Human beings want to believe that communication can solve almost everything. This belief is woven into modern political culture, especially in societies that value dialogue and open discussion. We hope that reason can bridge differences and that explanation can soften tension. It is an attractive dream because it promises a peaceful world where people speak honestly and listen generously. Yet whenever we look closely at real human situations, this hope quietly falls apart.
Even in daily life, small disagreements turn into long arguments. Families break down because conversations no longer produce understanding. Couples who once promised eternal devotion end up speaking through lawyers, not through shared affection. In the workplace, many resignations happen not because of the tasks themselves but because of the hidden pressure of human relationships. The modern world has reduced physical violence, but it has not reduced emotional strain.
Democracy was built on the idea that conversation is better than war. Instead of killing each other, we debate. Instead of armies, we use words. This is progress, and we should not dismiss it. Yet the basic structure of conflict remains. People do not always speak in order to find truth. They speak to defend positions that feel tied to their identity. They speak to protect pride. They speak to win. Beneath the polite surface of meetings and assemblies, the same ancient impulses still wait for an opportunity to take control.
The reality is simple and difficult at the same time. Humans have always existed with conflict, and the desire to eliminate conflict entirely goes against the shape of our nature. We can suppress violent expression, and we can regulate harmful behavior, but we cannot erase the inner instability that creates division in the first place. Peace is real but fragile. Understanding is possible but never guaranteed. And so the question becomes deeper. Why does conflict persist even in a world that claims to value reason and communication?
The First Murder and the Fragility Within
The story of Cain and Abel remains powerful because it speaks to something fundamental. It shows that conflict does not require cultural difference or national borders. It does not require rival ideologies or conflicting traditions. It can erupt between two people with the same parents under the same roof. The origin of violence in this story is not difference at all. It is the fragile sense of self inside Cain, who could not endure the feeling that his brother was more accepted.
This ancient narrative reveals that the root of conflict lies inside the individual. People are vulnerable to comparison and envy. They are quick to feel threatened when they believe they are less valued. These emotions appear long before any political theory or religious creed enters the scene. The instability of human identity creates waves that ripple outward. When carried by fear or pride, these waves can become destructive.
Historical accounts show that early communities were small, often within the range of the numbers that human memory could comfortably hold. Even within these small circles where bonds were tight and cooperation was necessary for survival, conflict was frequent. Disputes within kinship groups could be deadly. People did not need racial difference or national antagonism to harm one another. They only needed their own fragile egos.
This recognition changes how we think about the sources of disagreement. We often assume that conflict comes from misunderstanding, but misunderstanding itself often comes from insecurity. If the inner ground is unstable, even a clear explanation can feel like a threat. Cain did not need a foreign enemy to feel agitated. He only needed to look at his brother and sense a judgment that he could not tolerate. This inner struggle still shapes human behavior today.
When Explanation Loses Its Power
Modern society rests on the belief that if we explain ourselves clearly, others will understand. This belief runs deep in democratic culture. It influences education, diplomacy, and even family life. Yet reality often looks quite different. People hear the words spoken by others, but they filter these words through their own assumptions and expectations. They sometimes reinterpret the explanation to support their own viewpoint. They sometimes ignore it entirely.
Public life offers constant reminders of this dynamic. When Prime Minister Takaichi addressed the question of possible emergency scenarios, she did not mention any particular conflict between Taiwan and China. She made a general statement about undefined contingencies. Yet political opponents, the media, and even foreign governments chose to interpret her words through their own intentions. Once their minds were fixed, further explanation did not change anything. It simply added fuel to their chosen interpretation.
The same pattern appears in private relationships. A spouse tries to clarify a misunderstanding, yet the other person has already decided what the explanation means. A friend tries to repair a situation, yet the emotional framework of the other person is already frozen. A colleague tries to clear up a mistake, yet the office environment encourages suspicion rather than trust. When identity becomes entangled with the issue, clarity loses its power.
The deeper issue is that explanation works only when people are genuinely willing to understand. Once a person’s position becomes a source of emotional security, any explanation that challenges it feels uncomfortable. Instead of listening, they defend. Instead of considering, they resist. Communication breaks down not because the explanation is unclear, but because the heart is closed. In such moments, conversation becomes a performance rather than an exchange.
Tribal Instincts Beneath Modern Institutions
Human evolution took place in small tribal societies. People lived in groups that rarely exceeded a size where everyone could recognize each person by name. Beyond this scale, trust became difficult. Suspicion grew. Cooperation weakened. This ancient psychology survives inside the modern world. Even though we live in vast nations and global networks, the tribal mind continues to influence behavior.
Modern political groups often behave like tribes. They seek cohesion through shared enemies. They react strongly against outsiders. They protect the narrative that sustains their identity. Even online communities display the same tendencies. Within social media, one can observe group loyalty, collective anger, and quick judgment. The scale has grown, but the psychological mechanism remains ancient.
The modern emphasis on diversity and inclusion is sincere, yet the actual experience of difference remains difficult. People claim to welcome a variety of perspectives, but many quickly retreat into defensive positions when confronted with unfamiliar viewpoints. The ideal of unity often meets the reality of tribal instinct. Instead of reducing tension, the language of inclusion sometimes intensifies division because it exposes deeper fears about identity and belonging.
Even moral activism can display tribal qualities. The figure of the social justice warrior illustrates this paradox. The cause is rooted in compassion and fairness, yet the method becomes combative. The desire to protect others transforms into an identity that thrives on opposition. The structure resembles a tribe that defines itself through struggle. The intention is noble, but the emotional energy still comes from conflict.
The Paradox of Enemies and Unity
Human groups bond most strongly when they share a sense of threat. This is one of the great paradoxes of social life. Peace does not always create unity. Comfort can make people drift apart. A perceived enemy, however, can bring people together with astonishing force. Even the idea of an enemy, whether real or exaggerated, can energize a group.
This dynamic explains why communities often develop narratives of conflict. It explains why leaders appeal to common threats when they want to strengthen group cohesion. It explains why revolutions and reform movements begin with passionate language against corruption or injustice. The energy that comes from shared anger creates a powerful sense of belonging.
The idea of fighting for peace captures this contradiction. The phrase sounds contradictory because peace and fighting appear to be opposites. Yet societies often believe that peace requires struggle. This belief arises because unity requires motivation, and motivation often comes from a sense of challenge. The longing for harmony paradoxically produces the determination to confront others.
This emotional pattern is part of being human. People become most united when they believe their values or way of life are in danger. The desire to protect becomes intertwined with the desire to confront. The lines between defense and aggression blur. This makes conflict feel not only inevitable but sometimes necessary. The challenge is how to recognize this pattern without letting it destroy what we hope to preserve.
When Belief Becomes Identity
Conflict becomes especially intense when beliefs are tied to identity. When a person’s sense of self depends on certain ideas, disagreement becomes a personal threat. It no longer feels like two viewpoints meeting in a fair conversation. It feels like an attack on one’s existence. This emotional process makes rational exchange almost impossible.
Religion provides many examples. Teachings that emphasize compassion and forgiveness have inspired people across centuries. Yet the same traditions have also witnessed periods of intense violence. Sacred beliefs can create deep bonds, but they can also generate strong boundaries. When belief becomes a core part of identity, difference becomes unacceptable. History shows that wars and persecutions often rise from such tensions.
Secular ideologies display similar patterns. Political movements, national prides, and cultural values all have the power to shape identity. When these become sacred within a community, compromise feels like surrender. Opposing viewpoints are no longer seen as differences but as threats. Conflict becomes moralized and therefore harder to resolve.
Once identity solidifies around a belief, open discussion becomes dangerous. People protect their identity with great intensity. They avoid information that challenges their worldview. They reinterpret events to maintain inner coherence. The mind becomes a fortress. Dialogue cannot enter unless the walls soften, and that softening is rare once the belief has become sacred.
Communication as a Battleground
The Enlightenment shaped the modern dream that reason could guide human societies. The hope was that people could think clearly, speak honestly, and reach consensus through open discussion. This dream influenced democratic institutions, education, and diplomacy. It also created the assumption that conversation should be enough to solve most conflicts.
Yet communication often becomes a battleground. People speak not to find truth but to win public perception. They use words to defend their group. They appeal to emotion rather than reason. They choose interpretations that support their identity. Even polite discourse can hide strategic intent. The surface looks civil, but the inner motive is to protect oneself or one’s allies.
This does not mean that communication is useless. It means that communication requires more than clarity. It requires openness, humility, and emotional preparedness. When these qualities are absent, dialogue becomes a ritual rather than a meeting of minds. The performance of listening replaces the act of listening. The form remains, but the substance disappears.
In relationships, this breakdown is particularly painful. People try to explain their intentions, yet the explanation is dismissed or forgotten. Words lose their meaning because the emotional connection has weakened. When trust erodes, even simple conversations become tiring. At that point, communication is no longer a bridge. It becomes a field where old wounds resurface.
Conflict as the Shadow of Meaning
Conflict is not only about misunderstanding. It also reveals what people value. Where there is meaning, there is tension. The same energy that inspires devotion can also generate hostility. People fight for what they care about most. They care about their beliefs, their communities, their identities, their ways of life. This creates natural friction between groups with different visions.
The challenge is not to eliminate conflict entirely but to understand its role. Conflict shows that people are willing to stand for something. It shows that they want their lives to matter. It shows that they have convictions that shape their decisions. These qualities are not weaknesses. They are essential elements of human dignity. Yet they create a shadow. Wherever meaning thrives, conflict follows closely.
Human communities often form around shared values. These values create purpose but also boundaries. Those outside the boundary may feel unwelcome or misunderstood. Those inside may feel defensive. The result is a constant negotiation between belonging and difference. This negotiation is rarely smooth, and often it becomes a source of tension.
Even great ideals can create conflict when they become exclusive. Peace, justice, equality, and freedom are powerful concepts, yet communities interpret them differently. These differences can produce passionate disagreements. The struggle to define what these values mean becomes a field where conflict unfolds. The shadow is not a flaw. It is a consequence of the light that meaning brings.
A Fragile Peace in a World of Permanent Tension
If conflict cannot be erased, what does peace actually look like? Peace is not the complete absence of disagreement. It is the presence of structures that prevent disagreement from turning violent. Modern society created laws, institutions, and norms to contain conflict. These do not eliminate hostility. They limit its expression and encourage more peaceful responses.
This kind of peace is fragile but real. It requires patience, restraint, and mutual recognition. It requires systems that encourage conversation even when people do not fully trust it. It requires leaders who understand that their authority is tied to stability. When these conditions hold, conflict remains present but does not dominate the entire society.
The difficulty is that modern institutions often carry the weight of ancient instincts. People still form tribes. They still seek enemies. They still protect identity more vigorously than they seek understanding. These psychological patterns put pressure on political systems that were designed with more optimistic assumptions about human nature. When the pressure becomes too strong, institutions struggle to maintain stability.
Yet the existence of institutions shows that humans are capable of adapting to their own flaws. Civilization is a container that recognizes conflict as an enduring feature of human life. It creates mechanisms to manage tension rather than deny it. This management is imperfect, but it is the best tool available. It keeps society from collapsing into the violence that once defined human history.
Learning to Live with Conflict
Understanding the persistence of conflict is not a cause for despair. It is a call for maturity. People do not need to eliminate conflict to live meaningful lives. They need to approach conflict with humility and awareness. They need to recognize that the inner fragility that causes conflict is shared by all. No one has a completely stable identity. No one is immune to fear or pride.
When this awareness grows, a gentler attitude becomes possible. Conversations may still be difficult, but they become less threatening. Differences may still cause tension, but the tension becomes less destructive. The goal is not perfect harmony. It is a steady life where people accept that disagreement is natural. Peace becomes a practice rather than a destination.
This practice begins with simple acts. It begins with listening even when one feels defensive. It begins with speaking carefully rather than aggressively. It begins with acknowledging that others also live with insecurities. These small acts do not solve every conflict, but they change the atmosphere. They remind us that all people carry fragile hearts and complicated histories.
Conflict persists because humans care. They care about meaning, loyalty, identity, and dignity. These commitments shape their relationships and communities. They shape their hopes and fears. The task is not to extinguish these commitments but to carry them with wisdom. When people recognize the complexity within themselves, they become more patient with the complexity in others. Peace grows slowly from that recognition.
Image by falco
Tom’s Blog 