In wake of the novel coronavirus outbreak, people are paying more attention to their immune systems. Most of us agree there is a need to, and are trying our best to maintain a healthy body to combat the virus. While personal physical health has rightly been given a lot of attention, we must also realize that our “social health” deserves the same amount of attention. From the perspective of “social health”, what worries us most is social polarization, which has been aggravated over the past several months.

“Polarization” is not a new thing in the political world. It basically refers to the divergence of political attitudes toward ideological extremes. However, recent research in the United States shows that polarization is more complicated and worrying when it comes to identity politics. Lilliana Mason, a political psychologist, wrote a book in 2018, Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. In the book, she reveals how democracy, as well as party politics, is distorted when identity intensifies intergroup conflicts. One of the warnings she delivers is that as American social identities grew increasingly party-linked, the political parties became more influential in American political decision-making, behavior and emotion over the past few decades.
In the past, “political party” was only one of the social identities, as a person could have multiple identities, sorted by gender, age, race, religion and social class. However, as the party alignments changed and moved over time, as a result of political and election campaigns and the use of the “micro-targeting” technique, the “multiple” identity was narrowed to a “single” identity sorted by “political party”. 

In the US’ case, the current alignment of social identities within the two dominant parties is promoting a greater focus on partisan victory than on the good of the whole nation. Though Hong Kong does not have mature “party politics”, the political cleavage intensified by the recent political movement did divide Hong Kong into two camps, “blue” and “yellow”. The two camps are not only separated by the political view toward a certain social issue or political value but also by choice of lifestyle. The rise of the idea of a “yellow economic circle” is an example at hand. It is witnessed that Hong Kong’s situation in the past few months is more and more close to what happened in the US, especially after 2016.

While personal physical health has rightly been given a lot of attention, we must also realize that our “social health” deserves the same amount of attention. From the perspective of “social health”, what worries us most is social polarization, which has been aggravated over the past several months

The following question is, “What’s next?” According to the more “advanced” experience of the US, when the parties grow more socially sorted, the incentives for parties to compromise with the opposition decline to the extreme that citizens, especially those partisans, are no longer thinking independently and are less open to alternative ideas. It will lead to intergroup bias, prejudices, difficulties with cooperation, and blind activism. The most disastrous effect of such “identity politics” is that the group members tend to prioritize the victory of their own group over the greater social good. Social-based polarization has recently been seen to weaken the public’s desire for compromise.
The risk of segmentation and polarization is looming. By analysing this study, we can find that some of these situations are happening in Hong Kong. Identity politics even poisons the function of the “family” as a social stabilizer. Family members are divided according to the “color” of each member. We should be aware that when social polarization deteriorates further, the scenario of a kind of “civil war” breaking out in Hong Kong cannot be totally excluded.
The novel coronavirus epidemic crisis poses both a risk and an opportunity. 

A highly divided society will make itself more vulnerable to public health hazards; only a united community can win the battle against the deadly virus. However, it also provides an opportunity to break the political alignment constructed previously. 

All Hong Kong people, regardless of their political values, age group and social class, are facing the same threat. We should realize that we should fight together. 

For instance, the elderly were labeled negatively during the anti-government campaign. In wake of the current public health crisis, more and more people are showing concern about the elderly, especially the issue of whether they have adequate masks to protect themselves.
We should fight for a victory for Hong Kong as a whole, not for a specific group. Any attempt to exploit the novel coronavirus epidemic to further divide society should be stopped. As Kobe Byrant said, “The important thing is that your teammates have to know you’re pulling for them and you really want them to be successful.” This should be a useful guide for tackling social polarization.

The author is senior research officer of the One Country Two Systems Research Institute.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.