NECE Lab: Working with Polarised Groups in Civic Education

“The common ground seems narrower”. That’s how a respondent of a survey among the 25 NECE Lab participants from 13 European countries described the experience with polarization in civic education. 80 % of participants said it had strongly or somewhat affected their work in the past six months.

A major obstacle is the preemptive fear that certain topics will provoke resistance—from participants, parents, colleagues, or the broader environment.

The solution? Emotional literacy. The participants shared their belief that polarization can be countered when dialogue, emotional self-regulation, and critical reflection come together.

1. Not all polarisation is the same

Are disagrements about cycle tracks the same as republicans despising democrats for their political beliefs? No, says Bert Bakker, Associate Professor at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research. He distinguishes between three types of polarisation: ideological, affective and perceived.

Ideological polarisation is opinion-related; it describes opposing views on actual topics within a society.

Affective polarisation is about feelings. It describes the extent to which individuals harbor positive feelings toward their own political group and negative feelings toward the opposing group. This creates a strong division between the in-group and the out-group. Affective polarization only applies to groups: While individuals can be extreme, polarization is a characteristic of groups.

Perceived polarization takes a different angle: How big do we perceive the polarization in our society? According to Bakker more and more people perceive the people around them as deeply polarized, even though most people are in the middle. But the impression that society is polarized, can lead to more polarization: If we think everyone around is either one or zero, we feel the need to choose sides.

2. Polarisation is not a bad thing

Bakker warns against demonizing polarisation: “We have to be careful not to talk us into a polarization crisis”.

For him, the problem is not that we disagree, but how we talk about these disagreements. Polarisation in politics can be a good thing, as democracy is the competition of ideas. Inevitably, that means conflict, but also progress. A society without conflict is not desirable.

For him, the problem is not that we disagree, but how we talk about these disagreements. Polarisation in politics can be a good thing, as democracy is the competition of ideas. Inevitably, that means conflict, but also progress. A society without conflict is not desirable.

3. Decreasing polarisation does not equal strengthening democracy

While it seems counter intuitive, Bakker’s research shows that polarisation doesn’t influence democratic attitudes. He concludes that we tend to mix the two up: “Sometimes when we are worried about polarisation, we are actually worried about democracy”. Instead of focusing on countering polarisation, civil society should rather strengthen the democratic capital. That includes the ability to show empathy, change perspectives, actively listen and take other’s experiences into account to find common ground.

4. We must learn to disagree – within the limits of democracy

Are we able to listen to each other? Does it feel comfortable to disagree? Those skills are vital for our democracy, according to Bakker. However, this has to happen within the limits of democracy. Anti-democratic or inhuman opinions should not be tolerated.

5. Dialogue can foster understanding

Dialogue formats can help to foster understanding as part of our democratic capital. One example is the Finnish TimeOut Foundation. Trained facilitators bring people with different opinions together to discuss a pre-fixed topic. They try to engage the silent middle. In the end, the method is all about building respect and trust. That’s what the TimeOut method aims for: getting citizens together.

6. But dialogue won’t solve all conflicts

Dialogue may reduce perceived polarisation, but not ideological conflict. This observation was made by researcher Bakker as well as de-polarisation trainer and dialogue facilitator Maja Nenadović.

From 11 to 14 June 2025, EUSTORY, Körber-Stiftung and THE CIVICS Innovation Hub jointly organised a NECE Lab on polarisation in youth work.

It brought together practitioners from the field of non-formal civic education who are engaged or interested in finding solutions to the challenges of affective polarisation among young people.

What role does civic education play in preventing or overcoming affective polarisation among young people? What competencies do facilitators and teachers need to address polarisation tendencies among students? Which approaches have proved to be helpful when working with polarised groups? Those were just some questions participants focused on.

Participants had the opprtunity to discuss, reflect, share their experience and develop their own work together with fellow practictioners. Moreover, they gained insights into the work of CSOs dealing with polarisation in youth work in the Western Balkans and beyond.

How to unite a country, where the state actively tries to keep its citizens apart? During a panel discussion, four activists from Bosnia shared how they build a better future. Read how the fight for unity amidst repression, frustration and glimpses of hope.