How can we understand the social processes that perpetuate political conflict in social life? To answer this question, we expand on existing approaches to studying polarization and political cleavages by focusing on how citizens collectively make sense of division. We look at the depoliticized topic of immigration in Denmark and analyze 27 anti-immigration, pro-immigration, and attitudinally mixed group discussions. Notwithstanding its waning political significance in this context, we demonstrate that moralized boundaries contribute to the stickiness, solidification, and continued potency of division over immigration. We argue that previous moralization explains focus groups’ perception of division as persistent and insuperable, with disagreements over immigration signifying fundamental differences of moral character between people. Moreover, it sustains a self-conception as political pariahs among anti-immigration participants, despite the contemporary political normalization of their views. Centering citizens’ shared understanding, the study emphasizes how moral boundaries keep division alive—ready to be reactivated and mobilized.
Simonsen et al. (Tue,) studied this question.