Do we need a common enemy release 2

Though there are only two comments visible on the previous article, when I include e-mail responses it's the most controversial article so far. Reactions varied from one end of the spectrum to the other with little in between. Discussions I had on the subject mirrored these responses. Apparently there are two ways of interpreting the question. One is from a point of view where we have to fight a physical enemy that is threatening our lives (fear); the other is from a point of view where we need focused conflict to achieve and learn anything. Both are formed by our experiences and prevent us from looking at the question from a more philosophical point of view.

As both commentors point out, what we need is something to gather around and put a concerted effort in by applying to peoples need to create and add value. But, what is that something? If we want to extinguish poverty, isn’t that out of love for our fellow man, with poverty as our common enemy? When we tackle ignorance, again we do that out of love for our fellow man with ignorance being the enemy. To stop child labour we are uniting in not buying products from companies who use children. The first example is pretty clear, the second and third get muddier. Does our fellow man feel ignorant? If he doesn’t, he is not going to like our interference, if he does, will he understand that we are helping him? The parents of child labourers are desperate, because they need the income their children generate to survive with their family. It’s not about good or bad, or war and peace! Without a little empathy for all parties involved, it’s easy to create a new enemy out of love!

With al due respect for those who do not agree with the metaphorical representation of an enemy being needed to unite people, there are so many examples to prove this point. To get equal rights, women had to unite against the male establishment, something we are still seeing today in many muslim countries. Men are not ‘the enemy’, but their views are. While still loving their men, women fight against their views that brand them as inferior. In the Netherlands I visited a meeting of ‘De publieke zaak’, literally translated ‘The public cause’. This public forum was created to bring change to a government that is estranged from its citizens. One of the remarks of a former minister was that citizens only seem to unite when a government project threatens their quality of live. Such as a new railway track, highway, etc. In this he stated the government responsible for this project is not perceived as the enemy by those protesting, it’s a conflict of interest between citizens (represented by our government) who need the extra tracks and those who get them through their backyard. Does the committee against the track see it this way? Come on! The government at the very least chose sides and became the enemy. In order to create a new government, we have to destroy parts of the old one. Do you really think the ‘to be destroyed’ parts are going to thank us ?

All change is perceived as a threat because people do not like to change the status quo, even though status quo does not exist in human society, but that is food for another article. Perception is truth! Love is an important ingredient and trigger for change, but whether you like it or not, in order to get a critical mass of people to enable change you are going to be perceived as the enemy by those who do not want to change. They become your enemy, however much you love them. If you want to create, build, and add value you, love can be used to tap into the creative potential inside all individuals, but to focus it and maintain it, you need something more. Love is just too tricky and subjective to be used as anything but a catalyst. My simple conclusion is this. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck! One of the laws of nature; in order to create we destroy something else. I think we need a common enemy to unite against, but whether we do or not is irrelevant, by our actions to change things we’ll get one anyway.