By Lionel Humphreys ’29

“1 Holocaust Survivor vs. 20 Holocaust Deniers.” Despite the raucous video titles, Jubilee’s goal for the series is not division, but empathy; their motto states, “Provoke Understanding and Create Human Connection.” And this is what Jubilee Founder Jason Y. Lee believes he is doing as he stokes the flames he thinks will burn away polarization: discussion. 80% of Americans believe the country is deeply divided, with 78% saying polarization prevents the country from moving forward effectively, and 76% agreeing that widespread polarization poses a major threat to democracy. So, Jubilee published the video “1 Democrat vs 20 MAGA Republicans…” Did this video reduce polarization? Most likely, no. This video’s failures are indicative of a larger pattern of belief that this paper will argue against—the assumption that, because in-person political discussions are depolarizing, any video content featuring debates will also be depolarizing. This paper argues for a more complex view. It claims that bipartisan conversation alone does not guarantee a piece of media will be depolarizing, and that additional considerations relating to stereotypes and group identification are needed. With Jubilee’s Surrounded series as a case study, it will examine the mistakes made when neglecting these additional considerations, and how these mistakes ultimately undermine the videos’ depolarization purpose. Finally, it will justify a more comprehensive media analysis framework able actually to create depolarizing media. 

Modern-day polarization has evolved from mere ideological differences toward actual animosity toward members of opposing political groups—a phenomenon dubbed “affective polarization.” Affective polarization profoundly impacts how people relate to each other. Its rise corresponds with citizens’ unwillingness to date a partner of the opposing political party, or even to have a friend with opposite beliefs. It may even damage family connections. In the context of political debates, affective polarization contributes to the breakdown of productive discussion and impairs rational decision-making about public health issues. 

One major cause of affective polarization may be increased ideological polarization.  Matthew Levendusky’s theory of “partisan sort” explains how ideological polarization becomes affective polarization. As partisan leaders define their parties in more extreme ideological terms, political parties then become a defined, passionate in-group, and opposing political groups are perceived as more “other.” This phenomenon turns ideological disagreement into identity disagreement.

Lee hoped to address affective polarization by using debate to “bridge ideological silos,” which has some support in the literature. Theories of intergroup contact explain the effectiveness of this intervention, highlighting how a normal conversation with someone naturally reduces negative stereotypes about their group and brings to light shared identity. Lee, then, may have good reason to believe that his debate show will provide the effects of conversation, reducing polarization, but he fails to consider how online media differs from in-person interactions. 

Social media content plays a key role in societal polarization. It tends to depict opposing partisans as radically different and negatively stereotyped, reinforcing hateful, identity-based political feelings. For this reason, it seems an apt location for potential interventions to reduce societal polarization. One must be careful, however, when applying interventions that work in-person to social media content, as watching a conversation is not the same as participating in one. This is the distinction that Lee may have neglected when assuming Surrounded would depolarize. As an example, although participating in in-person conversations with opposing partisans consistently reduces polarization, watching a political conversation on cable news or as part of a presidential debate actually often increases polarization.

Nevertheless, faith in political conversations as a depolarizing tool undergirds depolarization efforts across many domains. The discussed academic theories of intergroup contact champion it, arguing that cross-partisan conversations show the interlocutors that opposing partisans are fundamentally normal people.

Certainly, this mindset influenced the creation of Surrounded. Lee claimed in an interview that the series was made to “show what discourse can and should look like.” Yet, Lee neglects to consider why in-person conversations depolarize to begin with, and therefore incorrectly concludes that recorded conversations should depolarize as well. In-person conversations affirm that people of opposite beliefs are fundamentally humans before anything else, thereby achieving the two cognitive goals known to depolarize: reducing negative stereotypes about the out-group and emphasizing shared identity. Surrounded’s conversations, in contrast, do not achieve these goals, thereby leading to increased polarization.

Surrounded reduces the people taking part to their mere identity group, belying their true nature as complex human beings. Take, for instance, the video titled “Can 1 Woke Teen Survive 20 Trump Supporters?”, which reduces the public figure to the identity category of “woke teen” and the nuanced people he will debate to mere “Trump supporters.” Emphasizing political identity as such rather than humanity increases polarization by obscuring the areas of similarity between the participants. Additionally, the videos frame these identity groups as in direct competition. Scholarship suggests such framings will increase affective polarization, because partisans will feel that they themselves are attacked when their identity group is threatened. These effects undermine conversations’ typical manner of depolarizing—reducing negative stereotypes and emphasizing shared identity—and pull it in the opposite direction, painting the issue as a volatile identity conflict between unmitigated extremists.  The result, instead, is a dialogue that strengthens out-group stereotypes, paints the groups as irreparably in conflict, and reinforces notions of radical difference—serving as strong evidence that Jubilee’s content in fact increases affective polarization. 

Jubilee fails because it views cross-political conversation as inherently depolarizing. It is a genuine and common misconception that online content featuring debate will automatically depolarize viewers. And it is that misconception that this paper aims to argue against. This paper argues instead for a more complex theory of which videos are depolarizing that considers the portrayal of political identity groups as a key factor. This theory should not value conversation per se—as theories of in-person debate do—but should instead center on reducing negative stereotypes, minimizing perceptions of fiery intergroup conflict, and emphasizing similarities across the political aisle. Members of a discussion should be portrayed as people before partisans. Although political differences can be explored, studios should not suppress other areas of similarity and agreement to stoke the flames of the conflict. With these ideas and a refined mindset, a well-intentioned media creator can use discussions to create genuinely depolarizing content, building positive discourse. Rebranding the show to be about people discussing an issue rather than partisan groups debating would remove many of the problematic elements of identity. Additionally, changes to casting could represent the views and expression styles of average citizens, breaking down negative stereotypes about out-groups. Finally, if the videos took time to justify the humanity of participants, they could have a powerful depolarizing effect by evoking shared identity. With these changes in mind, Surrounded could truly “provoke understanding and create human connection” as it aims to do—safeguarding the rational decision-making and public health of America.

Contributors: Amber Bansal ’28 and Evan Kim ’29

Photo Credit: Jubilee/YouTube