“The goal of social movements isn't to homogenize thought — it's to harmonize action. Divergent views aren’t a threat — they’re the bridge.”
At first glance, this statement feels almost obvious. Yet it cuts to the heart of a crisis now gripping not only movements for change but democracy itself. New research by Lüders et al. (2023) illuminates the stakes. Using a method called ResIN (Response-Item Network), their study reveals that political attitudes today are no longer just expressions of belief – they are markers of identity, tribal flags waved to signal belonging and loyalty.
Through analysing attitudes on hot-button issues such as abortion, gun control, and immigration, Lüders and colleagues discovered a startling truth: knowing just one opinion often allows others to predict your party affiliation with over 90% accuracy. One belief is enough to box you in, to render you a representative of “us” or “them.”
This is not simply an academic curiosity. It is a shift in the architecture of society itself. Our opinions are no longer treated as discrete statements about the world, but as keys to hidden doors revealing our identity. The study found that attitudes form structured networks tied directly to partisan identity, showing two distinct clusters corresponding to Democrats and Republicans. Within these clusters, people’s attitudes are not randomly distributed but organized in coherent, identity-defining belief systems.
Why does this matter for social movements?
Because movements depend on collective action across difference. The ResIN study reveals a worrying trend: the left (Democratic identity) shows tighter clustering around extreme viewpoints, with less internal diversity. Moderate or divergent views risk exclusion, even if their holders support the broader goals. In contrast, while Republicans also show partisan clustering, their networks are more diffuse, allowing for a wider spread of internal positions.
This homogenization on the left might appear as strength – a sign of unity. But in truth, it risks suppressing internal dialogue, alienating bridge-builders, and weakening coalition-building. When people are forced to align with every belief in a cluster to be accepted, movements lose their agility, wisdom, and capacity to adapt.
Lüders et al.’s findings confirm a broader insight in social psychology: attitudes are not just cognitive positions but social tools. They are used to categorize others as ingroup or outgroup members, to assess who is safe, who is threatening, who belongs. In the study’s vignette experiment, participants could infer partisan identity from a single attitude with striking accuracy, and this shaped how warmly or coldly they evaluated others.
But there is a hidden cost to this efficiency. As attitudes become identity markers, deviation becomes betrayal. Bridge positions become suspect. Divergent views, even when rooted in moral conviction, are cast as impurities within the group. We see this daily on social media, where complex ideas are flattened into memes, and where dissent is read as disloyalty rather than a contribution to collective wisdom.
The implications are profound.
If the left continues to equate identity with ideological purity, it will drive away moderates, reduce internal reflection, and fortify the very polarization it seeks to dismantle. Social movements thrive not because everyone thinks alike but because they act together towards a common purpose despite differences. As Derek Sivers reminds us in his viral TED talk, “the first follower is what transforms a lone nut into a leader.” It is not the purity of the message alone, but the ability of others to see themselves within it and bring others along, that creates momentum.
When movements homogenize thought, they do the opposite. They narrow their base to an echo chamber, confusing harmony of action with uniformity of opinion.
So, how can movements respond?
First, by understanding that divergent views aren’t a threat – they’re a bridge. The ResIN study shows that people use attitudes as shortcuts to decide who is “one of us.” But movements can disrupt this logic by emphasizing shared purpose over shared opinion, by crafting identities based on commitment to collective goals rather than rigid adherence to every ideological position.
Second, movements must foster an internal culture where difference is valued as a source of learning. Homogenization silences necessary internal critique, reducing movements’ capacity to self-correct and evolve. As Lüders et al. note, attitudes are both reflections and creators of identity. If movements design their narratives to welcome variation, they will build coalitions capable of enduring and thriving in complexity.
Third, movements must distinguish between harmonizing action and homogenizing thought. Harmonizing action means building enough agreement to move together towards a goal. Homogenizing thought demands that everyone holds the same beliefs, sees the world through the same lens, and signals loyalty in the same way. The former creates resilient networks; the latter creates brittle, insular groups vulnerable to fracture.
Finally, the study invites a deep reflection on democracy itself. When attitudes become identity signals, public discourse is no longer about persuasion but about policing boundaries. Democracy demands citizens who can hold multiple, sometimes conflicting, beliefs in tension, who can prioritize shared wellbeing over tribal loyalty. Movements, as microcosms of democratic practice, must model this capacity. They must become spaces where identity is constructed not around uniformity but around mutual respect, dignity, and the courage to act together.
In conclusion
The ResIN study by Lüders et al. reveals a sobering reality: beliefs have become badges of belonging. For social movements, this is a cautionary tale. The goal is not to enforce ideological purity but to build bridges between diverse people committed to shared goals. Divergent views are not impurities to be purged; they are the threads that strengthen the fabric of collective action.
“The goal of social movements isn't to homogenize thought — it's to harmonize action. Divergent views aren’t a threat — they’re the bridge.”
If we want to build movements that endure beyond moments of outrage, that remain inclusive, wise, and effective, we must heed this truth. Identity politics, when wielded as a weapon of exclusion, undermines the very solidarity it seeks to create. But when identity is rooted in shared purpose rather than ideological rigidity, movements gain the humility, breadth, and humanity to change the world.
source: Lüders, A., Carpentras, D., & Quayle, M. (2024). Attitude networks as intergroup realities: Using network-modelling to research attitude-identity relationships in polarized political contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 63(1), 37–51.
