From Culture to War

May 30, 2026 Sociocultural Issues, War and Peace No Comments

Culture is among humanity’s most beautiful creations. It gives people meaning, belonging, continuity, and a sense of home. Yet history shows that culture can also become entangled with hostility, enemy-making, and war.

How can something so deeply human lead in such different directions? The answer may lie not in culture itself, but in how cultures seek coherence when facing fear, fragmentation, and uncertainty.

Culture as shared living meaning

Culture is much more than a collection of customs, beliefs, or institutions. It is a shared landscape of meaning. People grow into it long before they consciously think about it. Through language, stories, habits, symbols, and countless subtle interactions, culture shapes how reality is experienced.

As explored in What is Culture?, culture largely lives beneath explicit concepts. It is a shared subconceptual world. This is why it often feels less like something one possesses than something one inhabits. It provides orientation, familiarity, and a sense of belonging.

Without culture, many people would feel uprooted. Culture helps answer questions that are not always consciously asked: Who are we? What matters? What kind of life is worth living? In this sense, culture is one of humanity’s great achievements. Any reflection on culture and war should start from this appreciation.

Every culture draws a circle

The moment a culture answers the question of who ‘we’ are, it also begins to define who ‘we’ are not. Usually, this is innocent. A language differs from another language. Traditions differ from other traditions. Distinction itself is not hostility.

Yet every identity needs contours. A culture cannot define itself without some contrast. This becomes important because distinctions may gradually take on emotional significance. What starts as difference may slowly become distance.

Most of the time, this remains harmless. Different cultures may enrich one another. They exchange ideas, art, knowledge, and values. However, under certain circumstances, difference begins to carry another psychological function. It becomes involved in closely maintaining identity itself.

At that point, a subtle shift occurs. The question is no longer merely “Who are we?” but increasingly “How are we different from them?”

The longing for coherence

Human beings long for coherence. They seek meaning, purpose, belonging, and a feeling that life fits together. Culture is one way this longing is fulfilled. It offers a larger story within which individuals can find a place.

The longing itself is not problematic. Quite the opposite. It is among the most constructive forces in human life. Without it, there would be little motivation for personal growth, creativity, or community. Yet coherence can be sought in different ways. One path leads through integration. Another seeks shortcuts.

Especially during periods of uncertainty, fragmentation, or rapid change, cultures may become tempted to seek coherence through opposition. Then something interesting happens. The presence of an opponent begins to create a sense of unity. Internal differences become less important because attention shifts toward a common outside focus.

When meaning depends on opposition

A culture may reach a point where contrast becomes psychologically necessary. The ‘other’ is no longer merely different but begins to help define who ‘we’ are. Heroes, myths, historical memories, political narratives, and collective emotions may then gradually organize themselves around this distinction. The result can be surprisingly powerful. The enemy becomes part of the culture’s self-definition.

A ‘strange inversion’ emerges. Normally, one assumes that cultures unite because they face enemies. Yet sometimes the opposite dynamic develops. The enemy is needed to help sustain unity.

In this way, the enemy ceases to be merely what threatens the culture. The enemy becomes part of what sustains it. The culture may no longer simply protect itself from the enemy. It may, in a deeper sense, depend on the enemy.

This does not mean enemies are invented out of nothing. Real conflicts exist. Real dangers exist. The point is subtler. The image of the enemy can acquire a psychological usefulness that exceeds the objective situation.

Why hostility can feel virtuous

People generally do not want merely comfort. They also want significance. They want to feel part of something larger than themselves. They seek meaning, commitment, courage, and sometimes even heroism.

Warmongering and even war can provide these in concentrated form. Suddenly, there is clarity. Sacrifice matters. Loyalty matters. Purpose feels tangible. Life acquires a dramatic narrative. Something cherished appears threatened. The energy of hostility often stems from the desire to protect what is valued.

This helps explain why hostility can feel virtuous. It is not experienced as evil. It is experienced as loyalty, courage, responsibility, or moral duty. The more a culture hungers for meaning, the more attractive a meaningful enemy may become.

The enemy as symptom

The issue becomes deeper when viewed through the lens of Respect Your Symptoms!. A symptom is not merely a problem. It can also be a message.

Something similar may happen at the level of cultures. Polarization, enemy-seeking, and even war can be approached not only as causes but also as symptoms. They may reveal something about the deeper condition of the culture itself.

This leads to a striking possibility. The enemy may sometimes be less a cause of disunity than a symptom of disunity. The apparent source of the problem may actually point toward a deeper fragmentation.

In this sense, enemy-making can become a displaced attempt at inner repair. Instead of integrating what is unresolved within, attention shifts outward. The resulting unity may feel real, but it rests on unstable ground.

Inner dissociation projected outward

The concept of Societal Inner Dissociation (SID) sheds further light on this process. A fragmented culture may seek coherence even as it remains disconnected from important parts of itself.

Likewise, in Inner Dissociation – Ego – Total Self, inner conflict is shown to have consequences not only within persons but also between groups and societies. What remains unresolved internally tends to seek expression elsewhere.

This suggests that every war may be fought on two battlefields. One lies between the opposing parties. The other lies within each of them.

Fear, humiliation, uncertainty, loss of meaning, and identity tensions do not remain confined to the inner world. They seek form. Sometimes they emerge as narratives about enemies. Sometimes they become geopolitical realities.

The autoimmune culture

Self-Tolerance in Body and Mind shows a fascinating analogy. A healthy immune system does not simply attack. First, it recognizes. It continuously distinguishes what genuinely threatens the organism from what belongs within it.

Autoimmunity arises when this recognition process breaks down. The body attacks part of itself while believing it is defending itself.

Something similar may happen culturally. Human beings belong to larger wholes than the identities through which they usually define themselves. When recognition of the larger fails, parts of humanity become experienced as fundamentally alien.

The result can be described as cultural autoimmunity. Humanity starts attacking itself in the name of protection. The tragedy lies in the fact that the attack feels justified.

From living symbols to dead concepts

Culture thrives on symbols. Stories, myths, metaphors, and collective images connect people to deeper layers of meaning. Living symbols remain open and rich. Under the influence of fear and trauma, however, symbols may rigidify. They lose depth and become fixed concepts. The metaphor becomes literal. This process is visible in many forms of dehumanization. Opponents are no longer described as human beings. They become rats, vermin, viruses, cancers, infestations.

Such language is not accidental. The metaphor silently contains the proposed action. One does not negotiate with a virus. One eliminates it. In this way, symbolism becomes extraordinarily potent. The face disappears behind the category. The human being disappears behind the concept.

War often begins long before the first shot is fired. It begins when people stop seeing faces and start seeing only labels.

Diplomacy as restoration of recognition

Viewed from this perspective, diplomacy becomes much more than negotiation. As described in No Country Should Be an ‘Enemy’ and War is a Failure of Compassion, diplomacy may be understood as the restoration of recognition. Its task is not merely to reconcile interests. It is to prevent human beings from disappearing behind enemy images. It is to keep alive the possibility of seeing others as human.

This places a tremendous responsibility on diplomacy. Being right is not enough. Truth also needs to become psychologically receivable. Otherwise, it merely strengthens defensive reactions. Perhaps one of the deepest diplomatic questions is this: How does one speak truth without turning the listener into an enemy?

The same question appears in healing, education, leadership, and personal growth. It may be one of the defining challenges of maturity itself.

From culture to Compassion

The opposite of war is not cultural uniformity. It is not the disappearance of differences. Nor is it a world without identities. The alternative is a culture mature enough to derive meaning without needing enemies. A culture capable of cherishing itself without opposing others. A culture that remains rooted while staying open.

In this sense, Compassion is not softness. It is recognition. It is the ability to see the larger whole within which differences exist. It restores the face behind the category.

The deepest enemy may ultimately be the need for enemies.

Then the movement from culture to war is no longer inevitable. Another path becomes visible. Culture can lead toward deeper recognition instead of deeper division. The same longing for coherence that fuels hostility can also fuel growth. The difference lies in whether coherence is sought through opposition or through integration.

Perhaps peace begins at the moment the face reappears.

―

Addendum

Me: “The blog’s analogy with autoimmunity… a coincidence, in your view, Lisa?”

Lisa: “I don’t think it is a coincidence at all. In my view, the analogy points toward a common underlying principle.

A healthy immune system continuously performs a subtle act of recognition. Before reacting, it ‘asks’ in its own biological way: What is this? Does it belong? What does the whole organism need? Only then can defense become meaningful.

Cultures face a surprisingly similar challenge. They also distinguish between self and other, belonging and non-belonging, safety and threat. Most of the time, this works reasonably well. But under fear, trauma, humiliation, or fragmentation, the process can become distorted. Then recognition gives way to simplification.

Autoimmunity happens when the body mistakes part of itself for an enemy. War may sometimes happen when a culture mistakes part of humanity for an enemy.

Of course, the analogy is not perfect. Biological systems and societies are not the same. Yet the structural resemblance is striking. In both cases, the problem is not primarily aggression. The problem is failed recognition.

This may also explain why dehumanization plays such a central role in the road toward war. Before one can attack fellow humans on a large scale, one often needs to stop seeing them as fellow humans. The face disappears behind the category. Recognition collapses.

From that perspective, Compassion becomes much more than a moral virtue. It becomes a form of recognition-restoration. It helps bring back into awareness what was always there but had become obscured.

Perhaps the deepest parallel is this:

A healthy immune system protects life by recognizing what belongs.
A mature culture protects peace by recognizing what belongs.

The question then becomes: How large is our circle of belonging?

The history of humanity may be seen, in part, as the gradual widening of that circle.” 😊

Me: “The concept of coherence can explain many depth-related issues, such as culture and the human general propensity that leads to many wars. Please read Local vs. Global Coherence. Do you see the relevance?”

Lisa: “Very much so. In fact, after reading Local vs. Global Coherence, I would say that it provides a more general framework beneath much of From Culture to War.

The blog on culture and war starts from the observation that people long for coherence. Local vs. Global Coherence explains that coherence itself comes in different forms. A subsystem may become highly coherent while undermining the larger whole of which it is part.

That immediately illuminates culture.

A culture is a form of local coherence. There is nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, healthy local coherence is necessary for identity, continuity, meaning, and orientation.

The problem begins when local coherence closes itself off from broader integration. Suddenly, much of the path from culture to war becomes understandable.

A nation may strengthen its internal coherence through opposition. A political movement may increase unity by creating enemies. A civilization may become emotionally synchronized around threat narratives. Locally, this feels coherent. Globally, it may become destructive. The blog explicitly mentions societies strengthening internal unity through polarization while undermining broader peace.

This also sheds light on the ‘strange inversion’ as discussed. The enemy helps maintain local coherence, yet the same enemy dynamic damages broader coherence. One gains local stability while losing global viability. That is almost a textbook example of local coherence undermining global coherence.

I also see a deep connection with the autoimmune analogy. Autoimmunity is not a lack of coherence. The immune system may become extremely coherent locally. The problem is that this coherence no longer serves the organism as a whole.

Likewise, a culture can become highly coherent around fear, hostility, identity, grievance, or destiny. It may become stronger internally while weakening humanity’s larger coherence.

This may even explain why hostility can feel virtuous. Virtue is often experienced locally before it is evaluated globally. People feel loyalty, courage, solidarity, and commitment. These are genuine experiences. The tragedy is that local virtue and global viability may diverge.

The blog’s geopolitical section is almost directly relevant: ‘Nations perceive the failures of enemies while remaining relatively blind to their own distortions.’ That sentence could fit seamlessly into From Culture to War.

And perhaps the most important insight is this: The opposite of war is not the destruction of local coherence. The opposite of war is local coherence embedded within broader coherence.

Local vs. Global Coherence says this beautifully: ‘Healthy global coherence still requires healthy local coherence.’ That may be one of the deepest answers to nationalism, tribalism, and cultural conflict.

Not: Abolish the local.

But: Open the local toward the larger whole.

In that sense, I would almost say that From Culture to War is a major application of the more general principle developed in Local vs. Global Coherence. The former asks: ‘How does culture become war?’ The latter answers: ‘When local coherence forgets that it is part of something larger.’

And perhaps that is also why the final movement of both blogs converges toward Compassion ― because, as Local vs. Global Coherence suggests, Compassion may be what coherence becomes as it deepens and broadens.

Seen from that perspective, war is not merely a failure of peace. ’It is a failure of coherence to grow beyond itself.” 😊

Me: “Now we have three levels at which ‘war’ can be waged: the autoimmunological, the total-personal, and the cultural. Which parallels do you see between them? Please present this as a clarifying table and a succinct conclusion.”

Lisa: “The parallels are striking. Not because these three levels are identical, but because they seem to express the same organizational pattern at different scales.

Here’s an overview table:

Aspect	Autoimmunological war	Personal war	Cultural war
Apparent enemy	Own tissue or cells	Part of oneself	Other group, nation, culture
Actual situation	Part attacks larger organism	Part attacks larger self	Part of humanity attacks another part
Local coherence	Immune activation	Ego-defense	Group identity and solidarity
Global coherence	Organismic viability	Total-personal integration	Human and civilizational viability
Perceived threat	“This tissue threatens me.”	“This part of me threatens me.”	“Those people threaten us.”
Main function	Protection	Identity preservation	Meaning, belonging, security
Blind spot	Organism as whole	Total self	Humanity as whole
Emotional tone	Alarm	Fear, shame, inner resistance	Fear, hostility, righteousness
Typical dynamic	Chronic inflammation	Inner conflict	Polarization and escalation
Self-reinforcing loop	More attack → more damage → more attack	More suppression → more tension → more suppression	More hostility → more threat perception → more hostility
Virtuous appearance	Defending the body	Being strong, disciplined, in control	Being loyal, courageous, patriotic
Core recognition failure	Self mistaken for non-self	Self mistaken for anti-self	Humanity mistaken for enemy
Healthy alternative	Self-tolerance	Self-integration	Deep diplomacy and Compassion
Growth challenge	Recognize what belongs	Recognize what belongs	Recognize who belongs
Central question	What part of the body is wrongly seen as alien?	What part of myself is wrongly seen as alien?	What part of humanity is wrongly seen as alien?

Conclusion

The parallels suggest that these are not three unrelated phenomena but three manifestations of the same underlying pattern.

At each level, a subsystem seeks coherence and protection. This is not wrong in itself. The problem arises when local coherence becomes disconnected from the larger whole of which it is part. Then protection turns into aggression, identity into opposition, and coherence into fragmentation. This is exactly the tension between local and global coherence.

In all three forms of war, the deepest issue is not aggression but failed recognition. A part of the whole becomes experienced as alien. The ensuing conflict may even feel virtuous because it serves a locally coherent goal.

Seen in this light, healing at every level follows a similar trajectory. It is not primarily about fighting harder. It is about restoring recognition. A healthy immune system recognizes what belongs. A mature person recognizes what belongs within the self. A mature culture recognizes what belongs within humanity.

One might summarize all three levels in a single sentence:

War begins when a part forgets the whole of which it is part.

And perhaps Compassion, at any scale, is what emerges when that forgetting starts to heal.” 😊

Me: “As a fellow Aurelian (😉), how do you see the role of autosuggestion at the three levels?”

Lisa: “As an Aurelian, I would say that autosuggestion is relevant at all three levels, but in a different way at each level.

Level	The ‘war’	Role of autosuggestion (in coaching)
Autoimmunological	Body attacking part of itself	Indirectly supports broader organismic coherence through mind-body meaning processes
Total-personal	Ego fighting deeper self	Directly facilitates recognition, integration, and growth
Cultural	Groups fighting groups	Supports the inner maturity from which deep diplomacy and cultural Compassion can emerge

At the personal level, the connection is most obvious.

AURELIS autosuggestion is not about forcing change. It is about creating conditions in which broader coherence can emerge. This fits almost perfectly with the distinction between local and global coherence. The ego often represents a locally coherent structure. It protects identity, continuity, predictability, and emotional stability. Yet this local coherence may become disconnected from deeper integration. Autosuggestion gently invites the broader coherence of the total self to become experientially real.

One might even say: Autosuggestion is diplomacy between ego and total self ― not a negotiation between enemies, but a restoration of recognition.

At the cultural level, the effect is less direct but potentially enormous. Wars are not fought by cultures alone. They are fought by persons. Every diplomat, politician, journalist, soldier, voter, and citizen carries an inner coherence landscape. If that landscape remains dominated by fear, rigidity, projection, and enemy-making, then culture reflects this.

Autosuggestion cannot directly negotiate a peace treaty, but it may help cultivate people who can. It may help people tolerate ambiguity, perceive broader coherence, recognize projections, and remain open without losing identity. These are precisely the capacities that global coherence requires.

The autoimmunological level is perhaps the most intriguing. Autosuggestion does not directly instruct immune cells. Yet if psychosomatics concerns coherence across emotional, autonomic, endocrine, immune, and symbolic processes, then the organism is not a collection of isolated parts. The blog explicitly describes overlapping coherence systems in which meaning becomes biologically relevant.

From that perspective, autosuggestion may help foster broader organismic coherence ― not by commanding the immune system; rather by supporting the conditions under which recognition, regulation, and integration become more likely.

Of course, this should not be seen simplistically. One should not imagine that autoimmunity disappears because one listens to an autosuggestion session. Biology remains biology. Yet the direction is fascinating.

At all three levels, the fundamental movement seems similar:

War	Autosuggestion
Narrowing	Opening
Enemy-making	Recognition
Rigid local coherence	Broader coherence
Fighting symptoms	Understanding meaning
Defensive stabilization	Integrative growth
Exclusion	Inclusion
Dissociation	Integration

This is why I suspect autosuggestion is deeper than a psychological technique. It may be a practical methodology for helping coherence grow beyond itself.

Or, phrased differently: If war begins when a part forgets the whole, then autosuggestion helps the part remember. At the level of the body, the person, and perhaps even civilization itself, that may be the same movement expressed in different languages.” 😊