What Kind of Depolarization Do We Actually Want?

Polarization has become a key concern in public debate. It is often treated as something that should simply be reduced or avoided. But this raises a crucial question: what kind of depolarization is actually desirable—and for whom?

In our new paper, “What Kind of Depolarization Should We Aim For? Making Communication Transformative” (Political Communication), we argue that calls for depolarization often remain normatively vague. Reducing conflict per se is not necessarily democratic, nor does it automatically help societies respond to pressing social and ecological crises.

The paper grew out of the Transformative Communication research initiative and was developed through collaborative work in Hamburg. Drawing on debates in deliberative and agonistic democratic theory, we propose Democratic Transformative Communication as a normative framework for evaluating polarization and depolarization in public discourse. From this perspective, the goal is not lukewarm compromise or enforced civility. Instead, we argue for constructive controversies that expand society’s capacity for collective problem-solving. Ideological polarization can be legitimate—and even necessary—when it addresses real injustices or structural problems. At the same time, affective polarization becomes problematic when it undermines democratic listening, fuels backlash, or blocks transformation.

The framework also calls for a rethinking of what counts as “moderate.” Moderation is not about centrist positioning, but about openness to different viewpoints, willingness to engage opponents respectfully, and commitment to democratic and sustainable futures.

Rather than asking how to depolarize public debate in general, we suggest asking a more demanding question: Does communication help societies move toward democracy, justice, and sustainability—or does it hinder that process?