Chase Rivera
Introduction
Over the winter break, I have been practicing a lot of self-reflection – About myself, about the content I learned in the past semester, my practice/aspirations, and most importantly, my relationships with others. Both in the past and the present. And this is while engaging in the usual holiday events – marking final papers, spending time with close friends and family, and grinding on video games (And in the process losing the 50/50 while gacha-ing for The Dahlia on Honkai Star Rail …..)
After plunging deep in my thoughts – whenever that is learning so many things from the BSW students through their assignments, or reflecting on my decisions and their impacts – I once again arrive at the topic of polarization…..
Reflecting on past classes spreading the message “You are not your homework” and “Your politics should be an aspect of your identity, not your whole self” to past conversations I had with friends, where the line stood out from my past life: “Don’t make your hobbies as your sole identity”. The argument in understanding polarization where disagreements become an existential crisis finally made sense to me….
So, for this blog post, I am going to talk about how identity and role ambiguity could be a factor that drives polarization – and why many people today choose to resort to emotions, jumping to conclusions and decisive decisions that negatively impact the lives of those who disagree with them. As social workers, I feel it is important to discuss polarization in the context of identity and roles, as we conduct our practice with many diverse people and communities who may disagree with our beliefs. Further understanding may provide more insight in how as social workers, we can handle differences in a polarized society.
How does identity and roles fit into polarization?
To start off, I would like to define identity. From my own understanding, identity is your whole self – shaped by the processes of socialization. Your identity is shaped by your relationships with family, friends, and loved ones, culture, social and political environments, physical ailments, and challenges. In other words – many things impact your identity.
So, it comes to no surprise that when we are talking about polarization, the views, experiences, decisions, and actions influence how others treat each other – and handle conflict. This can lead into an understanding of how someone may treat disagreement (or heck, even someone’s existence and presence) as an existential crisis – In that the very social fabric of difference and mistakes made interrupts their “script” of the world. Or the view on how others should act (even though we all know as social workers, that’s very subjective!).
It’s no wonder why some may hold polarizing views when others make mistakes. The discomfort that comes with encountering someone different, or making an accident when mistakes happen. Avoiding instead of dialogue. And resorting to triangulation, or even cancel culture – at the cost of another person’s livelihood and future. In other words – in a precarious environment that perpetuates polarization, sitting in with the uncertainty in difference, and how others actions can elicit many feelings of discomfort – anxiety, depression. And the need to control the external environment. That’s when polarization happens – the race to negotiate with the self and everyone and everything to preserve an identity.
Of course, we cannot invalidate those who went through the various traumatic events – which leads to their decisions today around how they treat others. It definitely takes a lot of self-reflection, especially in sitting with discomfort around how one’s decisions may impact others on many levels.
The Inter and Extra-relational identity
To explore further, the concept of Homophilly is relevant in this discussion. According to Yang (2023), Homophilly involves the processes around the tendency for individuals to associate with similar others, through many factors such as race, culture, interests, political ideology, and more. She elaborates that on a macro scale, Homophilly shapes polarization, impacting how people communicate, gains from social relationships, and perceptions. Yang also argues that the strength of one’s sense of identity shapes the process of how relationships are formed through similarity.
Yang then further elaborates that the processes of similarity involve both intra-relational and extra-relational similarities. Intra-relational enacted identity similarity involves how people show up in relationships – In other words, how people relate to each other in the contexts of their own friendships, romantic connections etc. On the other hand, Extra-relational enacted identity similarity involves how others present similarity in other settings – like other friendship groups, work, online, etc.
If I already confused you, think of the two concepts like this:
Intra-relational identity is about how Person A and Person B relate to each other when they are interacting with each other. It’s the version of themselves they experience inside the relationship.
Extra-relational identity is about how a person may act or present themselves in other relationships when the other person is not present. Because this version is mostly unseen, it has much less impact on how close Person A and Person B feel to each other.
Yang further argues – and found in her paper that the process of how people relate to each other within their relationships create stronger feelings of similarity. So, in other words – people form stronger bonds and mutual understanding when they are together – interacting. Applying this back into the contexts of polarization – it seems that when people show up and are physically and emotionally present, conflicts are better resolved. Difference is far more tolerated, healthy communication processes are utilized, and there’s more reflection around how actions may impact relationships.
To put in simply – the more contact, and time you spend with a person, the stronger your bonds are. And the more intra-relational process you use to resolve conflict – over avoidance, shaming, and polarization.
But if this is true – it definitely contradicts the ever-shifting climate where people are becoming more individualistic and isolated, especially in our polarized and precarious environment. Does not help that neo-liberalism strives on people being in conflict to fragment any collective dissent. Drawing from my personal experiences, I know so many who, in response to precarity and uncertainty, embrace identities that are mainly focused on extra-relational processes to connect to people. In other words, double dipping on identities that are very dependent on how they are perceived by everyone in order to gain resources, be it tangible (money, opportunities etc.) or intangible (attention, social standing, etc.).
And how do they do this? Through external control. From performative actions without any self-reflection behind the intentions, to throwing people under the bus when others make mistakes. Even if this may conflict with their own values in preserving connections. And of course – this involves an audience to watch the spectacle happen, public shaming. This is where roles come in.
Roles
In integrating with identity and polarization, I will be explaining roles through role theory. According to Biddle (1986), role theory presumes that individuals are designated social positions, in which they hold expectations for how they and others behave. Roles can be both self-designated and by others.
So how does one role impact identity? Let’s use the role of a social worker for example. As social workers, we are bound to ethics that guide not only our practice, but how we function in society to preserve our profession. Thus, many of the values are integrated into our sense of identity. Or perhaps people go into the profession as their own personal values align with the ethics. The general public on the other hand have expectations from us as social workers. Add in the context of where you practice, your experience, and level of practice – and you have expectations that differ from practitioner to practitioner. All of these then impact one’s identity. However, in our education and training, we are encouraged to engage in self-reflection and self-care – not taking work home with us, confiding in close supports, and using other means to develop a more holistic identity. I know within myself that I turn off the social work role by embracing other roles – Anime Otaku, student of the martial arts, and enthusiast of music, cars, and streetwear fashion.
Going back to polarization – what happens in some cases where one lives in precarious situations? Especially if they may not have the means and resources to diversify their identity development through intra-relational processes?
For those who rely on extra-relational identity processes to establish connection, well – they are dependent on a role to give them an identity. Again – this role can be self-designated or passed down from others. But that may mean one thing – these processes depend on how they are perceived by others. In the context of polarization, one may use their political and social beliefs as the main aspect of their identity, over being a part of who they are. Consequently, they are more likely to act if they perceive others threatening their political identity or find ways to legitimize their views as objectionable (Mesler et al., 2024). In order to carry on this act – one may take on a role adjacent to a moral arbitrator or protector – perceiving a mistake as a transgression, refusing to hear the other side out, and going to great lengths to mobilize others to inflict punishments – to the point of even punishing outsiders who refuse to participate. To play the role, one may engage in virtue signaling to justify punishments and social vigilantism (justifying one’s moral position for their actions) (Mesler et al., 2024).
In other words – to handle the uncertainty behind difference, people naturally resort to emotion-based reactions. And through this – take on roles that involve enforcing moral objectivity towards others to preserve their identity. Yes – this can happen to anyone, regardless of beliefs or political stance.
In order to maintain these roles and identity, someone has to be framed in the role of the “villain”, “aggressor”, and many more. The opportunity to frame someone as a “villain” presents itself once a person makes a mistake – resulting in public shaming, canceling, and mobilizing others to participate and cut their ties to the person. From their perspective, the need to control processes in order to destroy another’s identity for the sake of preservation, over resolving differences. Jumping to conclusions without getting to know the person and their lived experience, choosing retribution over restoration and repair. Controlling public narratives and utilizing different forms of language. Of course – these processes are emotion based, as a mistake or disagreement can be perceived as an attack to their sense of self. And it does not help that the social media algorithms reward outrage – creating echo chambers that drive further polarization.
Example of polarization through identity and roles
To illustrate, I will use my past experiences from the western anime community. Throughout my interactions, I met many talented cosplayers (Those who craft and/or wear costumes of various characters from anime, video games, comics, movies, etc.) who come from diverse backgrounds. However, as a result of precarious circumstances and challenges (ranging from social, economics, health, etc.), there are some who frame their status as a cosplayer as a crucial part of their identity. In order to maintain their identity, they resort to utilizing extra-relational processes to establish connection to gain approval from others (ex. Only associating with influential cosplayers over general anime enthusiasts in order to gain more recognition, publicly expressing political and social beliefs to portray a moral image, framing many interactions as “professional” despite being a hobby, etc.). Due to the absence of intra-relational processes to regulate around difference however, cosplayers who emphasize the external gains and external validation of their hobby as a main source of maintaining this identity may potentially perceive others’ mistake as an existential attack – refusing to hear the other party’s perspectives and contexts, and refusing to participate in repair processes. Thus, the dreaded “cosplay drama” happens – such cosplayers take on roles that implicate moral objectivity (ex. announcing oneself as a “safe person” on social media) and publicly shame another person to seize a moral public narrative and encourage others to participate. All at the cost of the other party’s well-being, identity, and in some cases, economic resources. To justify escalating the conflict past repair, moralizing language is used (Ex. Framing punishments and public shaming as a public duty, etc.). It is even possible that some cosplayers may purposely use these conflicts in order to increase their social standing amongst community members. Furthermore, outsiders to the conflicts who rely on extra-relational processes may participate in shaming the other party, all for the sake of either preserving their identity, improving their social standing, gatekeeping, or avoiding punishments for choosing not to participate/publicly supporting the other party. This is despite not having full contexts of the situation nor being able to gain the other party’s perspectives.
Again – we cannot paint all cosplayers as using the same processes – I know there are definitely cosplayers who stick to the processes involved in their craft and maintain connection through intra-relational processes, staying out of the drama and practicing healthy boundaries.
Perpetuation of Mental Health Stigma
When someone is assigned a villain due to mistakes rooted from mental health challenges and responses, two things may occur. Firstly, in order to maintain their identity and role of being morally objective, some may resort to pathologizing – applying stereotypes towards the other party (ex. “They are violent”, etc.). With this pathologizing, the other thing that can happen is when polarization processes are enacted an audience is present, one may try to convince the audience. In turn, outsiders may genuinely believe in the stereotypes about the other party’s mental health and disconnect from the person – leading to more public shaming, bans, and general fear of the person. When intra-relational processes are not present in these environments, mental health stigma is perpetuated.
This is what I mean by performative actions – one may try to express their support around ending stigma on social media, but when extra-relational processes are mainly used for connection, intra-relational processes that promote repair and dialogue gets discouraged, and pathologizing is perpetuated in order to keep framing the other party as the villain to maintain their sense of identity. This runs in contradiction to how social contact can be an effective form of de-stigmatizing mental health (Stuart, 2016).
And of course – with mental health stigma comes with perpetuating marginalization. The cycle breeds on. We all know what happens to many who are on the receiving end of a cancellation, and other processes involved in polarization – diminished sense of self and identity, compromised mental health, loss of relationships, loss of employment and opportunities – the list goes on. The perpetuation of the consequences that other social issues inflict. And the more someone loses – the more they may find spaces that may validate their sense of self. In the context of social justice – some may shift towards systems that perpetuate oppression and marginalization despite harms towards others in order to find a space to belong and safely express their lived experience.
When the ship goes down: The impacts of Role Ambiguity towards polarization
Now, what would happen if the role one plays is no longer needed in any given context? And what are the impacts on a Micro, Mezzo, and Macro level?
Role ambiguity is when feelings of uncertainty behind a person’s actions or tasks as a result of lacking information around their roles (Pearce, 1981). This can include unclear boundaries, taking on tasks outside their role, and questioning their own presence.
Yes, yes. I know the concept of Role Ambiguity mainly applies to an employment context. And I do believe that in order to understand how polarization, roles, and identity perpetuates fragmentation, role ambiguity at this time of writing, provides a reasonable link. Especially in cases where the “villain” no longer plays their role, and when intra-relational processes are needed to maintain healthy relationships.
Getting that out of the way – many of the roles that perpetuate polarization become very unclear once the villain is gone. As they may lack the information, knowledge, or guidance around how their role and their actions affect the long-term outcomes towards their relationships, groups, and communities (this includes what their role looks like outside of moral conflict), some may choose to stick with that role in order to maintain how they are perceived by others…… and maintain their sense of self.
And this is where fragmentation starts. With the absence of intra-relational processes, those who are dependent on roles that involve moral objectivity and extra-relational processes may potentially start policing others behaviors – in order to prevent a “villain” from existing. However, when others start making mistakes – the cycle once again happens. Discomfort in having conversations to resolve differences, avoidance. At first, this may look like resentment. But as we know, eventually resentment turns into hatred and spite. Once the process goes past resentment and spite – all cards are on the table. Emotions once again run deep and the other party gets blamed and painted as a villain, and the same processes that perpetuate polarization starts again.
Without self-reflection around the impacts of their decisions stemming from being in a role to portray one’s self as morally just as a way to connect to others – relationships keep breaking down and communities fragment. Then two things could occur – either the person becomes isolated, or perhaps others get tired, to the point where they are perceived negatively. Many eventually start questioning their role in a group or relationship, as a result of the shift in what originally brings people together and lack of information rooted from avoidance in dialogue. And yes – I do acknowledge that there’s a lot of energy allocated towards perpetuating polarization to the point where original objectives are lost (whenever it is making connections, advocating for a social cause, hobbies, etc.…) by controlling one’s environment to feel emotionally regulated.
So, with this in mind, let’s analyze from the micro, mezzo, and macro frameworks.
Micro
From a micro standpoint, role ambiguity fragments friendship groups and destroys relationships. And this is simply done by the refusal to engage in dialogue that builds towards repair. Perhaps this is further solidified by using feelings of discomfort to avoid repair dialog…. only to resort to public shaming. It is even possible that in order to maintain an identity and role through extra-relational processes, a “villain” needs to exist. So, relationships and groups that are built on extra-relational processes end up self-destructing. This is very important to consider as social workers, as relational approaches are important in collaborating with other professionals in order to both provide the best quality of support to our clients and proper collective action is needed when unjust actions are committed.
Mezzo
If relationships fragment on a micro level due to role ambiguity, then that leaves organizations, movements, and even groups that celebrate a hobby to fragment. When intra-relational processes are absent and there’s no “villain”, as I mentioned, there is no information or guidance or processes to inform how roles involving the enforcement of moral objectivity fits. Aside from the micro level effects of fragmentation, the main focus of groups, organizations, and movements get lost as energies are now centered around self-preservation – which looks like policing and punishing others’ mistakes. This is very similar to the findings to De Clercq and Pereria’s (2023) quote that “Increasing levels of role ambiguity culminate in tarnished change-related activities when employees do not get excited by work, face emotion-based tensions in peer interactions, or experience little emotional attachment to their organization”. Everyone eventually gets burnt out. In addition, recruitment of new members faces a challenge, as observers may realize the processes that are happening, and may become very reluctant in joining that group for their own well-being. Not fun at all.
Macro
The effects of role ambiguity and polarization in a Macro level scale is very similar to what I described in my last blog post – with groups, movements, and organizations fragmented, collective action and long-term change becomes a huge challenge (Rivera, 2025). Especially in cases where organization and groups no longer exist due to fragmentation. Aside from this, observers may start generalizing these processes as representative of an ideology, or perhaps there are those who have been impacted by polarization and fragmentation may actively advocate for regressive ideas. Thus, social change and progressive ideas become publicly stigmatized as a result of the perception that the processes that fragment and polarize others are representative of change and ideas. In turn – this further perpetuates the entity of figures and groups that seek towards maintaining systems of oppression, marginalization, colonization and inequity.
Conclusion
There is a line that I heard in my past life: “Know your position”. And now I question that line by asking “At what cost?”. Reflecting back, I did depend on the validation of others in maintaining my identity and roles, especially centering my hobby as that source. And that came at the cost of refusing to use my skills that promote relations, sitting in with discomfort necessary for repair and accountability, and connection. I did hurt others in the name of moral objectivity, but eventually I experienced the same processes and outcomes of polarization and lost so many friends. Reflecting back on my Social Work and Social Justice course, the line echoes: “Justice rarely feels good.”
As my father said, there is “no such thing as perfection”. As social workers, we need to continuously engage in self-reflection, especially in cases when clients and others may not share our values and beliefs. Such self-reflection can lead towards effective practice – and perhaps a relationship that can transform into collaborative social change.
And as people – in order to build a healthy sense of identity, it is necessary to have diverse experiences and perspectives as much as we can. We need to step out of roles when they no longer serve purpose, when they perpetuate harm. And it is necessary in order to grow within ourselves and as a collective towards social change, to learn the strategies to sit in with the discomfort of difference, and have dialogue that leads towards repair and restoration. In defiance to today’s neo-liberal climate where it seeks to divide people and perpetuate precarity and individualism. Restorative Justice principals come to mind as processes to maintain groups and organizations that work towards social changes – especially as social workers.
In a (near future blog post) I shall discuss more in detail about what we as social workers and people can do in order to prevent further polarization. I will also discuss how to be relational again – in order to bring our focus back into the structural social issues that continue to perpetuate processes of inequity and oppression.
References
Biddle, B.J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12(1), 67-92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435
Rivera, C. (2025). Polarization and social work. https://socialwork.ubc.ca/news/polarization-and-social-work/
De Clercq, D., & Pereira, R. (2023). When does role ambiguity escalate into diminished change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior? Journal of General Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063070231191878
Pearce, J. L. (1981). Bringing some clarity to role ambiguity research. The Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 665. https://doi.org/10.2307/257646
Stuart, H. (2016). Reducing the stigma of mental illness. Global Mental Health, 3, e17. https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2016.11
Yang, L. (2023). How similarity in enacted identity shapes social ties: Distinguishing intra‑relational and extra‑relational enacted identity. [Unpublished manuscript / academic paper]. https://larayang.github.io/files/jmp.pdf.
