Today I would like to engage in a thought experiment pondering at what point conflict becomes inevitable between two sides, and at what point it is still possible to step back from the brink. Humanity in general is not good at stepping back from the brink, at least most of the time, and so it is rare that we see the possibilities of avoiding irrepressible conflict (the Cold War marks one of the few cases–and here there was plenty of smaller third party conflicts and proxy wars to keep tensions a bit lower). Let us therefore ponder why so many conflicts seem irrepressible and what can be done to avoid this.

The Cold War is instructive here. The core of the Communist bloc was in Moscow, in European Russia, and the core of the Capitalist bloc was the United States, many thousands of miles away. The conflicts between the two powers and their proxies occurred in places like Korea, Vietnam, and Africa, far away from the core regions of both countries. In only two cases did physical proximity occur between the two powers, by the US putting missiles in Turkey, and then the Soviet Union responding by putting missiles in Cuba, both of them threatening the core regions of the other, and leading to the closest the two ever came to war. Once there was a mutual agreement to take the missiles out of threatening space, the war cooled down again, until it was decided by other means. But it was the distance between the military threats and the core homelands that allowed for the lack of destructive and total war to exist. Therefore, if we want to avoid irrepressible conflict, we must have distance and space to operate in.

More commonly, such space does not exist. Irrepressible conflicts are especially prone to developing within nations, where the room is the most limited between two sides, and where the threat of the strength of the opposition of the greatest. Where no room or space to operate and the threat of immediate and coercive rule by one’s rivals and enemies is threatened, there is little ability to maintain the emotional equilibrium that allows one to avoid provoking open and harsh conflict. In institutions, this dynamic leads to splits and breakups. In nations, it leads to civil wars and secession movements, because it is intolerable for people to be ruled by their enemies. Once another person or faction or region becomes an enemy to that level, it is nearly impossible for either side to step back from the brink. Therefore, we must act before things reach this level.

The American Civil War is an instructive case here. By the 1850’s, the conflict between the two sections of the United States had reached such a level that the election of a relatively moderate Northerner after minor incidents of bloodshed was enough to push two sections of the country into open warfare. Even twenty or thirty years before this point, the two sections were heading towards conflict fairly openly, each of them attempting to monopolize local and national power in favor of their interests. And as there was no compromising on the basic issues at stake, there was no opportunity to avoid the conflict once both sides were permanently set in their respective positions, and were able to mobilize a large enough coalition to win an electoral majority and govern the United States according to those principles.

And this same dynamic is present in many institutions and organizations. People of different worldviews can coexist, sometimes for long periods of time, as long as both of them feel as if they are in control or are unaware of the wide gulfs between them. Once attention is put on points of disagreement, if those disagreements are deep and fundamental, there can be no peace save separation or the destruction of one or the other party. Where does these fundamental gulfs spring from? In many cases, they spring from insecurity, in the (often mistaken) belief that there must be a uniformity of perspective or else people who are in the minority will not be free to be themselves. It is fear and insecurity that drive people to insist on their own rule as the only way they feel safe. In such a circumstance, the fears of others prevent this from being acceptable, and mutual fears and loathings make conflict and/or separation unavoidable. How then, to avoid those fears and insecurities in the first place?

How do we see others for who they are instead of the monsters we create in our own minds? How do we preserve avenues of respectful communication so that agreement to disagree and the space to feel respected even by those who do not agree with us is preserved, allowing everyone to maintain dignity and self-respect (and face, if you will)? These are the tasks we can accomplish ourselves to prevent irrepressible conflicts in our own lives and in our own institutions. So long as we can remember that everyone else, no matter how they may act or think or feel toward us, is a being created in the image and likeness of God, there is a basic level of love and respect that they merit strictly on that status alone. So long as we genuinely love and respect everyone else, we will show that respect in our conduct, and we will allow everyone else to retain their self-respect regardless of their circumstances, keeping everyone from being desperate enough to make a total rupture from us. This is not easy to do (and I do not pretend to do it well), but if we desire peace and unity, we must tackle the problems of trust and respect and love that underlie the conflicts that divide us. Either that, or we can continue to lament the division in our families, in our institutions, and in our societies. And quite frankly, I’ve had enough division and unnecessary conflict to last several lifetimes.