Love Is Blind Animus

Moving beyond polarization requires a shift away from performative identity politics and an embrace of more nuanced dialogue.

The breakup of Sara Carton and Ben Mezzenga on Love Is Blind is a great example of Intragenerational Animus (scenarioDNA 2025 Trend Themes) emerging as pop culture allegory. More and more, people are making decisions about relationships based on political and ideological beliefs, and it's creating deeper divides within generations. Marshall McLuhan in Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man talks about how media shapes the way people see the world. In today’s digital age, the internet acts like a giant tribal drum, pulling people into smaller, more rigid ideological groups. The pandemic only made this worse, pushing people to connect more online and seek out communities that reinforce their views rather than challenge them. Much like the protagonist in the film The Substance, who struggles with the fear of obsolescence and the pressures of reinvention, younger generations now find themselves in a constant cycle of self-definition within these ideological silos.

In theory, self-definition should help people find someone truly compatible, but in practice, it often narrows the field in a way that might actually reduce meaningful connection. Shows like Love Is Blind promise to cut through the noise of superficiality, but they still operate within a media framework that privileges performative self-presentation over genuine self-revelation. Even the concept of “finding your person” is often shaped by hyper-curated narratives that favor identity markers over the messier, evolving reality of relationships.

IG influencers and reality TV participants tend to foreground traits that are easy to signal, such as political alignment, aesthetic choices, wellness habits, even niche subcultural affiliations. But are those the traits that actually matter for long-term connection? Probably not in isolation. What’s missing is the intangible, the emotional resilience, adaptability, the ability to navigate change together. But those things don’t go viral. They aren’t easily distilled into a caption or a dating profile soundbite.

If we’re not surfacing the deeper levels of what makes us human, it might be because our platforms don’t incentivize depth. The way we present ourselves is increasingly shaped by external validation loops (likes, shares, the ability to “win” a breakup online) rather than by the slower, more private work of figuring out what we actually need in a relationship.

Zygmunt Bauman’s Liquid Modernity describes a world where nothing feels stable, including identities and social norms. He notes, "In a liquid modern setting, engagement becomes temporary, commitments are fleeting, and identities are in flux." In times like these, people look for something solid to hold onto, and for many, that means aligning with clear ideological stances. In the Love Is Blind breakup, Carton represents a generation that builds identity around strong political beliefs, while Mezzenga's hesitation to fully engage with certain social issues suggests he isn't as fixed in his views.

Instead of bringing people together, media is pushing generations apart. McLuhan said that media doesn’t just share information, "it shapes how we perceive reality itself." This is clear in the Love Is Blind breakup, where the debate became more about cultural and political identity than a simple relationship decision. Shanto Iyengar and Masha Krupenkin in The Strengthening of Partisan Affect talk about affective polarization, where people see those with opposing views as enemies rather than just people with different opinions. They write, "Partisan animosity now surpasses racial hostility as the primary form of social division." Digital spaces have made this worse, limiting real conversations across ideological lines. The increasing need to perform ideological consistency in public and digital spaces has created an environment where social belonging is contingent on constant alignment with prevailing cultural narratives.

The Love Is Blind breakup highlights the tension between identity fluidity and identity anchoring in a time when nothing feels certain. Identity fluidity refers to the idea that identity is not fixed but constantly evolving based on new information, social interactions, and cultural influences. Anthony Giddens in Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age describes identity as something people build over time through social and political interactions, explaining, "Identity is not given, but actively and continuously created through reflexivity." On the other hand, identity anchoring is the tendency to cling to specific beliefs, traditions, or communities as a way of creating stability in an uncertain world. Bauman warns that when everything feels unstable, some people react by clinging even harder to rigid ideological positions. This is especially true for younger generations, who are shaping their identities in online spaces where beliefs and values are constantly reinforced. The struggle to maintain a sense of belonging in an era of rapid transformation and ideological scrutiny reveals the pressures individuals face in defining themselves within a society that increasingly ties identity to political and cultural alignment.

The Love Is Blind breakup is just one example of how Intragenerational Animus manifests in contemporary culture, where ideological differences become personal dealbreakers. This moment, amplified by digital spaces, underscores how social belonging is increasingly dictated by rigid ideological alignment. The decline of third spaces has left fewer opportunities for informal, cross-ideological interaction. The pandemic accelerated this trend, stripping away physical spaces where young people were more likely to encounter people not like them. Without these communal experiences, individuals are more likely to retreat into ideological silos where their identities are continuously reinforced. Moving beyond polarization requires a shift away from performative identity politics and an embrace of more nuanced dialogue. In a world where identity is fluid and ideological landscapes shift rapidly, embracing complexity rather than division may be the key to building a more resilient and interconnected society.

Unfortunately, digital culture has significantly disrupted the ability to establish a foundation of trust. Trust historically relied on continuity, accountability, and shared lived experiences. Now, instead of "I trust you because we have a history of understanding each other," it’s often "I trust you if you pass the right ideological litmus test." This accelerates the sorting process but erodes trust. Building trust requires intentionality. It means prioritizing slow, private conversations over fast, public performances, engaging with people outside one’s algorithmic bubble, and being willing to sit in the discomfort of disagreement without immediately pathologizing the other person.