rights and the shrinking of civic space across Europe. With over 15 years of experience in European human rights philanthropy, she has supported individuals, organisations, and movements working to address structural inequality and injustice.