The Cultural Divide and The Impact of War in the 21st Century

Introduction

Our ever more advanced, and complex, technologies and economies are reshaping the arena of war – moving it away from the blatantly destructive formal warfare we are used to, and bringing about new means such as trade and cyber wars. Yet, as we can see in both the Russia-Ukraine and Middle Eastern conflicts, war in the traditional sense has not completely gone away. There are geopolitical tensions and hostilities. There are armies and large military organisations. There exist here both the “justification” (or cause) for war, as well as the means of carrying it out. Seeing the devastation of war, we often choose to revert to diplomatic means instead. We loathe in silence, and more and more we use this “silence” to engage in intelligence gathering, trade wars, and cyberattacks. Yet at some point the elephant in the room must be addressed, and fully realised. Then the simmer progresses to a boil, and all hell breaks loose.

There is always an apparent justification to conflict. Revenge. Dominance. Territorial expansion. Greed. Self-defense. It’s human nature. As an individual, we aim to climb up the hierarchy, improve our life, and gain security. If our needs are not met, we will, in some form, fight to get what we want. Maybe that just means we work harder. But maybe that means we wage war. It makes sense for the individual, and so it will make sense for the tribe. The tribal unit manifests itself as a superior individual, with one will of which all the parts act in accordance with. The tribe will thus wage war. Yet our society is no longer tribal. The whole is no longer a unit but a collection of autonomous parts, with their own will. We each act not in the interest of the collective but instead in the interest of the individual (which is often also the interest of the collective; the betterment of the whole leads to the betterment of the parts). In a tribe it was clear whether or not war should be waged (Is it or is it not advantageous to the unit?). Not anymore. Disagreement is rife. The cultural divide is prevalent. Elections are split close to 50-50, each with often radically different priorities – there is no certainty nor clarity. In the US, one side is for abortion and one is against, one is for open immigration and one is against – and there’s hardly a majority. How do you decide what to go to war over? Self-defense seems obvious, but where do you draw the line? Is a tariff sufficient to launch a full-scale trade war?

In the last month or so, President Trump has seemingly dismissed this divide. Decisions are not being made on behalf of the US, they are being made on behalf of the US right-wing, even the hard right-wing. Since the second world war, there has never been democracy. Yet it has not been realised. Why? Because we could afford to stay in the centre. To stay neutral and inactive. But now tensions are on the rise and international relations are shaking – democracy is waning. Naturally, fierce leadership will emerge, acting in the interests of the country and throwing out, or at least redirecting, our current democracy. Practicality and progress will overtake ideological obsession and conformity. The old world, albeit modernised, is reemerging. What will this look like and will this be how the culture wars end?

The End of The Culture Wars

From ancient times through to the enlightenment, politics was based on tradition and religion, with kings ruling often absolutely due to a divine right and with governments arranged in a traditional hierarchy. Yet in the enlightenment we saw the emergence of ideologies, collections of sociopolitical aims and the ideal means of getting there, such as liberalism and socialism. In the French Revolution, ideology manifested into the left (republican revolutionaries) and the right (conservative monarchists) wings on the political spectrum. This continued to become more pronounced over the following centuries, particularly with industrialisation increasing the divide between communist and capitalist ideologies. World War 2 later pitted together “communism”, fascism and democracy, and soon, with the elimination of the fascist powers, led to the Cold War – an ideological war fought between the US’ capitalist democracy and the Soviet’s communist authoritarianism. Since the Cold War, there have been no major international conflicts with the western democracies generally united as the leaders of the world, and the US as the global superpower.

Yet within the west ideological disputes continued, and the culture wars gained prominence. Debate over issues from abortion and LGBTQ+ rights to political correctness and gender culture became central to social and political discussion, and were left to battle each other in our left-right democracies. In recent years these ideological battles have been fueled ever more with radical polarisation on social media, as well as the rise of populist figures like Trump. Yet this appears to be nearing its end. At some point, likely charged by economic and geopolitical crises such as war, the culture war will reach its pinnacle, and dwindle. Ideology will still inspire politics, but the primary focus must shift to that which works. Policy is put in action not because it conforms with the party’s ideology, but because it is the best solution to the problem. This is the modern rise of pragmatism, a catalyst of reform, innovation and productivity.

How do you see it? Comment your take👇

If you're interested in learning more about the future of war, check out the articles below:

• The Evolution Of Military Technology: AI and Digitisation in Modern Warfare

• A New Era of War: Shadow Operations and The Rise of Nationalism