In Part I, we examined how people create “us” and “them.” In Part II, we followed those boundaries as they became social and political realities—shaping identities, institutions, borders, and ideas about who belongs.

But if group boundaries are a persistent feature of human societies, perhaps eliminating them is not a realistic goal.

This brings us to the final question:

If human beings will always form groups, how can they live together?

The answer cannot simply be to eliminate differences. People will continue to disagree about religion, politics, economics, national identity, and almost everything else. Nor can every disagreement be resolved through assimilation.

The more realistic challenge is to prevent ordinary differences between groups from becoming existential conflicts—and to create larger circles of belonging in which competing groups can coexist.

The question, ultimately, is not whether there will always be a “them.”

The question is what we choose to do about it.

Does This Mean Conflict Is Inevitable?

At this point, the argument may sound pessimistic.

If people inevitably form groups, and if the markers of belonging can constantly change, does that mean permanent conflict is unavoidable?

But tension is not the same thing as war.

Two people can disagree profoundly without trying to destroy one another.

One can believe in communism.

The other can believe in capitalism.

One can be religious.

The other can be atheist.

One can support Israel.

The other can oppose it.

They can still live in the same society.

They can still work together.

They can still be neighbors.

They can still recognize........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)