Enemy Mine

Is adversarial framing counterproductive or necessary for positive, liberatory change?

A reader I admire has called me out. During our conversation, two main perspectives surfaced regarding the wisdom of identifying adversaries or enemies.

Thesis

As represented by MB, who:

1. Believes it's important to identify adversaries who manipulate systems to take advantage of others—especially as so many seem unaware of this.

2. Argues that recognizing the existence of a common enemy helps maintain unity in a group, motivating them to counterpower.

3. Views certain powerful entities (e.g., corrupt government authorities, central bankers, and corporate rentiers) as actively destroying "infinite game dynamics" and replacing them with oppressive systems.

4. Feels it's important to issue moral opprobrium and use adversarial framing to highlight deep injustices.

5. Believes ignoring the perpetrators of injustice is wrongheaded and that our adversaries are neither imagined nor contrived.

Antithesis

As represented by KC, who:

1. Is uncomfortable with the adversarial framing, seeing it as potentially regressive and reminiscent of destructive tribal mindsets.

2. Suggests that recognizing the urge to use moral opprobrium against perceived enemies differs from actively dispensing it.

3. Believes that creating external enemies to maintain a group’s internal unity is immature, counterproductive, and risks othering them.

4. Advocates for refocusing energy away from building enmity toward building and promoting alternatives.

5. Argues that showcasing the beauty and effectiveness of alternative systems is more powerful than moral opprobrium.

Our core disagreement seems to be whether explicitly identifying and criticizing adversaries is necessary and productive for creating positive change. Is it better to focus solely on building and promoting alternative systems?

I have spent nearly two decades promoting alternative systems, and my most successful book expresses a vision of the future rife with them. I ran an event for eight years whose mantra was “Criticize by creating.” But I have also pointed out powerful, corrupt, and evil people, and I’m willing to call a spade a spade.

I acknowledge that this can be offputting, so KC is right to question whether mine is the best approach.

So there we have it: An adversarial approach to the issue of whether one should take an adversarial approach. The important questions remaining are:

1. Is MB right? Should we sometimes use adversarial framing and promote novel alternatives?

2. Is KC right? Should we use no adversarial framing and only promote novel alternatives?

3. Is a third position waiting to burst forth in sublation?

I would love for you to explore the dialectic (3). What do you think?
Can 1 and 2 be synthesized?