Abstract
The atmosphere of political confrontation in Catalonia has recently had a considerable impact in WhatsApp groups analyzed within the framework of the IMPACT-EV (Evaluating the impact and outcomes of EU SSH research) project (FP7). We developed a classification of four impacts. (a) In most cases where pro-independence supporters and Spanish nationalists have participated in WhatsApp groups, conversations about Catalan independence have broken groups up due to the groups being deleted, someone being removed, or someone leaving the group. (b) Most groups that have agreed to not speak about the issue have continued without conflict. (c) Groups that have been maintained have survived because their members hold the same political position. (d) Only some groups have persisted despite discussing the topic due to a respect for differing political positions. In this article, we analyze this reality from the conversations of different WhatsApp groups, and by employing the communicative methodology of research, we identify a predominance of links of instrumental friendship in Typology a and links of democratic friendship in Typology d.
This article examines the effects of specific political events on conversations held through WhatsApp groups among Catalan citizens. It analyzes interactions that overcome political controversies and those that do not approach creative friendship. For many years, social polarization and its consequences and conceptualizations have been explored from different perspectives and fields of study (Devere & Smith, 2010; Høy-Petersen & Woodward, 2018; Woodward, 1995). Starting from this point, the present study analyzes the consequences of polarization in Catalonia (Hierro & Gallego, 2018), a region of Spain with 7.5 million inhabitants, based on their interactions through WhatsApp groups. In recent years, Catalan society has lived through a process of political confrontation as evidenced in the results of the last regional elections in 2017, where political parties supporting Catalonia becoming an independent state received 48% of all votes while those calling to continue to be part of Spain received 45%, according to General Court of Catalonia (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2017). Therefore, there is a third group that is not positioned either in favor or against the two majority groups. The interactions and coexistence of these positions form the basis of this study from a sociological perspective.
Sociologist Robert Merton (1968) affirmed the existence of the “group” and “extra group” as a social dysfunction. In fact, following Merton’s analysis, intragroup members consider the extra group from an irrational and exclusive perspective using a set of conditions that are selectively lower and form conditions of natural justice. Merton relates this dynamic to discrimination against Black and Jewish communities. He confirms the existence of a trend to reject persons who do not belong to the intragroup community and who show pride for not being part of these groups. On the other hand, he also stated that self-glorification sometimes becomes a counterresponse to persistent belittling from without.
In light of such conditions of potential social division, this study analyzes whether the hypothesis of the social divide can be confirmed based on the opinions that Catalan citizens have on this topic. In addition, we analyze these relationships, which have prioritized plurality, democracy, and solidarity and which have maintained their links, and we explore these instrumental relationships, which, following Talcott Parsons’s conception, have been strongly influenced by political and social contexts and have broken their links. Within the literature on social and instrumental relationships, it is important to highlight the work of Beck (1992), who, within the framework of reflexive modernization, states that there are no unique solutions in the field of politics. He instead affirms that there are different possibilities to be considered. Therefore, Beck argued that no decision-making processes are based on rational discussions; in contrast, many processes are mainly framed around authoritarian processes that do not take citizens’ contributions into account. These processes in turn render collective action difficult, and capacities for decision-making and democratic creation are not promoted. Framed around a rational process, Beck affirms that democratization generates cooperation and negotiation networks and makes cross-cutting resistance to any structure possible.
Bridges of solidarity and dialogue
In the present study, we examine how bridges of solidarity and dialogue are being generated in favor of democratic and plural relationships or, conversely, how more barriers to democracy are forming in the name of values that are closer to emotional issues than to rationality or a sense of community. This analysis seeks to establish a basis for the development of social links that take the principles of societal community into account to guarantee respect and pluralism.
Using the European project of the 7th Framework Program IMPACT-EV (Flecha, 2014–2018), we have developed a classification of four impacts. (a) In most cases where groups include both separatist and Spanish nationalist positionings, conversations about the issue have broken groups up because they have disappeared, someone has been removed, or someone has left the group. (b) Most groups that have agreed not to speak about the issue have continued without conflict. (c) Some groups have persisted because their members hold the same political position. (d) Only some groups have continued to discuss the topic from participants’ own respective positions. To analyze this reality, fieldwork focused on the analysis of dynamics that have arisen in WhatsApp groups. Given the impersonal nature of some of these groups, when these groups include a considerable number of members who do not know each other well, emotions rather than rationalism emerge. In the Catalan case, WhatsApp and Telegram groups have become permanent dissemination channels through which news and information about the Catalan process have been exchanged. This situation has occurred in pro-independence and anti-independence groups involving persons who do not belong to any of the abovementioned positions in the discussion. In this regard, there has been a considerable amount of research on the communication established on social networks, and debates on the consequences and risks of expressing political positions through social networks have continually become more public. For instance, Sebastian Payne (2017), a journalist at Financial Times, affirmed that: […] as an editor once advised me, don’t type something you can say in person. WhatsApp is fun, but it is no substitute for doing politics in real life.
Increasingly, social networks and WhatsApp in particular have become more intergenerational and channels of dissemination and propaganda for the main demands of social movements and citizens (Davies et al., 2016; Sinaga, 2015). Similarly, Teens, Technology & Friendship, prepared by the Pew Research Center (Lenhart et al., 2015), concludes that in society, mostly among young people, friendships are progressively being forged through social networks with unknown people. As previously mentioned, these virtual interactions are sometimes accompanied by a lack of rationality and perspective on what is communicated (Sobkowicz & Sobkowicz, 2012). Thus, as affirmed by Parsons (1991), instrumental links between people seeking to reach a certain goal are established.
Elster (1998) affirmed that when people are presented with a range of options, they choose the one that will provide them with the best results. In other words, each subject opts for the strategies that will be useful in reaching their objectives. This does not mean that the selected strategies will be the best ones, but rather that the subjects believe they will be. Therefore, all rational actions are instrumental, but not all instrumental choices are rational. In the latter case, an important example is that of social norms (Elster, 1998). According to the author, actions oriented by social norms are not guided by the best mechanism but by a need to accomplish something within the norms of the social group. This necessity can influence how these actions, which might not be interesting to one’s peers, can sometimes hide other instrumental objectives (Flecha et al., 2001).
The theory of rational election draws on the premise that persons act in their own interests. Hence, Elster (1998) affirms that rationality is limited to subjects and their own preferences. However, Elster’s conception about the integration of social norms includes communicative and deliberative elements as transformative strategies that extend beyond to people’s preferences. That is, preferences cannot be individually determined, but they are affected by collectivity, and they are established through normative consensus. Drawing on this view, Elster began to include deliberative democracy in his studies and consider the premises of Habermas’s (1984) theory of communicative action.
Societal communities
In this debate, Habermas’s theory of communicative action applies the theory of argumentation in analyzing which mechanisms implore subjects to reach a rational consensus, and it is for this reason that he pays attention to the theory of argumentation. To guarantee that a debate and argumentation are established, Habermas insists on the existence of two strategies: power claims and validity claims. The former is framed on imposition by force, while the latter is designed to establish a dialogue aimed at reaching consensus.
Considering these conceptualizations of communication, in the present study, we are interested in highlighting two of them given their complexity. On the one hand, these actions are regulated by norms characterized by the development of common agreements within a social group. These normative actions are constructed within a social group and are internalized. On the other hand, in relation to communicative action, this is shaped by subjects who have the capacity for language and action, taking as a starting point the aim to reach an agreement and establish negotiation procedures. Therefore, the objective, social, and subjective worlds are interconnected (Habermas, 1984). Communicative actions, which Habermas studied, are reflected in Talcott Parsons’s societal community, and this is a key issue in the present study. The societal community developed by Parsons is framed on the principles of integration and cohesion. Within the necessary premises proposed by the sociologist, in this study, we stress the principle of solidarity that Habermas defines as a unity of members who have several responsibilities within a system. As Parsons (1991) states, The sharing of such common value patterns, entailing a sense of responsibility for the fulfillment of obligations, then creates a solidarity among those mutually oriented to the common values. The actors concerned will be said to constitute, within the area of relevance of these values, a collectivity (p. 26).
Drawing on Parsons’s theory, solidarity implies taking a step beyond group loyalty. Parsons studied the viability of a societal community as a unity that is collectively oriented or, on the other hand, the responsibilities of involved members that easily guarantee the integration of everyone into the collective system. Within each collective, interconnected links contribute to creating a broad social system understood as a substructure. In this analysis, the authors show that the prioritization of instrumental interests within the framework of social systems is complex. Parsons affirms that it is better to set specific interests and instrumental expectations aside and foster a broader plurality of abstract and universal interests. In this regard, links and instrumental actions drive subjects away from needs and collective links and thereby damage the social system. In this case, Parsons speaks about principles and values related to romantic love or the way that friendship could be. In this sense, the outcome depends on whether community prevails or whether subjects depend on instrumental objectives.
Parsons’s contributions on societal communities address a clear question in the framework of our study. The research aims to observe how connections of a social system may or may not be hindered based on political and emotional reactions in Catalan society. In such a case, Parsons affirms that despite the alternative strategies that each subject can adopt, all of those offered can provoke problems that condition subjects’ reactions on the basis of their own systems of strategies that are oriented toward action. Furthermore, the sociologist affirms that it is necessary to understand whether patterns of participation in this social system are assigned to a social action or consumer good. On the other hand, Parsons assures us that we can understand the roles that we perform in relation to others depending on the expectations that we have and the roles that we play.
Along the same lines, other studies are helpful in deepening our understanding of the ways that strong and deep friendships can be maintained over time from a transformative perspective (Anderson & Fowers, 2020). In this study, we focus on this kind of friendship as framed within an investigation of what is called Amistad Deseada (desired friendship), where we explore the friendship of two relevant scholars: Ramón Flecha and Jesus Gomez. Their friendship began in childhood and endured throughout their entire lives, and regardless of their differences, they always prioritized the issues that united them and maintained a relationship based on solidarity and democracy (Giner, 2011).
Additionally, Parsons’s contributions are more important to this study in examining the shaping (or lack thereof) of these kinds of friendship in current Catalan society. Similarly, many authors since Parsons have studied the applicability of his theory to modern societies. These authors have tried to identify a way to construct integrative societies for citizens with a broader communitarian link that fosters solidarity and social cohesion while rejecting instrumental relationships (Duarte et al., 2014; Parsons & Sciortino, 2007; Sciortino, 2010).
Method
Measures
Four authors equally participated in the preparation of this article. First, Carme Garcia contributed her theoretical knowledge of classic sociological theory and friendship, which formed the basis of the fieldwork. Second, Mar Joanpere conducted the fieldwork, including selecting interviewees and carrying out the in-depth interviews. Finally, Oriol Rios and Teresa Morlà analyzed the contributions of the fieldwork as framed by the scientific literature reviewed. These points were then agreed upon through dialogue. The objective of the analysis was to identify the transformative and exclusionary elements of friendships that have emerged in a changing political and social context.
The study was first realized by developing a literature review that considered (a) the main contributions of classic authors of sociology in relation to social links and political transformations and (b) several relevant articles indexed in international databases such as the Web of Science and SCOPUS.
Additionally, we employed the communicative methodology of research (CMR), which has been recognized by the European Commission as the most appropriate for analyzing the situations of most vulnerable groups (Gómez et al., 2006). Drawing on the CMR, we conducted 10 in-depth interviews with 10 persons, guiding the fieldwork in a transformative manner. In other words, the fieldwork based on these interviews starts from a conceptualization of social conflict and aims to establish the foundations of a dialogue that enables actors to promote and develop transformative action to overcome this situation. The authors sought consensus through dialogue on most relevant fieldwork elements with the aim of guaranteeing neutrality and of seeking agreement between elements representing the diversity of voices in relation to the objectives of the study.
Participants and procedure
According to data published in 2018 by the Reuters Digital News Report, WhatsApp is the most widely used virtual communication channel for any purpose (82%), followed by Facebook (75%; Amoedo et al., 2018). 1 In addition to these data, it should be noted that the process in favor of independence has been basically carried out through apps and thus in a virtual manner. This is how the most important demonstrations have been convened in Catalonia in recent years. Considering these factors, this study focuses on interactions made possible through the WhatsApp platform.
The 10 persons interviewed had different profiles, as the study aimed to be representative of different social groups in Catalonia whose ideals and political opinions are very diverse. The 10 participants were chosen to guarantee a representative sample. Specifically, participants were chosen to ensure a diversity of origins and native languages (other parts of Spain or Catalonia), political views, ages, social environments, levels of study, views on the Catalan process (in favor, against, and neutral), and media outlets followed (Amoedo et al., 2018). Nevertheless, we should note that all of the participants live in large cities (approximately 100,000–150,000 inhabitants): Jorge (1991) is an engineer. In his own friendship group, there are varied opinions on Catalan’s political situation, but in other groups, he holds a minority opinion. He speaks both Catalan and Spanish. He follows representative digital journals from the right and the left to evaluate different positions. He is a member of 30 WhatsApp groups, but he only participates in 5 of them. In two of these groups, members send messages about the Catalan process despite the groups having been created for other purposes. Rosa (1953) has migrated from the south of Spain (Extremadura), and she is a nurse within the public system. Her mother tongue is Spanish. She follows representative media outlets with leftist political positions in Spain and Catalonia. She is a member of 15 WhatsApp groups, and in all of these, they discuss the Catalan process. She also participates in three telegram groups: one with her coworkers, one called Mares per la República (Mothers for Republic), and one called Companys per la Llibertat (Colleagues for Freedom). Julia (1990) is a teacher with an advanced degree. She lives with two friends, and they maintain three different political positions. Her mother tongue is Spanish. She follows representative Catalan and Spanish media outlets of the left and radical left that are not separatist. She is a member of 13 WhatsApp groups, and in 2 of these, members send messages about the Catalan process despite the groups having been created for other purposes. Javier (1966) is originally from Murcia (southwestern Spain). He lived in Catalonia for 19 years. He is a professor at a public university. He follows mostly Spanish media outlets. He is a member of eight WhatsApp groups, and in one of these, members send messages on issues diverging from the original focus of the group. Clara (1960) is a Catalan teacher at a secondary school of mostly Spanish speakers. Her mother tongue is Catalan. She follows Catalan media outlets and various digital journals of diverse political positions. She is a member of 38 WhatsApp groups, and in 15 of these, some members send messages about the Catalan process despite the groups having been created for other purposes. She is a member of two WhatsApp groups created expressly for this purpose. Diego (1991) is a doctor who lives in Catalonia and who is of Spanish origin. His mother tongue is Spanish. He follows representative Spanish and Catalan media outlets with centrist political positions. He is a member of 87 WhatsApp groups, and in 2 of these, some members send messages about the Catalan process despite the groups having been created for other purposes. Maria (1954) is a chemistry professor of Spanish origin. She is a professor at a university. Her mother tongue is Spanish, and she also speaks Catalan with her husband who is in favor of independence. They were mentioned in a report of one of the most representative local conservative journals before October 1, in which they discussed their opinions in favor of and against independence. She has three sons; two of them are in favor of her ideas, while other is in favor of her husband’s ideas. She follows local media, and she does not participate in any WhatsApp groups in which members discuss the Catalan process. She is a member of five WhatsApp groups. Roberto (1966) is of Spanish origin but was born in Catalonia. He is a local police officer. His mother tongue is Spanish, and he also speaks Spanish with his family. He follows media outlets favoring independence and the most representative Spanish media outlet against the Catalan process. He does not participate in any groups in which members send messages about the Catalan process. He is a member of eight WhatsApp groups. Carmen (1941) lives in and was born in Catalonia. She is a mature student. Her mother tongue is Catalan. Her husband has been a significant political representative at the local city council with a centrist political position. She has contact with more people through Facebook than through WhatsApp. She follows representative media with Spanish centrist political positions. Nacho (1991) lives in and was born in Catalonia though he is of Spanish origin. He is a predoctoral researcher at a university. His mother tongue is Spanish. His own friendship group represents diverse opinions on Catalan politics. He follows digital Spanish journals. He is a member of 41 WhatsApp groups, and in 5 of these, some members send messages about the Catalan process.
We should note that Jorge, Rosa, Julia, Javier, Clara, and Diego were interviewed after the declared illegal referendum on October 1, 2017, when civil society (through civil organizations Òmnium Cultural 2 and the National Catalan Assembly) with the support of the Catalan government organized in Catalonia to vote for or against independence and before the regional elections held on December 20, 2017. Maria, Roberto, Carmen, and Nacho were interviewed after the regional elections.
The outline of the in-depth interviews employed is presented as follows. As noted above, we started from conceptualizations of the CMR, which, as one of its main objectives, allows interviewees to provide dialogical ideas and thoughts.
Outline of the in-depth interviews
Do you think that a diversity of opinions and political views contributes to an enrichment of friendship? Why?
Do you believe that in your friendship group, there are a plurality of opinions and political stances? If so, how does this manifest and how do you express this plurality?
Throughout the Catalan process, have you felt uncomfortable in discussions or conversations with your friends such as in conversations through WhatsApp or social networks? Why? How have you managed this? Can you provide us with specific examples?
Have you stopped attending certain events or meeting with certain friends due to political disagreements over the last few days? How has this manifested? Have you been able to speak freely? Can you provide us with specific examples of this?
Do you think that you have been able to freely express and share your opinions with your friends or have there been any situations in which you have felt that you could not speak freely? Can you describe these situations?
Aside from discussions with friends, do you think that similar situations have occurred with your colleagues in the workplace or with your family members?
Have your colleagues stopped participating in debates or have they left WhatsApp groups due to disagreements? How has this occurred? Have you been able to discuss this?
Ethical procedures
To ensure neutrality, this study was framed on three main principles. First, the research team prioritized interdisciplinarity. Second, diversity in the authors’ political positions was guaranteed by including one member of anarchist movements, one former member a political party in favor of the democratic referendum, one member of youth movements in favor of independence, and one member involved in grassroots movements. Finally, a preliminary agreement was established between the authors in the data analysis phase to construct analytical categories representing as much as possible several different political positions held in Catalonia.
All participants involved in the research gave their consent to participate in the study. Prior to the interviews, they were informed of the objectives of our investigation, and the results obtained were shared with them. All data provided were anonymized, and we have changed the names of the subjects involved in the investigation by using pseudonyms. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights formulated by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union formed the ethical basis of our investigation process.
Results
To ensure agreement within the results of the fieldwork, we separately describe the studied interactions, which must be understood as an exclusionary dimension at the social level. We also include selected opinions from subjects that we have interpreted as transformative elements oriented toward shaping social cohesion in the region of Catalonia. In this regard, the results presented here are drawn from the voices of the interviewees who participated in the study.
Breaking up groups: Instrumental friendship
Those who participated in this study affirmed that diversity in friendship groups contributes to a group’s depth, but they also confirm that they have sometimes participated in events that they disagree with or that they are underestimated by their peers. Such conditions are reflected by comments made in WhatsApp groups, social networks, or in person and can also occur when fake messages are sent that polarize the political situation, as Nacho explains.
Some people share biased or tricky information that tends to polarize opinions. This “virality” is easier nowadays with social networks because tons of information get out of control most of the time and we are getting used to it. So, when media enters WhatsApp groups, saying “this video is fake” or “please check and verify the source of this information” is not worth it.
Moreover, some interviewees felt attacked by their friends or family members or felt obligated to make concessions about issues on which they have differing views. This trend is in line with the theoretical premise, which approaches the instrumentalization and breaking up of friendship as due to a lack of dialogue and respect.
Jorge has a friendship group consisting of males who are 30. They studied together in secondary school, and for 10 years, they maintained their relationship. Political conflict has driven them into an atmosphere of tension and polarity. As he affirmed, debates occur in the group on various issues, but once, during a dinner, a colleague made him feel “like a Spaniard” and a discussion at the restaurant then ensued. There is not much freedom to say what you think because they quickly make you feel as if you are one of the “others”. I am not with one or with others, and if I were with one, I wouldn’t say I was. We had a discussion, and now we don’t talk about these things; what it has achieved is silence. Every day I receive separatist messages on WhatsApp, and I don’t say anything. These channels were not designed for propaganda but now they are used for that. We have a WhatsApp group where there are different friendships; there are friendships that are lifelong and there are friends that have recently been added. Then, for the last three months, there has been a WhatsApp group with a lot of friends that have been divided. In the past, we talked about everything; we talked openly of politics and each explained their views. There were people of both opinions, and this was respected, but lately, I don’t know why, I don’t know if it was because the topic was very repetitive and they became fed up with listening to the same things every day, but after a couple of days, a kind of rupture happened and then the group was divided. They then opened a group more linked to the separatist side or with people who had always had separatist ideas within the group. Everyone knows who they are, and some of the people have left that group. Another group formed by these people was open to comments on political opinions because, afterwards, the other group did not talk as much. When we meet, we do not talk about politics very much. Now I think that there is no enrichment because of the current situation in Catalonia, which has reached a state so extreme that you have the feeling that exchanging positions creates hostility in WhatsApp groups. We had previously been able to speak or even disagree, but not now. Now there is a fear that what you say can drive a wedge into a group of friends.
Javier explains that some of his closer friends and relatives are clearly separatists. He also states how different he feels when someone speaks badly about Spanish people by posting jokes or separatist messages on WhatsApp groups. While he is part of a WhatsApp group with friends, he has not opened it for a long time because if he did, he would feel uncomfortable viewing the separatist propaganda posted. In WhatsApp groups with family members, he tries to avoid certain people’s comments. The situation now makes me sad. I don’t go out with my friends on bike rides. I don’t say anything anymore. I am always silent. At home, for example, we do not watch the news—it is forbidden. We watch other channels, and we read and listen to what we want because if we do not, we collide and fight. It’s funny because people always get things done. For instance, take my mother, nobody has never known how she is positioned or votes in elections, and while she always receives announcements of pro-independence demonstrations and stuff, she has never gone! There has been an excess of everything and information that has emotionally destabilized people, making calm dialogue difficult. My colleagues and I have talked about false messaging from the media, the treatment of the press…but as a result, we achieved ideological agreement, and we do not debate either. We mostly discuss the press. Excess has made dialogue impossible. I have not found spaces for debate, and maybe we have not allowed it. The news has prevented debate, and perhaps we have not provided space for having debate. We must engage in self-criticism. I don’t know if I would have accepted criticism at that time. I don’t know how I would have reacted if somebody told me that he had skipped the rules, but we are not psychologically prepared to receive a shock like that. The dialogue was very complicated. People who might have been able to talk might have also put themselves on the defensive. There is silence after information is sent because now everyone doesn’t receive this information the same way, even though they share the same ideology. There are differences in any given situation. For example, with some friends I share the same radical perspective while with others I do not share the same ideology, and we don’t discuss this. In the friend group, there have been some interesting silences. For me, the silence with my Valencian friend was very strange. We had known each other for years, we knew how we each thought, and he knew that we would be involved in the Catalan process. It’s like silence that is part of dialogue as well. Also, silence between family members may occur because people may have opted not to speak and to maintain the values of family and friendship. Does this leave wounds? This is an issue we no longer talk about. We continue to meet, but we do not talk about this issue. Nobody has stopped thinking about why we have done it or why do we keep doing it. I think not speaking makes it worse. Now we are less connected, maybe because we do not talk as much in that common group. We do not know if there are people in the group that meet separately. Last weekend, we met and there were people with all sorts of ideas and opinions, but someone who normally came was missing. I do not feel uncomfortable because they are my lifelong friends.
Jorge notes that apart from this silence, it is important to highlight how discourse became more aggressive since the illegal referendum was held on October 1: I have noticed a change in terms of aggressiveness since October 1st. Some people do not stop sending me propaganda, and I see aggressive and sometimes violent messages against the Spanish government that do not consider their consequences. We were both members of the Union; in fact, we are three friends who have always been very close. One is not separatist, one does not position herself because she is from the Comuns,
3
and me—I am separatist. From all of the conflicts, we now do not even speak to the one from the Comuns. One day, we had a discussion through WhatsApp on how sometimes things depend on the Comuns’ positioning and how they should say something about the Catalan process but do not. After that, we did not do anything together, we have not spoken since. I see the same trend at the hospital, where relationships are no longer the same. One woman told us that when she arrives at the hospital, the others are silent, and she feels rejected for not being separatist and sometimes she is accused. We sent emails to the entire teaching staff on the general strike held on October 3rd. Those who support the Catalan process sent the emails. There were 10 of us, and one was against independence. We wrote a manifesto and collected signatures against the violence of October 1st. Suddenly, many people signed up, but when space for dialogue was created, people did not appear. The media became aware of this, and we appeared in a photo with around 20–25 people; we clarified that we were representatives of the teaching staff and never part of an institute. We came out with the Omnium banner about “democracy.” It is curious that after October 1st, people did not talk about anything; everything was very superficial. People who previously went to the pub stopped appearing and only those who supported the Catalan process continued to do so. The person who was against the process sent a sarcastic comment, but no arguments occurred. Some people stopped going to the pub because they were positioned on the YES side of the referendum. At my school, this has not been resolved. We can live together, but a rift has formed. When someone finds somebody who is complicit, he or she says: “What peace! Now I can speak!”
Democratic friendship
In this second section, we refer to interviews reflecting successful and transformative instances of social conflict because, as evidenced by their words, both contribute to constructing real friendship and feelings of solidarity. They are based on respect, tolerance, and solidarity, and they respond to the abovementioned fourth criterion: (d) only some groups have persisted despite discussing the topic due to a respect for differing political positions. In this regard, some interviewees demonstrate how it is possible to overcome exclusionary situations by adopting a transformative perspective and building consolidated democratic processes.
Roberto, a local police officer, explains that he is not threatened by the different opinions held at his workplace: “There are ideas about everything, but we all get along through respect. There we talk about everything and nothing has ever happened because we know that each of us must be able to consider the views of others.”
Julia lives with two friends with opposing political perspectives and describes some of her experiences with this. According to her, as with all of the interviewees involved in this study, a diversity of opinions has a positive effect in enriching a friendship: A diversity of opinions always favors friendship. I’ve always supported Real Madrid, and that is not very common here, and in my group of friends, who all supported Barça, it was great to be able to have a connection with them. This kind of situation enriches me and provides me with more ways of viewing things. If everyone had the same views and opinions, it would not be as enriching. In our group of friends, there is always a diversity of viewpoints. With my parents, it is difficult to talk this way. They have a certain political position, and it is difficult to talk about. In my group of friends, I have never felt coerced to say what I think, but over the last weeks, the debate has become more involved; therefore, we talk about this more. I was surprised to hear about October 1st; when the secondary schools closed, people assumed that we were all going to vote YES, and if you stayed at school it was because you wanted the right to democracy and you would vote NO. This is the surprising thing about this process through which we do things. My position surprised people because it was a minority position, but it did not create controversy. After October 1st, people no longer wanted to decide, and everything was focused on Catalan independence. I attended debates against the police repression we experienced, so it was a mistake to relate everything to the idea that people voted for independence. It was a mistake because the procedure disconnected a lot of people from the main issues. At home, this is a topic that we talk a lot about. It goes beyond our friendship; it goes beyond saying YES or NO to the Catalan referendum, and it is a frequently recurring theme that has never generated any kind of conflict. On the contrary, I love listening Cris’ opinions because she can defend her ideas without offending me or making me feel small or that my opinion is less important. I think that developing this ability is difficult; it is related to an ability to have a dialogue beyond whether you support YES or NO. It does not affect me when I am receiving propaganda from the YES camp although I think that if I was sent propaganda from the NO camp it would affect the relations that these organizations have with the Catalan conflict because they have values that are very different from the values of my friends. The conflict would not be for the NO side, as it would be for the organization that organizes this campaign. I also know of WhatsApp groups with people who have left because they have not been taken care of. In fact, I know one group in which two people left because there were a lot of political debate and these people wrote in to complain not so much about the YES or NO side, but about being tired of hearing of the same issues for 24 hr on the TV and even in WhatsApp groups. This has occurred due to continued contamination of the Catalan process. In our group there is a bit of everything. There are some people who are separatists, and there are many who go for yellow. There are people who do not seem to care, and there are other people who do not vote, but the most important thing is that we are friends.
Maria also comments on differences that have emerged in this atmosphere of social and political conflict and how these differences do not negatively affect their relationships. On the contrary, Maria believes that an emphasis is placed on such dialogue and on the values that they do share: “I love my friends and family a lot and I hope to always be able to talk about the things we do, always with respect and love for others.” On this point, Nacho adds: “I think it could be that varied opinions in your circles help you value people for how they act rather than for what they think.”
Discussion
This study approaches various issues of discussion while drawing on contributions from the literature and results obtained through interviews. The results obtained highlight both exclusionary elements that hinder dialogue and mutual understanding and transformative elements that promote friendship and mutual understanding. Through our investigation, we introduce an innovative analysis of WhatsApp interactions that helps us further our understanding of the influence of several impersonal channels of communication. The study has also allowed us to contrast the aforementioned four impacts.
Drawing on the exclusionary dimensions identified, we have examined our subjects’ inability to establish dialogue because the surrounding communicative environment drives them to reduce their argumentative capacity. This situation has been aggravated, through the spread of fake messages or noncontrasted information through WhatsApp channels, on the one hand, and through an assumption that everyone supports Catalan independence, on the other hand. Thus, according to the findings of this study, both elements have contributed to polarizing Catalan citizenship. Following Habermas’s theory, a need for and lack of dialogue in times of political and social conflict are evidenced here. In fact, the cases of conflict examined in this article have involved the occurrence of silences and broken relationships due to varied positionings. The studied relations were based on an instrumental interest, and they ceased to exist when respect was not practiced. In this vein, interviewees such as Nacho also talk about the use of silences to avoid uncomfortable situations or confrontation and to maintain family and friendship connections. In a context where polarization is becoming more pronounced, according to the interviewees, it is difficult to express opinions without losing or damaging relationships. Some people prefer to remain silent rather than potentially being disrespected for their views. This is also why some of the interviewees have stopped participating in spaces that they used to engage in.
On the other hand, interviewees who relate to transformative dimensions showed that egalitarian dialogue has been a key point in their friendships. The friendship that is exposed in these two dimensions clearly reflects Parsons’s distinction between instrumental relations and relations based on values and rules that can construct societal communities. For the former, it is demonstrated that relationships are broken due to the differences that are more difficult to rebuild when silence appears. Such relations are framed on superficiality. In contrast, transformative relationships illustrated in the second half of our results show how having profound feelings can actually improve friendships.
Julia insists that the current situation could improve if egalitarian dialogue such as that which she has forged with her friends was established. Her friends always seek agreement despite their opposing opinions. This egalitarian dialogue forms the cornerstone of friendship that guarantees social stability despite political and social conflict in the region of Catalonia.
Through this study, reflections on the theory of communicative action (Habermas, 1984) should be considered, as should the need to establish agreements in digital spaces because when it does not occur, irrationality and superficiality will erode friendships. However, in the social sciences literature, several studies highlight the importance of promoting educational actions from an early age based on dialogic interactions, respect, solidarity, friendship, and a clear rejection of any type of violence (Oliver, 2014; Ramis et al., 2013). As our interviews show, egalitarian dialogue is only possible when these values are present. Even interviewees maintaining friendly and respectful relationships in some cases described preferring to remain silent (especially in WhatsApp groups) upon finding that others do not share their values. This is why we stress the need to continually promote certain values from an early age and particularly to enhance friendships and create more democratic, egalitarian, and dialogic societies independent of existing political, economic, and social changes (Sciortino, 2010).
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Open research statement
This research was not pre-registered. The data and materials used in the research are available upon request by emailing mar.joanpere@urv.cat.