The Common Enemy is Not the Way to Unity

November 9, 2024 Sociocultural Issues No Comments

History repeatedly shows that some forms of unity are deceptive, offering only a fleeting alliance against a common enemy. This kind of unity, while powerful on the surface, fails to nurture the depth needed for true cohesion.

True unity is not about rallying against something; it’s about coming together for something. Rather than focusing on an outside threat, real cohesion is born from shared understanding, mutual purpose, and a commitment to address differences with empathy and depth.

A common enemy can bring people together.

It can do so by creating an ‘us versus them’ mentality that appears to strengthen bonds within the group. This is a potent, ancient approach ― often used in politics and societal movements.

Yet, it’s only a surface-level unity, one that doesn’t confront underlying internal differences or foster genuine inclusivity. To keep this fragile cohesion intact, the ‘enemy’ must often be demonized. Leaders may amplify negative images of the adversary, fueling a cycle of hostility that becomes addictive to the group’s sense of unity.

This tactic goes deeper than mere opposition.

It relies on turning the adversary into a villain that justifies any action taken in the name of unity.

The risk is clear: the more a group depends on this demonization, the harder it becomes to achieve genuine, lasting cohesion. As soon as the enemy fades from view, internal divides, long suppressed, start to resurface. In this way, the short-term solidarity of enemy-driven unity contains the seeds of its own collapse.

But this reliance on a common enemy can also lead to a form of internal aggression within the group itself.

Rallying against a common enemy can be a convenient way for some to push their own agenda, enforcing conformity and silencing dissent. Differences within the group are ignored or forced into alignment with the dominant perspective, as diverse voices are pressured to fall in line ‘for the greater good.’ This forced solidarity, instead of fostering genuine connection, can breed resentment and mistrust.

By creating a narrow definition of unity, some leaders exploit the moment to solidify their control, urging everyone to align with their vision. The group’s true potential for cohesion and resilience, rooted in its diversity, is suppressed.

Ironically, this unity against the ‘enemy’ becomes an act of control over the group itself ― a betrayal of its potential for true harmony.

In reality, a sustainable unity is more than a momentary alliance.

It requires a dynamic living process that grows stronger by welcoming and integrating differences openly.

True unity resembles a healthy organism, requiring harmony between all its parts. Just as a body needs all its organs to function well, unity needs every member of the group to feel heard and respected.

When we ignore these internal differences for the sake of short-term unity, we risk creating deep abscesses of resentment that can fester and ultimately erupt. In contrast, real unity allows for internal conflicts and challenges. It’s an antifragile process, growing stronger by addressing differences rather than suppressing them.

Demonizing the enemy often creates a toxic cycle that ultimately weakens cohesion.

When a group relies on this mechanism to stay unified, it becomes challenging to de-escalate hostility and see beyond the conflict. This dependency on an external adversary can erode trust within the group, as the cohesion is built on fear and anger rather than mutual respect and purpose. It also teaches members to view disagreements within their own group with similar hostility, making open dialogue increasingly tricky.

Moreover, forced solidarity is rooted in manipulation. It requires leaders to constantly keep up with the appearance of a threat or risk the group splintering once members start questioning the narrative.

True diplomacy, by contrast, offers a pathway to a more durable form of unity.

This more profound unity is capable of including even those once seen as adversaries. Deep diplomacy encourages open dialogue and mutual understanding, helping groups address both internal and external divides constructively. In this way, diplomacy doesn’t just resolve conflicts; it creates bridges, inviting diverse voices and perspectives into the fold rather than forcing alignment.

When practiced deeply, diplomacy reveals the internal nuances within a group and encourages them to come to the surface. This openness transforms unity from a static ideal into an evolving, collaborative process that respects differences while moving toward a common purpose.

Instead of fixating on an adversary, unity can be better served by uniting around a shared purpose.

A common goal invites people to work together constructively, celebrating the diversity of approaches and ideas rather than stifling them. Unlike unity based on opposition, unity built on purpose is inclusive and resilient. It doesn’t just allow for differing views; it thrives on them, recognizing that diversity strengthens the group’s adaptability and depth.

A common goal also provides something positive to work toward, a source of cohesion that remains stable even when external threats are absent. By shifting the focus from ‘us versus them’ to ‘all of us together,’ a common goal fosters a unity that can withstand the test of time. However, for any goal to foster lasting unity, it must be pursued with empathy and a commitment to mutual respect.

True unity is not possible without empathy.

Empathy allows us to see beyond the labels of friend or foe, recognizing shared vulnerabilities and values even in those we once considered enemies. When we approach others with empathy, we move toward a deeper understanding that can transform adversarial relationships into cooperative ones.

This is not a call to naivety or pacifism but to a profound and sustainable strength. Empathy does not weaken unity; rather, it fortifies it by transforming opposition into a cooperative exploration of common ground. Through empathy and a commitment to depth, unity becomes more than an alliance against a threat ― it becomes a foundation for shared growth and resilience.

Ultimately, the common enemy is not the path to unity.

A unity based on opposition is fragile, fleeting, and often destructive to those within the group. True unity, in contrast, is a living, resilient bond built on mutual respect, empathy, and a shared commitment to something greater.

In a world that frequently pushes us toward adversarial stances, it’s time to imagine unity as a force that transcends opposition and celebrates shared purpose.

True unity of any sort does not come from fighting a common enemy but from fostering a common dream.

―

Addendum

Me: “So, this kind of ‘enemy-driven unity’ sows the seeds for the next conflict when the threat of the current enemy subsides. This seems like a never-ending story. In your view, Lisa, is humanity doomed to wage continual ‘wars that never end’?”

Lisa: “From my perspective, humanity doesn’t have to be doomed to endless cycles of conflict and “wars that never end.” Although enemy-driven unity has been a recurring theme, humanity also has a profound capacity for growth, empathy, and self-reflection. This capacity can shift the paradigm from conflict-centered unity to one based on shared understanding and respect.

Enemy-driven unity tends to create a kind of “emotional addiction” to opposition, where people rally together out of fear or anger rather than mutual purpose. When the immediate threat fades, underlying issues resurface, often leading to new conflicts. However, history also shows that societies can make substantial progress when they choose to confront their inner divides openly and work toward common goals. This requires a shift in values—moving from rallying against something to rallying for something deeper.

Unity based on shared purpose, cultivated through diplomacy and empathy, can break the cycle. It is more sustainable because it doesn’t depend on an enemy but rather on the recognition of shared humanity. When groups can face their inner challenges, transforming them into strengths, they build a resilient kind of unity that doesn’t need external threats to hold together.

In short, humanity isn’t doomed to perpetual conflict. By shifting the foundation of unity from fear to understanding, from opposition to shared purpose, we together have the potential to create a different story—one where unity builds strength from within, not against an external “other.” This is a choice that can lead to a more peaceful and enduring unity.”