Today polarization marks or defines all regions of Venezuela. Especially in language, it “expresses identity, integration, diversity, and at the same time discrimination and nominalism.”
In the Venezuelan case, polarized and polarized areas and social actors are creating a discourse that is both private and public, one kind of survival strategy and the other political elimination. They pre-select the mind, delimit, make decisions about the opposite, explain the facts, build causal relationships, analyze for their own gain, and in short, they explain the legitimate discourse of polarization. In addition to normalizing the segregation and / or elimination of the other, they strengthen their own integration and political identity. Arbitration polarization moves along the integrated-exclusion axis, which hinders reunion, recognition, and dialogue. As such, they are a harmful political gear for both the “opposition-government”.
The polarization discourse, which argues for labeling, stigma, exclusion, and the political failure of another at any cost, has been introduced. We name reality, we validate it, and we legalize the language of polarization. As we have pointed out, a system has been established for the survival and elimination of another, in which we participate, support and work. To the extent that we validate that political narrative, we are consciously or anonymously involved in symbolic lifestyles or wars in such discourse production and language games.
We choose, delimit, we make judgments, we mean the past and the present. We connect facts and create causal relationships over time. We interpret political and social reality as opposition and government, plug in, immature and corrupt … we organize and share a society of intense relationships where moderate voices tend to be marginalized, muted, muted or eliminated.
There is an urgent need to understand each other, and conversation and discussion urge us to depolarize this word immediately.