Why Groups Go to Extremes
How does group behavior drive extremism and challenge democratic values? The answer lies in social dynamics - the ways people influence one another.
Conventional wisdom suggests that open discussion within groups will lead to compromise and moderation, yet just the opposite often occurs. In the course of exchanging opinions, like-minded people frequently develop more extreme versions of their original views on such issues as climate change, labor policy, same-sex relationships, and affirmative action. Groups ranging from citizens' forums to judicial panels tend to squelch diversity and polarize opinion. With the Internet facilitating the formation of like-minded groups, this phenomenon may help account for the intensity and division of contemporary social and political debate. Indeed, the dangers of homogeneity and polarization within groups highlight a fundamental tension between the consequences of free speech and assembly, and the value of intellectual diversity to a civil society.
In Why Groups Go to Extremes, Cass R. Sunstein argues that the key to preventing the spread of extremist views is not to suppress deliberation among the like-minded; such groups productively challenge conventional thinking and majority opinion. Instead, policymakers should develop institutions to ensure that like-minded groups encounter a diversity of opinions within civil society. The goal, Sunstein contends, must be to create opportunities for civil deliberation that expose like-minded group members to opposing views, while exposing society at large to the views of such groups.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
AEI Center affirmative action African-American American Enterprise Institute appointees vote bounded scale Brookings Institution Cambridge Cass Center for Regulatory citizens civil unions Colorado Springs confidence conservative DDD panels Decision deliberating body deliberating enclaves deliberating group deliberative deliberative democracy Democratic appointees diversity dollar scale Ds on DDD Edmund Burke effect of deliberation enclave deliberation enclave members extreme direction extreme positions favor Felix Frankfurter gay rights global warming group deliberation group discussion group members group polarization group representation Harvard Law School heterogeneity increase individual jurors institutional design insulated Internet involving issues Law Review liberal voting rates limited argument pools median judgment members tend ment nations norms Outgroups outrage participants percent phenomenon points of view polarized difference postdeliberation predeliberation produce Professor Sunstein promote public sphere punishment punitive damage awards reason Reg-Markets Center relevant Republican appointees Robert Hahn RRR panels same-sex sense social influences society squelched statistical juries terrorist tion University Press verdict