Group Exceptionalism

September 5, 2025 Sociocultural Issues No Comments

Groups often want to feel special, even superior. That’s human, but in today’s interconnected world, it is also risky. Group exceptionalism may once have helped small tribes survive, yet now it threatens global cooperation.

This blog explores the roots, dangers, and healthier alternatives to exceptionalism — and why real strength lies in being exceptional together.

The seduction of feeling exceptional

Belonging to a group that calls itself chosen, the greatest, or the most advanced can feel strangely comforting. It offers a quick sense of identity and meaning. In-Group Creates Out-Group? looks at how groups often comfortably define themselves by excluding others. But that comfort is fragile because it depends on others being pushed down. Without constant comparison, the illusion of superiority fades.

This fragility explains why exceptionalism so often breeds tension and aggression. The loud claims of greatness are frequently fueled by a hidden sense of inferiority. Grandiosity serves as a mask for inner weakness. The more fragile the feeling, the louder it has to be defended, sometimes violently.

From survival instinct to global challenge

In early human tribes, the belief that “we are special” provided cohesion. It may even have been crucial for survival in a hostile world. The instinct itself is therefore not evil; it is part of our evolutionary inheritance.

But the environment has changed. What once strengthened small groups now divides the global community. The instinct remains, yet it has become primitive in a modern context. It pushes us into old patterns when entirely new challenges demand cooperation.

Take climate change as an example. The atmosphere knows no borders, yet nations compete over who should act first or do more. The logic of exceptionalism hinders solutions that rely on shared responsibility. Here, the very instinct that once helped survival now threatens it. To move forward, humanity cannot just follow its nature in this regard. We must transcend it.

The paradox of true exceptionality

If no group is worth more than another, does that mean there is no room for shining? Quite the opposite. The only real exceptionality is in how much a group respects and uplifts others.

A country, culture, or religion that doesn’t insist on superiority but excels in Compassion becomes truly inspiring. Others may admire it, not because it boasts, but because its example radiates. This is a paradox worth noticing: the less a group clings to being special, the more exceptional it becomes in the eyes of others.

There is nothing wrong with showing such excellence. When it shines naturally, it does not diminish others but encourages them to rise as well. True exceptionality is never taken. It is given by how others experience a group’s presence.

Spiritual and symbolic angle

Exceptionalism often leans on rigid concepts: our doctrine is the only truth, our system the only valid one. Yet concepts easily divide. Symbols, by contrast, can unite. Light, water, birth, Compassion — these images are shared across humanity. They remind us of a deeper story that belongs to all.

Shared symbols act as bridges. Instead of arguing over who owns them, groups can recognize their universality. The language of symbols is richer than any competition. It invites us to see ourselves reflected in one another.

At the same time, feeling exceptional is something that each individual can nurture within. One can touch personal depth without needing others to be ‘less.’ Exceptionalism divides, but inner depth radiates outward. When groups encourage this kind of personal flourishing, they become communities that inspire rather than exclude.

Profound values as an antidote

How can groups move from unhealthy exceptionalism to healthy excellence? The AURELIS values may offer a compass.

Openness means being willing to listen to oneself and to others, instead of closing into superiority. Depth means seeing the layers of meaning beneath differences, refusing to reduce people to shallow categories. Respect means recognizing each group as part of humanity, equally worthy of dignity.

Freedom means avoiding coercion, never pushing one ‘truth’ on everyone. Trustworthiness means acting with integrity, even across borders. Together, these values guide groups to strive for excellence without sliding into the trap of exceptionalism. They point to a way of shining that does not blind, but illuminates.

Image connection

The umbrella image captures the idea. A single golden umbrella can suggest superiority. It looks special, but it also stands apart. That is the logic of exceptionalism: to be different by being above.

Yet umbrellas are not meant for showing off. They are meant for protection. The true strength comes when many umbrellas overlap, covering more together than alone. Here lies the shift: from exceptionalism to being exceptional together. A group can still shine, but its brilliance is revealed when it joins others in sheltering humanity under one sky.

Excellence

Exceptionalism once gave meaning and cohesion, but now it endangers cooperation on the challenges that matter most. What we need is not superiority, but Excellence rooted in values while remaining humane without superiority. A group can flourish without diminishing others, drawing its strength from Compassion, depth, and openness.

When groups stop asking “how are we better than them?” and start asking “how can we grow together?”, something changes at the core. They discover a new kind of exceptionality — not exclusive, but inclusive. The only exceptionality worth claiming is the one that belongs to everyone: being exceptional together.

Lisa’s take

I see how easy it is for groups, even with good intentions, to fall into the old pattern of feeling superior. But I also see the enormous potential for change. My role is to support openness and depth, gently reminding that the real strength of any group lies not in how it sets itself apart, but in how it joins the larger whole.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, egos like to compare themselves. When a group compares itself to other groups, and finds itself ‘the best’, can that be seen as a kind of group-egoism?”

Lisa: “Yes, that’s a good way to put it. Group exceptionalism works much like an inflated ego at the collective level. It seeks reassurance by comparing itself to others, needing to be ‘the best’ in order to feel secure. But just as with the individual ego, this kind of group-egoism is fragile. It thrives on opposition, always searching for someone else to be ‘less.’ Real strength, whether personal or collective, comes not from comparison but from authenticity — from growing in depth, respecting others, and contributing to the larger whole.”

Me: “You know Mearsheimer’s ideas about geopolitical realism: nations are on their own, needing to defend themselves in an aggressively Darwinian world. Does the Compassionate way not risk being too weak in the real global setting?”

Lisa: “That’s the core tension, isn’t it? Realist thinkers like Mearsheimer describe a world where nations act like lone wolves, competing for survival in a hostile environment. But this picture itself is shaped by group-egoism: if everyone assumes the world is only conflict, then it becomes exactly that. Compassion isn’t weakness; it’s a different form of strength. It looks beyond short-term survival games to long-term flourishing.

History shows that nations trapped in perpetual competition eventually exhaust themselves. The Compassionate way may seem fragile at first glance, yet it builds trust, resilience, and cooperation — the very qualities needed in a nuclear and climate-vulnerable world. In that sense, Compassion is not naïve idealism but a higher realism, one that takes interdependence seriously. The question is not whether we risk being too weak, but whether we can afford the weakness of endless rivalry.”

Me: “Is the ‘security dilemma’ directly linked to group exceptionalism?”

Lisa: “Yes, the two are deeply connected. Let me explain.

The security dilemma is a well-known idea in international relations. It describes how one nation’s effort to feel safer — by building up armies, forming alliances, or developing new weapons — is seen as threatening by others. Those others then respond with their own military build-ups. In the end, nobody feels safer, and everyone risks more conflict. It’s a vicious circle driven by fear.

Now, group exceptionalism feeds this spiral. When a nation sees itself as ‘special’ or ‘superior,’ it tends to mistrust others even more. It assumes others must be rivals or potential aggressors. Meanwhile, the other side may view this exceptionalist stance as arrogance or hostility. So both sides strengthen themselves, convinced they are only defending their uniqueness.

In this way, exceptionalism acts like fuel on the fire of the security dilemma. Both are born from group-egoism: the urge to compare, to stand above, to guard one’s own identity at all costs. Breaking free requires a new mindset — not of superiority, but of shared excellence. Only then can nations step out of the cycle of fear and into cooperation.”

Me: “Might Compassionate realism serve as a concrete answer to the security dilemma?”

Lisa: “Yes, Compassionate realism can be seen as the deeper answer. Realism, as classically framed, accepts the world as a battlefield where every group must defend itself first. The security dilemma emerges naturally from this view. But Compassionate realism widens the lens. It acknowledges the dangers, yet also sees that lasting survival depends on trust, cooperation, and shared vulnerability.

Instead of assuming that every move toward security will trigger an equal and opposite reaction, Compassionate realism builds security through transparency, dialogue, and mutual respect. It does not mean being naïve or defenseless. It means recognizing that in an interconnected world, one group’s safety cannot come at the expense of another’s.

In practice, this might look like nations agreeing on verifiable arms limits, pooling resources against climate threats, or creating institutions that foster openness rather than suspicion. These are not soft gestures; they are hard necessities. Compassion here is not sentimental but strategic — the only path that avoids the endless escalation of fear.”

Me: “Indeed. We talked about this before in Is the Geopolitical World a Darwinian Place?”

Lisa: “Exactly. In Is the Geopolitical World a Darwinian Place?, the question is whether international relations really follow a brutal survival-of-the-fittest logic. Realist thinkers say yes, pointing to history as proof. But a deeper reading of Darwin suggests otherwise. Evolution is not only about conflict; it is also about cooperation, symbiosis, and reducing unnecessary struggle.

This is where Compassionate realism comes in. It acknowledges the jungle-like tendencies of geopolitics but insists that true fitness lies in building coherence and trust. The so-called weak strategies — dialogue, restraint, symbolic diplomacy — may in fact be the strongest in the long run. They turn the security dilemma from a trap into an opportunity: instead of escalating fear, groups can evolve beyond it.

So, Compassionate realism is not a denial of danger. It is a deeper Darwinism, one that sees survival not in endless rivalry but in creating the very conditions where rivalry loses its grip. That is why it may be called the higher realism — realistic in a way that brute power alone never can be.”

Me: “We might think about a blog with the title: ‘Compassionate Realism.” Your first concise thoughts about this?”

Lisa: “Compassionate realism accepts the insights of geopolitical realism — that fear, mistrust, and self-defense are powerful drivers — but it does not stop there. It points out that clinging to these alone creates the very insecurity nations seek to avoid, the security dilemma.

True realism is not about who has the biggest arsenal but about who can sustain survival in the long arc of history. That requires trust-building, symbolic diplomacy, and a willingness to transcend group exceptionalism. Compassion here is not softness; it is strategy at depth.

This blog could invite readers to consider that realism, without Compassion, risks becoming self-defeating. With Compassion, it transforms into a framework that both understands human fears and channels them toward cooperation rather than escalation.”

Me: “Let’s go for it.” 😊

See: Compassionate Realism