Political communication is undergoing a transformation that is no longer limited to public debate, but directly impacts social life. an analysis published in La Nación, Mario Riorda y Patricia Nigro They warn about the advance of political sorting, a process in which partisan identity begins to organize links, perceptions, and forms of coexistence.  

In this context, Riorda delves deeper into the effects of incivility in the public debate and its social implications. 

—What effects does the increasing aggressiveness of public debate have on the configuration of social bonds?

There is a macro effect that becomes a social problem of a really large scale, which we could call a social infrastructure problem in relationships, where what is at stake is the possibility of continuing to inhabit a space with mutual respect and with recognition of the other as a legitimate citizen, with a legitimate power of speech, even if we think differently or one believes that the other is wrong. 

And this isn't just a hunch: when asked on a scale of one to five how much this period has damaged key relationships (friendships, family, work), the political climate reveals a clearly negative balance; some sectors believe that the significant damage visible today exceeds 70%. It's essential to grasp the magnitude of this: it's a kind of social rupture. 

From a macro perspective, another phenomenon emerges: it would seem that the solution to hostility is... silenceThis pattern runs through almost every situation, because the way tolerance toward the ideological other is maintained involves ceasing to talk about politics or, at most, only discussing it with like-minded individuals. It's a truce that works until it doesn't: when politics enters the conversation, it does so to break the truce and increase levels of hostility. 

That is why the aggressiveness of the debate, which we call incivility, it is articulated with this idea of ​​political classification (political sorting) and ends up organizing coexistence through segregation and isolation, which implies an erosion of social capital. 

—How does the construction of the “other” affect the willingness to live with those who think differently?

From a communication perspective, the construction of the other as an antagonistic subject is represented in the construction of the adversary rather than simply an enemy, dehumanizing or outright negating them. This implies stripping the other of their identity, denying their sense of self, and also their rights. This is evident in the use of dehumanizing labels circulating in public discourse, especially online, but also at institutional levels. Furthermore, it is seen in the widespread use of extreme ideological labels. 

The consequence is the generation of a partisan or socio-partisan classification This creates conditions of isolation. When language constructs the other as an existential threat, people don't want to debate; they want to escape. And silence doesn't reduce polarization; if anything, it reinforces it. There's a hidden, relatively suppressed state that eventually erupts and unleashes a torrent of hostility that ultimately shatters all forms of coexistence. 

—What capacity do politics and the media have to reconfigure the discursive climate without reinforcing confrontation? 

If we talk about the actual capacity of political systems (through their leadership and party structures) and media systems, one could be optimistic: that capacity exists. But the incentive conditions point in exactly the opposite direction. 

If this constant display of hostility, which we call incivility, occurs in highly polarized contexts, it's because there's evidence that it yields some kind of immediate electoral gain. Confrontation mobilizes and unites; insults go viral; and the "us versus them" narrative consolidates very clear bases of loyalty. That's why politics today manifests itself (and even more so in the media world) in a tribal way, both in terms of generating identity and also in terms of consumption. 

The same applies to the media: there are not only ideological and identity issues, but also consumption patterns. clickbait And algorithms function like engines that dictate the flow of communication, and in that context, the idea of ​​a rational, reasoned, and balanced discourse is practically prehistoric. So, the capabilities exist, but the incentives of current political and media practices point in the opposite direction.