A State Without a Common “We”: How Intergroup Conflicts and Social Enmity Destroy National Integrity
In a world where technology is developing rapidly, and globalization would seem to erase borders, humanity stubbornly continues to divide into “own” and “others”. The forms of this division vary from tribes and nations to languages, political views or even preferences in music. But the essence remains unchanged: we are correct, everyone else is dangerous or strange. This division is neither new nor original, it is older than all wars, borders and languages. But it is he who is at the root of most conflicts, be it school quarrels or international disasters. In Ukraine, these processes are as clearly visible as anywhere else in the world.
Against the background of a full-scale war, conflicts between different groups took on new forms and became more acute. Instead of unity in Ukrainian society, which was expected to be seen in difficult times, disputes are breaking out between internally displaced persons and local communities, volunteers and state structures, military and civilians. Tensions are rising in society due to differences in ideology, language, religion, views on mobilization, fairness in the distribution of resources, and the assessment of patriotism. Internal divisions, which at times seem trivial, quickly acquire the weight of a national scale.
Borders of distinctions: group conflicts in society
In every society, regardless of its cultural or historical context, dividing lines appear. People are intuitively divided into groups by language, religion, region, political views, lifestyle or even clothing. These groups are formed quickly, often without deep consideration, and even more quickly begin to protect their borders, both physical and symbolic. The mechanism is simple: people are looking for belongings. The group provides a sense of security, identity, and support. But should an external group with the label “otherness” appear, psychological defense comes into play. Comparison begins, mistrust grows, prejudices appear. This process has deep evolutionary roots, when survival depended on the ability to distinguish one’s own from another’s.
The peculiarity of intergroup conflicts is that rational arguments hardly work here. Often, the cause of tension is not in real threats or conflicts of interests, but in symbols, ideas, and emotions. The realities of life demonstrate how a different language of communication, the color of a ribbon, a look at a historical event can provoke a deep confrontation. In a society in crisis, this mechanism is activated even faster. Stress, uncertainty, and fatigue reduce tolerance for differences and increase the need to find “one’s own”. In such conditions, any group that does not fit into the expected pattern is perceived as a threat. That is why in Ukraine, where the war continues, social divisions are becoming clearer, and conflicts between groups are more emotionally charged. It should be understood that these conflicts do not arise out of nothing. They are formed through a combination of competition, fear, stereotypes and informational influence. They can be predicted, analyzed and even gradually weakened, if you do not ignore the sources of tension, but work with them purposefully.
To truly understand why sharp contradictions so often arise between people, one should pay attention not only to external circumstances, but also to the deep mechanisms of group behavior. In the presence of others, our activity increases dramatically. Sometimes it promotes efficiency, such as in studies or sports. But in conflict situations, such activation works as a catalyst that accelerates the escalation of tension. Behavior in a group has another feature: a person tries less when he feels that responsibility is shared among everyone. Individual initiative is blunted, because “I am not alone, someone else will do more.” At the same time, where individual responsibility disappears, restraint also disappears.
A person ceases to perceive himself as a separate individual and begins to act guided by a collective mood. This is how a phenomenon is born, when a crowd is capable of actions that none of its participants would ever dare to do alone. Joint discussions in the team can also have a paradoxical result. Instead of finding a common language, the participants become even more convinced of their own rightness. Primary thoughts do not smooth out, but become more radical. The group often does not come close to a compromise, but on the contrary — moves towards the extremes. The effort to maintain cohesion also comes at a price. When it is important to maintain unity, there is a tendency to reject alternative opinions. Critical thinking is blunted, and anything that contradicts the general line is ignored. As a result, the group may make decisions that are far from common sense.
A special role in the formation of conflicts is played by emotional attachment to “ones”. People prefer members of their own group, even if they are objectively wrong. Such commitment creates a clear distinction between “us” and “them”, which automatically triggers the mechanisms of prejudice and mistrust. The behavior of the individual also changes significantly under the influence of the group. Even in the most obvious situations, a person can doubt his own perception if the majority around him claims the opposite. Under the pressure of collective opinion, individual confidence weakens, and determination is replaced by indecision. These psychological effects were most often observed in studies of small groups, but they are also very noticeable in large-scale processes – political movements, religious communities, revolutions. Mass consciousness retains the same features, only acquires a larger scale.
If we talk about the nature of intergroup conflicts, they can be divided according to two main criteria. The first includes participants in the conflict. They can be classes, national communities, generations, professional categories, regional groups or even families. The second forms the object around which the conflict arises. It can be a struggle for resources, power, territory, ideological dominance or cultural values. In each specific case, the conflict acquires its own special features. It can be open or hidden, conscious or instinctive, constructive or destructive. Participants can belong to the same social categories or be completely different in origin and views.
The conflict can have a clear structure or be chaotic, and also become controlled or get out of any influence. Class conflict, for example, is not limited to disputes over income levels. It often covers the sphere of political influence, ideological beliefs, access to information channels and cultural space. In the case of national confrontation, economic, political or geopolitical interests are usually hidden under the surface of the linguistic or ethnic issue. Therefore, the essence of any conflict lies not only in who participates in it, but also in what exactly they seek to obtain or protect. It is at this point of intersection of interests that tension arises that can lead to a collision.
Conflict, cooperation, and the secrets of the collective mind: lessons from experiments
The issue of intergroup conflicts has troubled many researchers and psychologists, but the loudest resonance was the experiment conducted by Muzafer Sherif, who tried to understand the causes of such conflicts and find ways to solve them. The sheriff decided not just to theorize, but to create a real situation that would simulate an intergroup conflict. For this, he organized an experiment in a summer camp for teenagers. Having gathered a group of schoolchildren, he divided them into two squads – “Rattlesnakes” and “Eagles”. The teenagers did not know each other, and to begin with, there seemed to be no animosity between them. But soon the situation changed. The psychologist created conditions in which there was constant competition between groups. In each competition, only one team won, prizes went to only one side. In such an environment, the victory of some inevitably led to the defeat of others. It was palpable, because not only prizes were at stake, but also a sense of pride and prestige. As a result, the escalation of hostilities began.
Soon, real conflicts began between the Eagles and the Rattlesnakes. Instead of friendly rivalry, anger and hatred appeared. The “Eagles” began to call the “Rattlesnakes” “cowards” and “thugs”, and they responded in kind. The enmity intensified every day. The sheriff recorded this as the first evidence that competitive relations between groups can lead to serious conflicts and even violence. But the experiment did not end there. The psychologist decided to try to reconcile both groups, but it turned out that it was not so easy to do. The adults who tried to defuse the situation faced an unusual problem: there was no desire for reconciliation between the groups.
Going to the cinema together or going to a cafe only made the situation worse. The children who were seated at tables “because of one” began to quarrel again, and in the end even started a fight. The sheriff realized that more than just eliminating the competitive factor was needed to relieve the tension. And then he decided to take a different approach. The psychologist began to create situations in which two teams had to act together to solve a problem, such as when pushing a bus out of a ditch, when it could only be pulled out by both groups together. At first, this caused new disputes, because each participant tried to blame the other, but soon the children began to work together to solve the problem.
After some time, the animosity between the teams began to decrease and the tension dissipated. As a result, the children returned home not only without conflicts, but also with a sense of harmony among themselves. The sheriff made an important conclusion: competitive relations between groups cause aggression and hatred, but when both groups work on a common goal, it leads to a decrease in conflict and rapprochement. However, the main moral that can be drawn from this study is simple: to rally one group and turn it against another, rather minor factors.
It should be mentioned about another experiment that compared the abilities of ants and people to work in a group, which also revealed a very interesting and important detail: ants were much more effective than people when it came to solving tasks collectively. Experiment, conducted by Professor Ofer Feinerman and his team at the Weizmann Institute of Science, sought to answer the question: Who is better at maneuvering a load through a maze—ants or humans? To do this, the researchers created a special maze that resembled a classic task in motion planning and robotics, where participants had to pass through narrow gaps with a large T-shaped obstacle that simulated a heavy load. Black ants of the species Paratrechina longicornis, which are known for their sociality and high speed of movement, were chosen for this experiment.
The researchers created conditions where the ants had to cooperate in different combinations: one ant, a small group (about seven ants) and a large group of 80 ants. People participated in similar groups, which varied in size from individual participants to large teams of 26 people. To complicate the task, participants were not allowed to communicate using gestures or words, and large groups were even made to wear surgical masks to further limit opportunities for interaction.
The results of this competition were amazing. And while people showed high results in individual tasks due to their ability to strategically plan, in group competition the situation changed dramatically. Here the ants demonstrated much greater efficiency. The key to their success lay in how they organized their activities as a group. Ants work as a single organism, renouncing individual aspirations and focusing on a common goal. They not only overcame obstacles, but also demonstrated collective memory, that is, the ability to avoid repeating mistakes and move in the right direction. Each member of the colony, even in the conditions of limited space and tasks, acted harmoniously and efficiently.
People, on the other hand, even in larger groups often could not achieve the same results. When their opportunities to communicate were limited, productivity plummeted. As a rule, they chose strategies that looked attractive in the short term, but did not bring long-term results. Most importantly, however, human groups have not been able to achieve the level of cohesion that ants have demonstrated, and this, scientists say, is a significant loss compared to insects. Finerman noted that ant colonies can really be called “superorganisms”. They resemble a living body, where each individual is a cell working for the common good. This phenomenon is an important illustration of how natural evolution has taught ants to work effectively as a team.
This experiment shows how important collective memory and the ability to cooperate in groups are, and, unfortunately, how often these qualities are lacking in humans. Despite our intellectual superiority, we often cannot achieve high results in group tasks due to differences of opinion and instability in interaction. However, important conclusions can be drawn from this. If we want to achieve high results in cooperation, we need to learn to be more coherent, change our approach to working in groups and focus more on the common goal than on individual benefits. Despite all our technological and intellectual equipment, sometimes it is the ability to work together that is the great asset that we so often lack. Ants can serve as an example to us of how incredible results can be achieved by working together, not alone.
How history, religion, and ethnic differences become sources of global conflict
Intergroup conflicts are one of the most complex and painful phenomena affecting different parts of our planet. They always have deep roots, which can come from various reasons: religious, ethnic, political or even economic. Let’s look at some of the most iconic conflicts that have engulfed the world in recent decades and try to understand why they arose.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become one of the longest and most painful stories in modern politics. This conflict is based not only on territorial claims, but also on deep religious, ethnic and national differences between the two peoples. The land, which both sides consider sacred, has become an arena of endless skirmishes. This is not only about territories, but also about the right to existence and identity. Every step, even a peaceful one, is perceived here as a gain or loss, and this conflict does not seem to have an easy solution.
In 1994, a tragedy occurred in Rwanda that shocked the world with its brutality – the ethnic conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi peoples, which turned into a real genocide. More than a million people were destroyed in just a few months. The history of Rwanda has become an example not only of terrible bloodshed, but also of how deep historical differences can become the driving force for one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. Behind all these violent events is the question of whether it could have been avoided if there had not been generations of resentment and mutual distrust.
The Balkan wars of the 1990s, particularly the conflicts in Yugoslavia, are another tragic example of how ethnic and religious divisions can lead to dire consequences. The wars between the Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and other peoples of the region have become painful evidence of how territorial and national interests can tear societies apart. And while each of these nations sought independence and self-expression, the result was tens of thousands of dead and millions of refugees.
And let’s not forget the struggle for African-American rights in the US, where racial discrimination continues to be a major problem, even with the gains of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Current events, such as the protests after the murder of George Floyd, have shown that racial inequality has not only not disappeared, but continues to be the driving force for numerous conflicts and protests. This is a fight for dignity, equality and the right to be heard.
It is clear that all these conflicts are only part of the global landscape of intergroup clashes, which reflect not only territorial or political claims, but also deeper issues of identity, recognition, and human rights. And while each of their stories is unique, they all share common traits in the fight for justice, often through sacrifice. They should serve as a lesson that speaks loudly from the past and contributes to the preservation of peace in the future. But the events currently unfolding on the territory of Ukraine point to the sad fact that humanity has not learned to learn from the mistakes of the past.
Intergroup conflicts in Ukraine and their consequences
The war in Ukraine did not erase social boundaries, but only made them harder. Groups that should have been in solidarity began to live in parallel realities. Those who fight despise those who live “as if nothing had happened.” Those in the rear are tired of expectations and claims. Immigrants face hostility and suspicion from locals. Volunteers are outraged by the bureaucracy, officials are outraged by the volunteers’ claims. Conflicts between “Westerners” and “Easterners”, between “Ukrainian-speakers” and “Russian-speakers”, between those who are mobilized and those who fled, between those who are “for” and those who are “against” – all these are no longer private disputes, but the daily structure of relations in Ukrainian society.
A common state exists formally, but no common experience has been developed. There is no trust in someone else’s pain, everyone sees only their own and does not recognize the other. Therefore, any decision is perceived as a blow to “own” for the sake of “others”. At the same time, the state becomes an object of hatred for everyone, because it is not able to be an arbiter and unite society. Consequently, each group lives in isolation and builds up bitterness, which is a slow disintegration of the country from within.
When citizens in the middle of their country lose the ability to see others as part of a common space, society collapses. It splits into camps that protect only their own and attack others. National integrity in such conditions becomes an illusion. The passport, national anthem, and administrative map are formally kept, but the reality looks different: internal borders are between people, no less than external borders — between states. In this space, there is no trust in a common rule, a common “we”, respect for strangers. Everything that does not belong to “ours” is automatically considered as enemy territory.
As a result, intergroup conflicts rewrite ideas about justice, loyalty, limits of aggression and violence. Over time, social enmity gains stability: people get used to living in a state of hatred, stop considering agreements, compromises, and mutual responsibility to be the norm. The idea of the country as a whole is gradually disappearing, and what remains is a mosaic of closed fragments that do not seek to be connected. This is precisely the disintegration of national integrity – not as a momentary collapse, but as a long, invisible erosion, in which the main thing is not geography, but the loss of mutual recognition.
