The Case for Division

In the United States, there’s a mantra echoing across family group chats, news desks, and corporate boardrooms: "We need to come together." It sounds noble, doesn’t it? A balm for our “divided nation.” But let’s be real—this chorus is often weaponized, an empty platitude rolled out to avoid hard conversations, protect fragile egos, or, worse, justify allegiance to destructive systems. It’s time we stop pretending that unity is the ultimate goal. Division isn’t a failure of democracy—it’s its heartbeat. And in a society as complex and fractured as ours, division is not only inevitable but necessary for healing.

Division Is America’s Birthright

Let’s start with the obvious: The United States was born divided. Colonists, indigenous people, enslaved Africans—three very different realities clashing under the same skies. The so-called "founding fathers" couldn’t even agree on the Constitution without compromises that institutionalized slavery. The Civil War tore the country in two. The Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam, Roe v. Wade—pick your era, and you’ll find division. The United States has never been a European-style homogenous democracy. And why should it be? Democracy thrives on tension, on opposing ideas sharpening each other like iron on iron.

The yearning for unity often stems from discomfort with conflict. But democracy isn’t about making everyone feel good. It’s about pushing through the mess to find something closer to truth and justice. To demand unity as the solution to our problems is to deny the rich, agonizing, beautiful struggle that has always defined this country.

The Illusion of Unity

The cry for unity often comes from those who benefit most from the status quo. It’s a way to pacify dissent, to smooth over the rough edges of a system that’s failing so many. Unity is trotted out as the antidote to division, but what it really offers is complacency. True unity—the kind built on shared values and mutual respect—can only come after division has done its work.

We’ve seen this play out in corporate America, too. Companies slap a rainbow logo on their social media during Pride Month, then quietly donate to politicians who legislate against LGBTQ+ rights. They sponsor diversity initiatives while refusing to address systemic racism in their own ranks. Unity becomes a marketing tool, a way to dodge accountability while looking virtuous.

Where is the Line?

Oppression thrives in forced unity. It relies on silencing the privileged about the suffering of the oppressed, creating an illusion of harmony while injustice festers beneath the surface. When people are discouraged from calling out systemic harm in the name of "keeping the peace," it allows the status quo to go unchallenged. True accountability and progress can only come when we refuse to settle for the illusion of unity and instead fight for a reality where justice is non-negotiable.

So there has to be a line—a set of standards that makes division worth more than forced unity. Compromising our values in the name of “peace” is an unattainable illusion. True peace isn’t built on the suppression of disagreement or the papering over of systemic harm. It’s built on a foundation of justice, truth, and mutual respect. Division challenges us to clarify our values and decide what’s worth protecting. It’s not about lamenting a “loss of connection,” but about ensuring that the connections we do foster are built on principles worth holding.

“Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.”

―Bertrand Russell

The Three H’s of Division

Not all divisions are created equal. Some are petty and solvable—pineapple on pizza, anyone? For me, these are baseline: Holograms, History, and Human Rights. These aren’t abstract concepts or intellectual exercises; they are the fault lines that reveal the character of our nation and ourselves. Understanding and addressing them is the only way we can navigate the kind of division that clarifies rather than obscures our collective progress. These provide me a framework for distinguishing meaningful disagreements from the noise, ensuring that division serves as a tool for justice rather than an excuse for chaos. You may create your own framework - or feel free to use this one!

Holograms: Living in Alternate Realities

Holograms are the constructs people cling to when facing complexity or discomfort that feels too overwhelming. These holograms distort reality, allowing individuals to embrace conspiracy theories, deny science, and rewrite facts to fit their narratives. Holograms are the inevitable result of attaching too much of your identity to a political or religious view. As such, when someone insists that the 2020 election was stolen, that Russia is the victim of the war with Ukraine, or that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, they are operating within one of these holograms. There is rarely an opportunity for a rational conversation because their identity is so attached to this alternative reality.

One of the most pervasive holograms in the US is "White Jesus." For decades, white, right-wing evangelicals have weaponized this sanitized, Westernized image of Christ to justify bigotry and power grabs, twisting the message of a Middle Eastern revolutionary into a tool of oppression. This manipulation is a prime example of why the separation of church and state is essential. When religious ideologies are allowed to dominate political discourse, they often serve as a cover for systemic harm, silencing dissent and prioritizing dogma over democracy.

History: Seeing the Past Clearly

History isn’t a buffet where you pick what suits your tastes. If you’re whitewashing slavery, minimizing Indigenous genocide, pretending systemic oppression isn’t still woven into the fabric of this country, or constantly criticizing the US without acknowledging the benefits or privileges its system may provide, then you’re not engaging with history—you’re rewriting it. Engaging with history means confronting it fully: its triumphs, failures, and ongoing legacies. To do otherwise is to choose ignorance over accountability, a choice that perpetuates harm and impedes progress. This includes the recent crusade to ban books and propagandize school curriculums. Erasing uncomfortable truths from classrooms is not protecting children; it’s ensuring ignorance thrives. The past isn’t a weapon to wield against progress; it’s a mirror that helps us see how far we’ve come and how far we have to go.

History revisionism is a leading indicator of a lack of critical thinking, which is a necessary tool for reasonable discourse. Further, if your identity is deeply attached to your version of history, then the truth and facts are a threat. There is no ability or interest in understanding context, questioning narratives, or confronting complexities.

Human Rights: The Non-Negotiables

Human rights are not "political." They’re not up for debate. The right to exist, to love, to express, to seek happiness—these are foundational. If you think LGBTQ+ rights, racial equality, or women’s autonomy are political issues, you’re not just misguided; you’re part of the problem. There’s no spectrum here. Either you believe in human dignity for all, or you don’t. And if you don’t, I have no interest in uniting with you.

For those who wish to remove the personhood of a group, there is no possible way to fix the divide. Ignorance or moral laziness can be fixed with insight, but when it’s a deliberate choice to prioritize power and privilege over compassion and equity, there is no space for "understanding the other side." This kind of mindset isn’t just harmful—it’s corrosive, eating away at the foundations of any society that claims to value justice.

Division Without Cruelty

Accepting division doesn’t give you a license to be cruel. There’s a difference between holding your ground and escalating conflict unnecessarily. Loving your neighbor doesn’t mean agreeing with them; it means treating them with kindness, even when you disagree vehemently. Compassion and civility are strengths, not weaknesses. But compassion doesn’t mean compromising your values. You can care about someone while drawing a firm line when their beliefs or actions are harmful.

At the same time, don’t let division erode your humanity. It’s possible to stand firm without losing empathy, but it’s equally important not to lose your sanity by engaging endlessly with the unreasonable and delusional. Progress lives in the balance between staying true to your principles and practicing kindness where it’s possible.

Choosing Your Battles

Not every battle is worth fighting, and not every division is worth maintaining. The key is to discern where to draw the line. For me, the Three H’s are non-negotiable. But beyond that, I try to approach division with humility. Am I holding onto this disagreement out of ego or fear? Or is it rooted in values that truly matter? These are questions we should all ask ourselves.

That said, I believe in the power of one-on-one conversations to bridge gaps. Constructive debate, rooted in curiosity and respect, can create space for understanding even when agreement feels impossible. This isn’t about trolling or scoring points—it’s about engaging in good faith, finding common ground where it exists, and planting seeds of connection that might grow over time. .

The Path Forward

The goal isn’t unity for unity’s sake. The goal is a society where justice and truth prevail, even if it means enduring uncomfortable divisions along the way. This isn’t about choosing sides; it’s about choosing principles. And sometimes, that means standing apart rather than standing together.

So, the next time someone laments our "divided nation," don’t rush to agree. Ask them what they mean. Are they mourning a loss of connection? Or are they resisting the hard work of reckoning with history, reality, and human dignity? Division isn’t the enemy. Let’s stop treating it as a problem to fix and start using it as a catalyst for change.