Cultural battle | Introductory account

The expression “cultural battle” anticipates the tone of the exchange: it suggests combat rather than dialogue, where the dominant logic is that of enemy and conquest. He who calls for battle does not seek to understand, but to win; In this context, truth ceases to be a common horizon and becomes plunder.

Sun Tzu wrote in his book The Art of War: “Put your troops on deadly ground and they will survive (…) When men find themselves in dire danger, there is nothing they will not do to save themselves.” Extreme situations awaken powerful energy that lulls us to sleep. Something similar happens in politics: fear and anger nullify thinking, but mobilize action.

The cultural battle was no longer fought in the realm of ideas, as in classical Athens or in the Roman Senate, where differences found a channel in words. Today, the matter has become a matter of controversy in the field of affection, with a public debate that does not seek to convince the other, but rather to defeat him emotionally. The discussion became a kaleidoscope of emotions: the more anger, the more visibility.

One of the clearest examples is the concept of “entitlement.” What could have been a conversation about social models has become a moral battleground: on the one hand, those who assert that everything they have has been earned by effort and that they should not share it with those who have “not done enough”; On the other hand, those who remember that no one is created alone and that talking about merit without considering the starting point is an elegant way to justify privilege.

On the surface it is a rational discussion, but deep down it is emotional. What is at stake is not a theory of justice, but the need to maintain a certain emotional order: pride on the one hand, resentment on the other. In both cases the idea of ​​merit works to allay some anxiety. For this reason, psychoanalysis does not discuss whether merit is right or wrong, but rather asks what need is behind that word and what desire is activated when someone says: “I deserved it,” “I deserve something else,” or “They didn’t give it to me.”

Social networks amplify this logic: the algorithm rewards intensity, not thoughtfulness. The stronger the emotion, the further the message goes. This is how the machine is fed that prefers reaction to thought, and shouting to argument. Dissent becomes intolerable, nuance disappears, and doubt – that space in which something new can be born – becomes empty.

Freud said that civilization began when man responded to an arrow with a word. Today we seem to be moving in the opposite direction: replacing the word emotional discharge.

I believe that the real battle is not cultural or political, but internal: between the desire to understand and the need to be right. Between perpetuating the imperfection or filling it with certainty that only confirms what we already believe. As Sun Tzu wrote: “The greatest victory is won without fighting.” Perhaps, in times of intense noise, the real achievement is that there is still the possibility of discussion without destruction.

*Psychoanalyst, co-founder of RedPsi.