In 2002, a year after America became embroiled in the War on Terror, journalist Chris Hedges published his insightful book, War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning. There he relives his experiences as a reporter in many battle zones and beseeches American readers to consider the reasons for which they are consenting to war.

But somewhere along the way, Hedges abandons the greater philosophical and sociological argument that the title implies. In deference to providing riveting accounts from the battlefield and testimony to the horrors of war, Hedges leaves us wanting as to the meanings and drives that lie behind the conflict. What might have he said? We were intrigued.

Similarly, but long before 2002, the US had become embattled in a completely different type of war. The “culture wars” are now a familiar backdrop to our lives, it seems difficult to remember a time before the battle between ideological extremes. Coined in the 1990s by sociologist James Davison Hunter, the term refers to a cluster of conflicts between notions of moral orthodoxy and progressivism. While “culture wars” is a newish term, the root of the tensions has been a major part of American cultural and political life throughout most of the 20th century.

Hunter’s otherwise thorough treatment of the issue leaves one question inadequately addressed: Why has conflict been such a central part of American culture and why are we slow to leave it behind? On its surface, the resources and energy devoted to wars both military and cultural is taxing. What is the payoff of such an expensive investment? Furthermore --and less clinically-- how can a society survive such an intense preoccupation with combat?

While part of the culture wars can be attributed to a media system impelled to highlight drama in order to sustain high ratings, the reality of underlying cleavages persist. A lengthy study published by the Pew Research Center reveals these exact divisions. Their research shows that over the past two decades, the number of individuals who report consistently liberal or conservative views has doubled, climbing from 10% to 21% of Americans. And while more individuals have moved to the extremes, more have also begun to perceive opposing ideologies as “so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.” According to their findings, 36% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats fit this description. Not only have political views shifted but also views on the affairs of daily life, such as where a family should live, the makeup of the neighborhood, and who is appropriate to marry. Much of the study reflects the exact rifts identified by Bill Bishop in his 2004 book The Big Sort. These works serve to illustrate, in sharp relief, how ripe the American culture is for generating conflicts.

Hedges touched on what we believe is the sociological answer but it should be made clearer: Americans are deriving a sense of purpose and meaning from conflict with each other and the world around them. Conflict has become a substitute or a quick fix for the meaning many Americans are having difficulty finding in postmodern society.

For modern Americans, the search for meaning has become one of life’s central fixations. Though especially pronounced during adolescence and early adulthood, the formation of identity and the development of a sense of purpose is a lifelong pursuit. The “mid life crisis” as an accepted and culturally relevant period in a person’s life demonstrates how acute and urgent this search for meaning can be. A walk through the continually expanding self-help aisle at the bookstore will quickly reveal how aggressively Americans seek this sometimes elusive need. But meaning is not a trivial abstract that individuals can choose to pursue if they like. A deep sense of purpose has been linked to faster surgery recovery times, lower depression rates, and longer life expectancy in older persons. Meaning, purpose, is an integral part of the modern animal and its absence causes us great emotional distress.

Traditionally a sense of meaning has been cultivated through institutions like religion, family and even the state. While life meaning is an understudied part of sociology, in a presidential address to the North Carolina Sociological Association, sociologist Stephen McNamee outlined what he, and we, believe are important avenues for generating meaning. He lists emotionally engaging relationships, work and leisure activities and adherence to ideological systems as the major realms in which Americans can generate meaning for themselves. And most Americans still appear relatively content with building families, working at a fulfilling job, creating art, or serving others. While these conventional purposes satisfy many, others remain restless. It is easy to see why. At no other point in history has there been such easy access to alternative ways of perceiving purpose in life. The Internet, mass media, and ease of travel expose humans today to an unprecedented menu of purposes and lifestyles to choose from. But as any postmodern will attest, too many options can be overwhelming.

These contemporary wanderers suffer from what Victor Frankl called an “existential vacuum,” which results from institutions and instincts losing their influence. As Americans embrace expressive individualistic ideas and are allowed to choose how they find meaning, social institutions are less able to mold ideas about what constitutes purpose. This can cause immense stress, resulting in anomie, Emile Durkheim’s perfect term for a life unmoored from guiding structures and community. So how do anomic post-moderns find what they are looking for? Can those struggling to find a lofty purpose settle for a baser substitute?

American culture is saturated with these “culture wars” and other wars on abstractions. The “war on Christmas,” the “war against masculinity,” “spiritual warfare,” and the wars on drugs, crime and terror -- among similar others too countless to list -- illustrate how ready Americans are to adopt a combative stance against foes sometimes real but often manufactured. These conflicts allow Americans opportunities to fly their tribal colors, skirmish with those who espouse threatening views, and find allies with which they can cultivate new ties. In every battle, victory or defeat, we fulfill our existential needs -- for a time.

As we move into the 2026 midterm election, the appeal of conflict as a source of meaning will only become more apparent. Candidates will continue to engage in personal attacks, while strutting their own ideological purity. And Americans love it. If we did not, news outlets would give it the coverage they give new poverty statistics. Debate results would be relegated to a ticker stream, a footnote, or somewhere in the broadcast after sports. Despite their pleading to the contrary, Americans secretly love politics. The debates are designed to attract our conflict-oriented minds. Candidates tailor their discourse to scripts popular with the drama-addicted masses, and the networks present the whole affair in a manner identical to a football game. But here our objective is not to point out the destructive nature of politics reduced to entertainment, a case already better made by Neil Postman and James Fallows among others. Rather, we mean to highlight that there is another more fundamental reason we love the elections. They are merely a microcosm of America’s truly favorite pastime: fighting. And in fighting, we find a purpose for our lives, a structure for our time, and a cause to organize our lives behind. Politics is a Purposepalooza.

This search for meaning leaves individuals in a terrifying position, ripe for exploitation. And when real wars occur, the individuals looking for fulfillment are easily manipulated. Wars are what sociologist Georg Simmel called “realistic conflicts,” meaning they are fought over resources, both tangible and intangible. So how does this relate to any of the above?

Simply put, selling a war based on the acquisition of commodities is a tough sell in the modern age. Geopolitical motives are often detached from the desires of the public; while the populace actually may want oil, security or luxuries, most are not willing to spill blood for such a bald material grab. Therefore, politicians must pitch the war using things that appeal to Americans’ sense of purpose. Consider the rhetoric currently used by the military. Tropes are employed that evoke a sense of honor, patriotism, and toughness. Such ads are likewise targeted at the portion of the population most struggling with a meaning deficit: young males, especially those with uncertain economic futures . The current war in Iran sadly fits this template precisely. It is a miniature of the cosmic battle between good and evil that they have been anticipating for most of their lives. And for those addicted to conflict and the excitement it brings, tactics such as diplomacy, patience, and being ignored are akin to going through withdrawal.

The sociologist Georg Simmel took great interest in conflict’s place in our lives. He vocalized much of what philosophers have pondered for millennia. Simmel found a great many benefits that could be found in conflict. For Simmel, conflicts afford the opportunity for groups to coexist, because without the opportunity to express tension, the only result would be the termination of the relationship. Conflict gives us the feeling, the belief, that we have the power to affect intergroup relationships. This duality between conflict’s positives and negatives make conflict one of life’s great paradoxes. It acts as a crucible, provides opportunities for social and personal growth, as often old forms must be swept away to make room for the new. Without healthy conflict, society stagnates and may ignore serious problems. Social injustices are often brought to awareness and corrected by conflict.

What then, differentiates good conflict from bad? Here the motive makes all the difference. When pursued with the sincere intent to right wrongs, conflict has an indispensable place in the world. When pursued, however, because for its own sake due to a lack of more satisfying forms of purpose, conflict is wholly destructive.

To illustrate this point further, consider Internet discourse. When reading the Comments section of a news article, what do you expect to find? While it is possible to find individuals cordially expressing opposite views, it is more likely you will find derision and hate. Are these comments being made because of the potential to sway opposers over to one’s side? Does one expect any kind of constructive outcome? These posts are typically made because of the short meaning-fix that can be derived from “triumphing” over “foes,” or the bond that is felt when a stranger supports one’s position. To a large degree, Internet “trolling” such as this is a large digital version of boxing, where the outcomes ultimately matter little, but it just feels good -- sadly -- to hit someone.

This existential view on conflict helps us see that these various battles are not fundamentally about what they are about. They are engaged in to meet an spiritual need, not to defeat the enemy or resolve the conflict. Indeed, most of these battles are chosen precisely because the enemy can never be defeated. Battle itself is the objective. Therefore, to a large degree, any enemy will suffice. It becomes clear after considering a number of cases over decades of history that the content of the conflict is near irrelevant. What is essential is the form. The form of conflict provides a structure and direction, a profound type of clarity to life. People lacking these will crave conflict like an addict, even manufacturing it if necessary. On an emotional level, conflict offers excitement, drama, and a sense of danger that is likewise often sought to shake up the mundanity of post-scarcity life.

Despite the many problems that conflict might apparently solve for post-moderns, we maintain that it also creates or worsens serious problems as well. Most prominently, regardless of the fact that these conflicts are ultimately content-free and unresolvable by design, they still have real effects in the world while they are being pursued. The young man who goes to war to fill the meaning hole in his spirit may still return maimed physically and mentally whether or not he finds the purpose he was seeking. The hate-mongering talk radio host may spew bile everyday to defeat a manufactured enemy with a fantasy diabolical agenda in order feel she is fighting an urgent cosmic battle, none of which may have any bearing on reality. But the millions who hear, believe, and act on his words may still poison their communities and families in palpable ways. The Thomas theorem is a useful reminder here: what people define as real is real in terms of its effects.

A little careful looking reveals two prevailing and warring concepts of freedom entangled in the bedrock of our value system. One, which we may call the Contract idea, holds that, as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, humans are endowed with a basic kind of autonomy and a set of rights that no one, including a government can impinge. With this idea, too, though comes an understanding, thanks to Rousseau and Locke, among others, that the human individual is inextricably also a member of a society, and to this society they have duties and responsibilities. As part of society, the individual enjoys the benefits and products that the larger group makes possible and that the individual alone could not easily produce. A few pedestrian examples from modern life include the protection that the state military provides, and the duty of the individual to pay taxes to the state to fund that defense. Countless other examples could be offered, including voting, obeying basic laws against property and personal damage, and not being flagrantly disloyal through sedition, treason, and espionage. The basic logic is an exchange relationship between society and individual wherein mutual benefits and responsibilities are acknowledged.

The other, and increasingly visible notion of freedom might be called the Pure concept. In this idea, the human individual is also seen as fundamentally and originally free, but they have not and do not enter any exchange arrangement with the surrounding society. In fact, the very idea of “society” is controversial, as famously noted by Margaret Thatcher when she announced that “society does not exist.” If society is recognized, it is almost always seen as an enemy, obstacle, or interloper. Instead of duties and responsibilities, the Pure individual has only rights, freedoms, and near total autonomy. Indeed, it appears the only obligation the Pure individual may have is the duty to protect at all costs these absolute freedoms from any threat, both local and remote. Thus, taxes, voting, and even compliance with the law are seen as violations of freedom, ranging from annoying to perhaps even existential threats to their ongoing security, depending on the individual.

It should be clear by now that these two concepts of freedom are diametrically opposed, and likely mutually exclusive. It is difficult to imagine a civilization lasting long when the very notion of how much freedom a human has cannot be resolved by most of its inhabitants. It is also clear that in the Pure conception, society is truly not possible because it is not desired; it is merely a regrettable side effect of population growth and human contact. And historically, when the Pure proponents have gained power in various institutions (which ironically should not exist either), they have attempted with frequent success to reduce or eliminate society altogether, starting first with the rejection of social responsibility as even a concept someone can imagine.

In our current predicament, the contrast between the Contract and Pure ideas is seen in stark relief and with profound consequences. A few examples include mask mandates, city lockdowns, curfews, vaccine requirements, city versus state lawsuits over autonomy and jurisdiction, and even religious exemptions from just about everything. This is not merely a U.S phenomenon; many nations have seen versions of this Freedom Cold War. And we have merely begun to scratch the surface.

At first glance, this would appear to be a stalemate, a situation in which we just throw up our hands, and exclaim the Unofficial Slogan of Social Media: “We will just have to agree to disagree.”

Not this time. This is not an impasse. It is a misunderstanding. And seeing this clearly dissolves the war instantly.

Why? Because we are not free. Not a single human on this planet has ever been truly 100% autonomous. Not only this, but we are not created to be free and cannot live in freedom. Allow me to specify:

1. We are not ontologically free: This is just a fancy way of saying that at the ground level of objective reality, the human person is born into layers of dependency. Beginning first with the reliance of the infant on the mother for food, and later for a family or kin-structure to keep it safe and learn the ways of humans. Similarly, we depend on nature for shelter and sustenance for the rest of our lives.

2. We are not psychologically free. Do I really have to unpack this one? It should be painfully obvious to anyone who has done more than five minutes of introspection that our minds have a mind of their own. Each one of us is a freight train of emotional baggage, most of which we cannot even see due to the power of the unconscious, not to mention the simple wiring of the thing, which we can do precious little to change. Go check your ScreenTime and then tell me how mentally free you are.

3. We are not spiritually free. The premise of just about every spiritual path is that we would like to be good, tranquil, loving, and pure but we cannot. I don’t mean that we have not gotten there yet, it’s that we are intrinsically, by design, incapable of being good, saved, or holy on our own. This idea goes by names such as original sin, the inner jihad (struggle), tanha (craving), and others, but the meaning is the same: we are bound, shackled to a shadow we cannot by ourselves be free of.

4. We are not culturally free. Because we lack true instincts compared to other animals, we rely on culture to guide us in what is safe, good, worthwhile, and what is not. Even the value of freedom is culturally determined; many cultures now and in the past put a higher value on ideas like duty, honor, or survival. The power of culture is so strong in fact that, barring a few truly exceptional innovators, we may safely conclude that the only freedom most of have is the freedom to follow. We get to decide who to listen to. That’s it.

We do not have to choose between the Contract and Pure concepts of freedom because the latter is a myth, and always has been. Without a basis in lived or observed fact, it has had to rely on stirring legends and tales of personal bravery that may get or blood pumping and our tribal pride stoked up for awhile but are inevitably quieted by the undeniable brute waves of Reality pounding against daily. No one is free. We belong to each other. My action affects you and yours touches me. There is no alternative. And if we insist on thinking ourselves as free, then let us at least cling to a true idea of freedom: We do have the freedom to follow. May we follow wisely.