r/InternationalDev

In April, a conflict occurred in Shenzhen, China, between a smoker and a person trying to stop smoking, followed by police intervention, and it became an online hot topic. Some people supported the woman for stopping the smoking, condemned the harm of secondhand smoke, criticized the police strip search as damaging dignity, and considered the punishment improper. Others stood with the smoker and the police, believing the woman had no law-enforcement authority and should not have thrown a drink to extinguish the cigarette, while the police body search was also a normal procedure.

Smokers and those opposed to smoking, law enforcers and those subjected to enforcement, male perspectives and female perspectives—all held different positions. The same incident thus became two different narratives, each side amplifying information favorable to itself and unfavorable to the other. Looking across China and the world, social fragmentation and opposition among groups are widespread and increasingly severe realities.

The world in recent years has been turbulent and unstable, and people are no longer optimistic about the future. In China, although things appear relatively calm on the surface, people’s anxiety grows heavier by the day, and undercurrents within society continue, expressing themselves through online public opinion. Whether in China or abroad, this unrest and anxiety in people’s hearts have triggered various conflicts, along with the social fragmentation and global division reflected in those conflicts.

In China, people fiercely dispute issues because of differing macro-level political stances, class identities, gender and ethnic differences, as well as differing views on specific events. Examples include debates over “3,000-yuan monthly salary versus national affairs” (月薪三千与国家大事), the “Hengshui Model” (衡水模式) of education, pension disparities, young people “lying flat” (躺平), the Wuhan University sexual harassment controversy (武大性骚扰风波), whether to embrace “grand narratives,” international issues such as Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, and China-Japan relations, judgments on modern Chinese historical events, and evaluations of internet celebrities such as Hu Chenfeng (户晨风) and Zhang Xuefeng (张雪峰). People argue intensely, each insisting on their own version.

In these disputes, facts and reason are not valued. People more often choose sides based on positions and values, while “labeling” the other side. Chinese people in real life are also engaged in visible and invisible struggles within various oppositions, and society is fractured.

This is not limited to China; it is the same across the world. In the United States, the long-standing opposition between Democrats and Republicans greatly intensified during the Trump era. Globally, from Europe to Asia, from Africa to Latin America, the left and right, establishment forces and populists, ethnic groups with different identities, and people of different genders and sexual orientations are all locked in conflict. On issues such as abortion, guns, immigration, feminism, climate policy, and hot international topics involving Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, and Iran, people across different ideological spectrums confront each other sharply.

People not only argue online, but also clash offline, from parliaments to the streets, causing much violence. More broadly, wars between countries such as Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Palestine, the United States and Iran; the arrests of immigrants and refugees by U.S. ICE; Iran’s suppression of protesters; and opposition protests that create unrest are all extreme forms of conflict caused by opposing interests and values, and by inability to reach agreement over concrete issues. The world has moved from a former trend toward integration to a clearly visible fragmentation.

Such widespread division and confrontation occur not only between countries and ethnic groups, but also within countries themselves; not only in non-democratic states, but also under democratic systems; not only in developing countries, but also in advanced economies; not only because of macro political and ideological disputes, but also because of micro-level concrete conflicts. This shows that division and confrontation have little to do with whether a system is democratic or how developed an economy is, but instead stem from universal human problems and common defects.

The key problem and defect lies in the fact that because of differences in identity, experience, and ideas, as well as differences in interests and positions, people are unable to understand one another rationally, much less empathize emotionally. Thus they often see things in completely different ways and reach entirely opposite conclusions on disputed issues. Mutual incomprehension also deepens people’s disgust toward one another, allowing conflicts to continue and expand, generating more hatred and violence.

For example, different classes of Chinese people view disparities in pensions and welfare differently. Those with vested interests often tend to approve of a tiered social security system in which they receive more while the poor receive less, defending it on the grounds that they contributed more and paid more. They ignore the fact that farmers paid agricultural taxes for decades, and that poverty effectively deprived them of the ability to pay more into insurance systems. Someone receiving a monthly pension of 5,000 RMB can hardly empathize with someone receiving 120 RMB a month.

Going further, the powerful and the successful feel the country is good, the government is good, and life is happy, while finding it difficult to understand or care about lower-level laborers, the poor, and the unemployed. Even those who do sympathize with the lower classes are few, and cannot truly feel what they feel. Some people were fortunate and became rich after Reform and Opening Up (改革开放); others were unfortunate, went bankrupt through investments, and saw their families fall apart. People in different classes and situations therefore form different evaluations and expectations regarding the ruling party, the government, and the country’s future destiny.

Those in high positions of privilege and elites enjoying success mostly support the system and believe the future is bright. Laborers working overtime for hard-earned wages, unemployed people without livelihoods, and oppressed vulnerable groups are mostly resentful toward the government and vested interests, and pessimistic about the future. Supporters of the system possess the superiority complex of “heroic fathers produce worthy sons” and the obliviousness of “why not eat meat porridge,” believing ordinary people simply “do not work hard,” and that hatred of the government comes from “foreign instigation.” Anti-system people, meanwhile, believe those who support the system and speak positively of the country are the government’s brainwashed “base.”

But the real China is complex. It has achievements and problems; some people are happy and others unfortunate. Both the good and the bad are only parts of the larger social mosaic, and future prospects are a mixture of positive and negative, filled with uncertainty.

People in different circumstances and occupying different parts of society have conflicting interests and find it difficult to understand or empathize with one another. Like the blind men touching the elephant, people generalize the whole of China from their own limited perceptions, obtaining only a “partial truth,” while crudely denying others’ “partial truths,” and thus failing to grasp China’s real condition.

In the United States, progressive youth in big cities and artistic men and women cannot understand the beliefs and choices of devout conservative middle-aged and elderly people in inland rural areas. The former believe the latter are ignorant and backward, brainwashed by Trump and populism; the latter believe the former lack sincere faith and have been brainwashed by universities and “wokeism.” Both sides disparage the identity and values of the other while firmly believing themselves correct.

Communication is often useless, because each side has already fixed its position and preemptively confirmed its own “correct conclusion.” In exchanges where conflict outweighs communication, opposing sides usually do not become more understanding of others, but instead harden their own views, seek warmth within their echo chambers, reject dissent more strongly, and resent the other side more deeply. Freedom of speech and developed media in advanced democracies have not made people more loving or understanding, but instead have created more complex “information cocoons” and “echo-chamber bubbles.”

On the Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine issues, opposing sides each care only about what they themselves care about, while ignoring the feelings and concerns of the other. For Israel and its supporters, the October 7 massacre was unimaginably brutal, with many women and children killed, and therefore “terrorism must be struck,” leading them to justify brutality in Gaza or ignore Palestinian deaths including women and children.

Palestinian supporters, meanwhile, focus entirely on condemning Israeli violence while avoiding Palestinian harm inflicted on Israelis. Both sides emphasize their own suffering and justice, erase the other side, and leave no possibility for sincere communication—only gunfire, smoke, blood, and slaughter remain.

On Russia and Ukraine, Western establishment figures and interventionists continually emphasize the justice and necessity of aiding Ukraine against Russia: how severe Ukraine’s humanitarian disaster is, how resilient Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are, and how threatening Russia is. But American and European isolationists believe they should not spend real money or risk involvement in war for a distant foreign country, and instead use the savings for domestic welfare, easing burdens on their own citizens who are struggling to survive. Europeans are at least geographically closer to Ukraine, while American isolationists have even more reason not to spend resources on a country thousands of miles away. The two sides differ in values, priorities, and fundamental demands, cannot persuade one another, and only the holders of power can determine national policy toward the Russia-Ukraine war.

Globally, ethnic differences, wealth polarization, class divisions, differing values, and cultural customs are even more severe and complex. Under the current order and the tide of globalization, some have benefited while others have been disappointed. Even people of the same ethnicity and class may experience either fortune or misfortune in their personal destinies.

Various injustices, inequalities, discrimination, and prejudice have bred dissatisfaction and resentment. European middle classes who live comfortably from birth to death under high-level welfare systems, and citizens of oil-producing Middle Eastern states, can hardly empathize with the poor in Asia, Africa, and Latin America who labor harshly or suffer under war. Some people grow up in happy and complete families, while others lose their parents in childhood; naturally their childhoods and adulthoods will be entirely different.

People’s mutual incomprehension and opposition have become forces driving further division in the world. The rise of the far right and far left in many countries today, along with the decline of centrists, is a vivid example.

When everyone believes they themselves are right and the other side is evil, communication fails, resentment increases, and people inevitably move toward extremes, embracing more attractive echo chambers and radical forces. Social fragmentation and factional hostility thus worsen further, pushing even more people toward extremism in a vicious cycle.

Historically, the two World Wars and many medium and small-scale wars were also tragedies caused by conflicting interests among various sides, and by one or both parties being unable to understand the legitimate concerns of the other. The Russian Civil War, the Chinese Civil War (中国内战), the Korean civil war between North and South, and the Vietnam War, all with enormous casualties, were cases in which different internal forces clung to their own doctrines, were unwilling or unable to coexist peacefully, and ultimately led compatriots to kill one another. Millions died in the flames of war, while many more were maimed and families shattered.

Humanity today seems to understand the lessons of history, since the world is after all more peaceful than in the past; yet it also seems not to understand them, because mutual opposition, incomprehension, failed communication, and accumulated hatred—the fuses and warning signs of those wars—are all still present.

Today, in the 2020s of the twenty-first century, a new world war has not yet broken out, but people are already using power, institutions, laws, rules, public opinion, the internet, demonstrations, and assemblies to wage many bloodless wars against one another, aimed at damaging each other materially and spiritually.

For example, the author personally experienced Wikipedia editing wars and internal struggles. There was no physical violence, and everything formally proceeded according to rules, yet in reality all factions selectively used those rules to attack dissidents—for instance, finding excuses to “revert” days of painstaking work by opponents back to zero. As an encyclopedia platform with enormous influence, Wikipedia articles also shape many people’s perceptions and judgments of people and events.

Those who hold an advantage in discourse power can tilt Wikipedia content toward their own side, while weaker groups lack such influence and are easily stigmatized. Although Wikipedia officially advocates neutrality, compromise, and assuming good faith, on controversial issues the norm remains entrenched disagreement, irreconcilable hostility, mutual hatred, and factionalism.

Similar struggles, contests, and miniature wars occur every day both offline and online across the world—in governments, parliaments, media organizations, universities, and elsewhere. These less noticeable conflicts resonate with policy changes, popular movements, and broader international waves of confrontation. For example, conflicts between mainland Chinese and Hong Kong administrators on Wikipedia were closely tied to the anti-extradition movement and the subsequent implementation of the National Security Law (《国安法》) happening at the same time.

Overall confrontation drives local conflicts, while local conflicts intensify overall confrontation. A contradiction arising in one place pulls in related contradictions elsewhere and creates more of them. In situations of conflict and opposition, people become less willing to understand one another or respect opponents. Instead, positions determine behavior, and rules are used selectively. Quoting out of context and distorting facts become normal.

People care only about themselves and their own side, while ignoring others and outsiders, even harming others for the benefit of their own group. Unity within each camp is not for broader unity, but for more effectively confronting enemy camps and suppressing dissenters.

Can a world so full of division, confrontation, and endless conflict improve? The author once believed that institutional development, educational enlightenment, cultural advocacy, and the building of civil society could bring improvement. But in recent years, both historical realities disproving optimism and personal lessons from witnessing human malice have made the author pessimistic.

Because people of different identities and circumstances have different interests, opposition exists naturally, conflict is inevitable, and harmony is difficult and fragile. As Lu Xun (鲁迅) said, “The joys and sorrows of humanity are not shared.” People cannot truly empathize with all the suffering of others, nor can they treat everyone’s demands with perfect equal balance. As the saying goes, “Some relatives still grieve, while others already sing.” Even sympathy that crosses interpersonal boundaries is usually directed toward specific targets rather than universal love. Those sharing the same suffering may pity one another, while those in different circumstances may become even more distant than ordinary strangers.

Forming an alliance with some people often means becoming more hostile to others. Where interests conflict, beliefs differ, and values diverge, communication is rarely effective. It may instead involve deception, insult, and injury through words, deepening distrust and resentment.

All of this stems from the biological fact that human beings are independent individuals who cannot truly see into one another’s hearts. Misunderstanding and separation always exist. This is true even between spouses and between parents and children. Two close friends facing each other still cannot know with certainty what the other is thinking inside. That too is impossible.

The communicative power of language is limited, and lies are always present. Moreover, different peoples of the world possess different languages and modes of expression, further increasing the difficulty of communication and deepening barriers.

Human beings also naturally exist in competition with one another. No matter how much total resources grow, the sum can still be viewed as one whole. Therefore disputes inevitably arise over how much of that total different people receive. Interests determine status and dignity, material gain, spiritual enjoyment, and relative advantage or loss among people. People fight bitterly for these things. Losers live in hardship and emotional despair, while winners are filled with happiness and satisfaction. Distribution is sometimes based on effort and contribution, and sometimes it is not; unfairness is common.

The complexity of society and diversity of humanity also mean contradictions will always exist; conflicts of interest cannot be eradicated. Under such a fundamental premise, no matter how hard humanity tries to improve itself through institutions, education, or public discourse, it cannot make humankind loving and harmonious as if it were one person. Liberalism, socialism/communism, and conservatism are all unable to cure human ugliness and social contradictions at the root.

On the contrary, many ideas, institutional designs, and practical movements that in name or original intention sought human harmony and universal unity instead produced tragedies of deception, brainwashing, resentment, and even broader contradictions. Human relationships became more complicated, social conflicts more tangled, and matters increasingly difficult to repair.

More than two thousand years ago, Laozi (老子) repeatedly argued in the Tao Te Ching (《道德经》) that some efforts to improve society and make humanity better would instead become tools exploited for evil, causing society to become more chaotic and humanity more corrupted. Facts have shown that Laozi’s view contains considerable truth.

Because of certain unusual experiences and dramatic ups and downs in life, the author has unexpectedly undergone many different circumstances, including great rises and falls. In different situations and different periods, the author has held different views on the same or similar matters, even reaching completely opposite conclusions, while personal values have also changed greatly over time.

For example, the author’s attitude toward grassroots populism shifted from dislike to greater sympathy, and views of the stubbornness of older generations changed from aversion to greater understanding. The present self opposes some words and actions of years ago, and the earlier self would surely disapprove of some of today’s values. The author considers himself someone who actively reflects and often tries to see from others’ perspectives, with empathy stronger than that of many people.

Yet the more this is so, the more one realizes the limits of one’s own thinking and empathy, and how difficult it is for people in the world to understand one another and sustain compassion. Even if a person can somewhat empathize with several specific experiences, emotions, and certain individuals, it remains difficult to extend that widely to many more people and groups. Human experience, vision, knowledge, and energy are all limited.

The story of the Tower of Babel in the Old Testament is precisely about how humanity finds it difficult to become one, and how barriers are unavoidable. What prevents mutual understanding is not merely linguistic difference, but even more the difference of spirit. Every person’s soul and thoughts are unique and self-contained, and cannot become identical with another’s. From birth to the present, people differ in identity, life experiences, education received, and patterns of thought. Thus they naturally sort into groups of different identities and positions, attacking one another. Conflicts of interest also cause even like-minded people to part ways, and many relatives and friends turn into enemies.

These are objective realities, unaffected by the will of those who seek to transform human nature and remake society. Internal contradictions within countries, international conflicts, and their immediate causes are only surface appearances. These deep-rooted negative realities of human society are the true foundation. If the roots cannot be cured, then prescriptions for specific problems will always merely “treat the symptoms but not the disease,” or solve one problem only for another to arise.

This means mutual incomprehension and attacks between people are difficult to avoid, and the world’s division and conflict will continue. Even knowing many lessons of history, people will still repeat mistakes to one degree or another. We can only strive and hope for fewer conflicts, more peace, and a world that does not spiral completely out of control, but can continue to function imperfectly and with difficulty.

(This article was written by Wang Qingmin (王庆民), a Chinese writer based in Europe and a researcher of international politics.)