Polarización social en El Salvador

TL;DR

Martín-Baró analyzes psychosocial polarization in El Salvador’s civil war through three empirical studies, showing that rival groups use mirror-image enemy stereotypes while many non-combatant sectors reject both sides. The data suggest broad sectors of the Salvadoran population did not identify psychologically with either contender and preferred a political solution.

Key findings

• Content analysis of rival communications (Jan–Jun 1982) found highly negative enemy images: official/COPREFA sources labeled FDR-FMLN members mainly as “Terroristas” (47.8%), “Subversivos” (29.7%), and “Extremistas” (17.8%); FMLN bulletins labeled the government/armed forces mainly as “Imperialismo yanqui” (21.9%), “Enemigo” (16.5%), and “Genocida/Asesino/Criminal” (15.3%).
• In metropolitan middle sectors of San Salvador, the military was seen as astute (1.74), ambitious (1.71), and violent (1.54), while the revolutionary was seen mainly as violent (1.66) and ambitious (1.51); both were perceived as ambitious and violent, though the military was rated more astute (td = 7.93; p = .000) and more ambitious (td = 2.91; p = .004) than the revolutionary.
• Among UCA students, 1,194 valid surveys showed negative opinions of all four main political groups, but FDR-FMLN and the Christian Democrats were evaluated less negatively than ARENA and the Armed Forces; preferred group for El Salvador was FDR-FMLN (403; 33.8%), Democracia Cristiana (339; 28.4%), ARENA (147; 12.3%), Fuerza Armada (106; 8.9%), with 199 (16.7%) not responding.
• Polarization appeared in individual opinions: correlations between opinions on rival groups were negative except for perceived independence from foreign forces, and the strongest polarization was between FDR-FMLN and ARENA.

Methods

• Three studies: (1) content analysis of public information by the contenders, using *El Diario de Hoy* and *La Prensa Gráfica* from January to June 1982 for COPREFA/official sources and available FMLN bulletins, mostly from the FPL, to extract adjectives used against rivals and their frequencies.
• (2) A questionnaire, “Escalas de la vida cotidiana,” applied to metropolitan middle sectors of San Salvador, including adults over 20 and final-year high-school students; total valid questionnaires were 1,254, with 52.5% aged 15–19, 31.6% aged 20–29, and 15.9% aged 30 or more; 53% men and 47% women.
• (3) A stratified, representative survey of UCA students: 1,320 surveys passed, 126 (9.6%) unanswered or invalidated, leaving 1,194 valid; it used an anonymous Likert-type questionnaire on ARENA, FDR-FMLN, the Armed Forces, and the Christian Democratic Party, run October 13–15, 1982.

Limitations

• The first study is described by the author as only a superficial approximation because of the quantitative disparity in available material (an average of 98 COPREFA “news” items per month in newspapers versus 3 FMLN bulletins per month), differing representativeness, and different informational nature of the sources.
• The second questionnaire was not applied to a rigorously selected sample, although criteria were followed to reach diverse metropolitan middle sectors aged 15–50.
• Evident from the text: the third study is limited to UCA students, not the general population, and was conducted before the FDR-FMLN’s public dialogue offer of October 1982 became known; the content analysis also relies on available FMLN bulletins, mostly from the FPL, rather than all insurgent groups.