This FEELed Note was written by FEELed Lab research affiliates and climate solution scholars Jamie Stevens and Estraven Lupino-Smith whose project explores the potential of using arts‐led social infrastructures to address polarization for Anticolonial Climate Justice. We are grateful for feedback and revisions from FEELed Lab research administrator, Julia Jung.
On August 7, 2025, a month before our project began, B.C.’s Supreme Court recognized the Cowichan Nation’s title to a 780-acre tract of land along the banks of the Fraser River delta, in what is currently known as Richmond. The backlash was vehement, organized, and expected (Nagata, 2026). The ‘land question’ that has haunted the province of B.C. since its founding, was front and center once again. Who controls these lands?
In September, as we scoped and schematized our project, the political discourse spreading around the Cowichan Decision reinforced that we would need to wrestle with the material and socio-political reality of the province in this project on polarization in rural B.C.. What does climate justice look like on unceded, stolen lands?
We began the literature review of polarization in the disciplines of political studies, public policy, anthropology, environmental studies, and media studies. Our research identified five critical issues related to our project:
- Research on Canadian rural communities is sparse – it is often focused on American (eg: Ezra Klein’s book, Why Are We Polarized – where a two party political system channelizes the conversation) or European rural contexts (where the definition of rural would include both Kelowna and Haida Gwaii)
- Anti-colonial climate justice in rural BC necessitates grounding the research in land. Land looms large in rural identities, it is a site of ongoing climate injustices, and the control of land is the central tenant of colonialism (Tuck & Yang, 2012)
- Normative polarization research holds social cohesion as the main goal in order to maintain stable democracies, however this can come with an expectation that marginalized populations do not rock the boat in service to the national interest
- Polarization has an instrumental “political use” and political elites actively mobilize and amplify polarization for political gain (McCoy, Rahman & Somer, 2018, p.34; Ling, 2018)
- There is agreement that polarization is a problem – but not on its metrics or whether it helps or hinders society
Our initial findings highlighted that the one unifying element of the common understanding of polarization suggests that it is a problem, but many sources still hesitate to say what kind of problem it is. In a 2023 report by the Public Policy Forum, a Canadian Public Interest Think Tank, Ling suggests that the problem of polarization is something that Canadians know exists, and can identify as a problem, but cannot name specific metrics for labeling it. The report goes on to say that polarization, when understood as competing views, is not always negative, instead diverse voices analyzing an issue is an important element in resisting majority rule or the consolidation of power. So perhaps it is a good problem to have?
A definition that speaks to polarization in the context of land and invasive species management states, “polarization occurs when disagreements become framed in oppositional, often binary, terms. Reducing complex debates to simple “for or against” positions implies that parties are on opposing sides in a win-or-lose game” (Crowley et al., 2017, p.134). This straight-forward definition holds two oppositional sides in a game where rules, capacities, and power are equal but are the legacy and context before the game ignored?
McCoy, Rahman & Somer’s (2018) widely-cited political science paper investigated polarization’s role in movements towards authoritarianism in four countries, Hungary, Turkey, the United States, and Venezuela. Their polarization definition emphasizes that the binary is inherently “relational and political” in nature and becomes focused on “one single difference that becomes negatively charged and used to define the “Other” (p.18). Thereby, they define polarization “as a process whereby the normal multiplicity of differences in a society increasingly align along a single dimension, cross-cutting differences become instead reinforcing, and people increasingly perceive and describe politics and society in terms of “Us” versus “Them” (p.18). They hold the main drivers of polarization as existing cleavages in society that are exploited by political elites for political gain. If increased polarization is a step towards authoritarianism, actually perhaps it is not a good problem to have?
In B.C., the political narrative in rural regions intensifies existing cleavages around land. As noted earlier, this is a site of ongoing interwoven injustices that harkens back to the establishment of BC, based on disposession of land and genocide (BC Assembly of First Nations, 2022; Olsen, 2026). These political narratives exemplify the intentional, strategic actions of political parties to use polarization, where “elites play a critical role in constructing and/or intensifying existing cleavages or resentments with a divisive rhetoric of “Us” versus “Them” intended to mobilize a (perceived) marginalized or disunited sector of the population” (McCoy, 2018, p.35).
During the last year, this tactic was exemplified by a provincial party leader touring BC to mobilize political support using anti-Indigenous discourse with talking points against UNDRIP and Indigenous Rights and Land Title (Tkemlups, June 5, 2026). This Us vs Them tactic was also present in recent comments by the prime minister that the province of BC and Indigenous Nations need to get in line with the Canadian side on projects of national interest, or “If things get stalled here, we’re going to be spending more time elsewhere in the country.” This is an example what the Yellowhead Institute articulates, “When Indigenous rights and title stand in the way of the “national interest,” Canada turns to legislation, the courts (when convenient), and political discourse” (Wale & McGuire – Jaad Gudgihljiwah, 2026, para. 5, emphasis added).
Through our research and the social and political context in which we were conducting the research, we can say that political discourse is only one part of polarization, and that it also includes the way that people and groups are divided along strict binary lines, seeing other points of view as oppositional, threatening, and deeply personal.The Public Policy Forum report calls this “a loss of viewpoint diversity and a default to simplification, binaries, in-group romanticization and out-group demonization” (Ling, 2023, p.17). However, while this report was helpful in providing some current context for public perception of polarization, it followed the normative framing of polarization that finds social cohesion paramount to maintaining a stable democracy, an argument that asserts that “polarized societies make democracies vulnerable” (McCoy, 2018, p.17). This did not fully speak to justice and equality in the social and political context unfurling in BC around Indigenous Land Rights and Title.
When this normative framing is interrogated by the lens of ecofeminist environmental humanities and Indigenous studies that centers justice, equality, and challenging status quo ideas about binaries, gender, power, and marginalization, a few key questions kept circling – is it the polarized societies that make democracies vulnerable? Or might it be the existing fissures of inequality and marginalization, providing the opportunity for polarization to happen, which lead to instability and fragmentation?
A 2024 paper we found helpful in parsing this distinction was Kreiss & McGregor’s A Review and Provocation: on polarization and platforms that maps the connection of social structures & groups with online polarization and argues that ‘“polarization can only be seen as a central threat to democracy if inequality is ignored” (p.556). They state plainly, “the analysis and normative conclusions of much polarization research… are wrong…. we cannot sacrifice equality and justice on the altar of social cohesion” (p.558). Might the status quo, with existing, ongoing, entrenched power imbalances and injustices, be a threat to democratic erosion, meaningful work across difference, and equity for marginalized people?
In the end, normative definitions of polarization helped us map the current research framework that polarization is understood in, but to address climate justice, we needed to direct our research towards the undercurrents flowing beneath the assumptions of polarizing tendencies. We expand on this in our next FEELed Note, Connecting Otherwise.
References:
BC Assembly of First Nations (2022). “BC First Nations climate strategy and action plan”. https://fnlcclimatestrategy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/FNCSAP_2022.pdf
Crowley, S. L., Hinchliffe, S., & McDonald, R. A. (2017). Conflict in invasive species management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(3), 133–141. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44214098
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2024). A review and provocation: On polarization and platforms. New Media & Society, 26(1), 556–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231161880
Ling, J. (2023). “Far and widening: The rise of polarization in Canada.” In The Public Policy Forum. Ottawa, ON, Canada. https://ppforum.ca/publications/polarization-democracy-canada/
McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018). Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Polities. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 16–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218759576
Nagata, K. (2026, June 25). Who’s behind the backlash over Indigenous rights in B.C.? Dogwood. https://www.dogwoodbc.ca/news/whos-behind-backlash-over-indigenous-rights-bc/
Olsen, A. (2026, April 15). “How Joseph Trutch Set the Stage for BC’s Indigenous Policies.” The Tyee. https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2026/04/15/Joseph-Trutch-BC-Indigenous-Policies/.
Tkemlups, te Secwepemc. (2026, June 6). Revised Media Release: Providing Clarity on Ongoing Public Discussions. https://tkemlups.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Revised-Media-Release-June-5th-2026.pdf
Tuck, E. and Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1 (1). pp. 1-40.
Wale, J. and Gudgihljiwah, M. M. J., (2026, February 3). Reflections on “Rupture”: Mark Carney’s New World Order & an Indigenous Response. Yellowhead Institute. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2026/reflections-on-rupture-mark-carneys-new-world-order-an-indigenous-response/
1 comment