Political polarization not only threatens democracy, but also disrupts family lives, causing clashes between family members with discordant political orientations. This article examines how individuals negotiate family conflicts during political divides, by focusing on the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement in Hong Kong. Based on data drawn from interviews conducted with 37 self-identified protest participants, I develop the concept of intimate distance in order to capture the way in which the participants negotiated political disagreements with their immediate family. Individuals make peace with their families during a high-risk movement, not merely by restoring closeness, but also by adjusting the intimate distance with their family members in three interconnected aspects: everyday family life, cognitive and emotional aspects. Individuals employ a repertoire of practices, together with emotion work and boundary work, to alleviate confrontations, rebuild consensus, and contain political risks. This study contributes to a more nuanced conceptualization of intimacy and family conflict resolution, and unravels the impact of family interactions on the intensification or alleviation of ideological and affective polarization in relation to the interpersonal and societal level.
AfifiTDZamanzadehNHarrisonK, et al. (2020) Explaining the impact of differences in voting patterns on resilience and relational load in romantic relationships during the transition to the Trump presidency. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships37(1): 3–26.
ChengJY (2014) The emergence of radical politics in Hong Kong: Causes and impact. China Review14(1): 199–232.
5.
ChenYSzetoMM (2015) The forgotten road of progressive localism: New preservation movement in Hong Kong. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies16(3): 436–453.
6.
ChoiSYLuoM (2016) Performative family: Homosexuality, marriage and intergenerational dynamics in China. The British Journal of Sociology67(2): 260–280.
7.
ChoiSYLaiRYSPangCL (2020) Gender irrelevance: How women and men rationalize their support for the right. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society45(2): 473–496.
8.
CohenNArieliT (2011) Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research48(4): 423–435.
9.
DengYO’BrienKJ (2013) Relational repression in China: Using social ties to demobilize protesters. The China Quarterly215(215): 533–552.
10.
GabbJ (2008) Researching Intimacy in Families. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
GiddensA (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
12.
GordonHR (2008) Gendered paths to teenage political participation: Parental power, civic mobility, and youth activism. Gender & Society22(1): 31–55.
13.
HertzR (2006) Talking about ‘doing’ family. Journal of Marriage and Family68(4): 796–799.
14.
HessJA (2003) Measuring distance in personal relationships: The relational distance index. Personal Relationships10(2): 197–216.
15.
HoPSYJacksonSKongSS (2018) Speaking against silence: Finding a voice in Hong Kong Chinese families through the umbrella movement. Sociology52(5): 966–982.
16.
HochschildAR (1979) Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology85(3): 551–575.
17.
HutchisonAJJohnstonLHBreckonJD (2010) Using QSR-NVivo to facilitate the development of a grounded theory project: An account of a worked example. International Journal of Social Research Methodology13(4): 283–302.
18.
IyengarSLelkesYLevenduskyM, et al. (2019) The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science22(1): 129–146.
19.
JacksonSHoPSY (2020) Women Doing Intimacy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
20.
JamiesonL (1998 [1988]) Intimacy: Personal Relationships in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
21.
JamiesonL (2005) Boundaries of intimacy. In: McKieLCunningham-BurleyS (eds) Families in Society: Boundaries and Relationships. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.189–206.
22.
JamiesonL (2011) Intimacy as a concept: Explaining social change in the context of globalisation or another form of ethnocentricism?Sociological Research Online16(4): 151–163.
23.
KobayashiTTseCH (2022) How political disagreements undermine intrafamily communication: The case of the anti-extradition bill movement in Hong Kong. Chinese Journal of Communication15(3): 378–400.
24.
KuanH (1979) Political stability and change in Hong Kong. International Journal of Sociology9(3): 121–142.
25.
LaiRYS (2023) Home as a site of resistance/repression? The intersection of family, politics and the Hong Kong 2019 protest movement. The Sociological Review. Epub ahead of print 17 May. DOI: 10.1177/0038026123117522.
26.
LamW (2004) Understanding the Political Culture of Hong Kong: The Paradox of Activism and Depoliticization. Armonk, NY: Routledge.
27.
LauS-K (1981) Chinese familism in an urban-industrial setting: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Marriage and Family43(4): 977–992.
28.
LeeFLF (2005) The impact of ordinary political conversation on public opinion expression: Is existence of discord necessary?Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly82(4): 891–909.
29.
LeeFLF (2016) Impact of social media on opinion polarization in varying times. Communication and the Public1(1): 56–71.
30.
LeeFLFLiangHTangGKY (2019) Online incivility, cyberbalkanization, and the dynamics of opinion polarization during and after a mass protest event. International Journal of Communication13: 4940–4959.
31.
LevinsenKYndigegnC (2015) Political discussions with family and friends: Exploring the impact of political distance. The Sociological Review63(Suppl. 2): 72–91.
32.
LoS (2021) Hong Kong in 2020: National security law and truncated autonomy. Asian Survey61(1): 34–42.
33.
LozadaM (2014) Us or them? Social representations and imaginaries of the other in Venezuela. Papers on Social Representations23(2): 1–16.
34.
MaN (2005) Civil society in self-defense: The struggle against national security legislation in Hong Kong. Journal of Contemporary China14(44): 465–482.
35.
MaNChengEW (2019) The Umbrella Movement: Civil Resistance and Contentious Space in Hong Kong. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
36.
MasonL (2018) Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL; London: University of Chicago Press.
37.
McCoyJRahmanTSomerM (2018) Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: Common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Scientist62(1): 16–42.
38.
McDevittMChaffeeS (2002) From top-down to trickle-up influence: Revisiting assumptions about the family in political socialization. Political Communication19(3): 281–301.
39.
MorganDHJ (1996) Family Connections. Cambridge: Polity Press.
40.
MorrisA (2015) A Practical Introduction to In-Depth Interviewing. London: Sage.
41.
MutzDC (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
MuxelA (2014) Politics in Private: Love and Convictions in the French Political Consciousness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
PollettaF (2020) Inventing the Ties That Bind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
ScottJC (1990) Domination and the Arts of Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Press.
45.
SpreyJ (1969) The family as a system in conflict. Journal of Marriage and Family31(4): 699–706.
46.
StraussALCorbinJM (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
TsangEYHWilkinsonJS (2022) The home as a barometer of society: ‘Practices of intimacy’ to moderate family intergenerational conflict in the 2019 summer of dissent. China Review22(1): 307–334.
48.
VegS (2017) The rise of ‘localism’ and civic identity in post-handover Hong Kong: Questioning the Chinese nation-state. The China Quarterly230: 323–347.
49.
WarnerBRColanerCWParkJ (2021) Political difference and polarization in the family: The role of (non) accommodating communication for navigating identity differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships38(2): 564–585.
50.
WojcieszakMWarnerBR (2020) Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Political Communication37(6): 789–811.
51.
YanY (2021) Chinese Families Upside Down: Intergenerational Dynamics and Neo-Familism in the Early 21st Century. Leiden: Brill.
52.
YangC (2017) The political is the personal: Women’s participation in Taiwan’s sunflower movement. Social Movement Studies16(6): 660–671.
