Struggle as a dimension in humanity’s quest for the good life concerns the ability to balance conflict and cooperation. This dimension has been central to sociology, where the debate between conflict, oriented theories and consensus, oriented theories has shaped the discipline’s development.
Disconsensus is a balance between dissensus and consensus. The actor strives for freedom from domination in all forms, where struggle through cooperation and conflict is balanced. Disconsensus is a balance between dissensus (Rancière, 20 06) and consensus (Habermas, Fishkin, 2018). Struggle has also been captured by the dualism of resistance and compliance. In sociological literature, it becomes unclear when compliance is beneficial, and some studies may conclude that the more we resist in every way, the better. It requires wisdom to find a balance between these two in order to support the good life. The ancient Cynics provide an example of how we can blend resistance and compliance. The Cynic Diogenes gave eloquent speeches, demonstrating compliance and his ability to follow norms, and then concluded his speech by defecating in front of the audience, thereby resisting and breaking with norms (Allen, 2020).
“Enemyfication is a concept I’m introducing here, which refers to the realization that one is surrounded by forces of power that seek to dominate and exploit one for their own ends. Enemyfication involves channeling energy into the idea that the actor has enemies and opponents, a spirit of resistance, that taps into our innate desire to compete and play within the social game. Enemyfication replaces an attitude and practice in which the actor exhibits a certain degree of naivety regarding the various power techniques to which they may be subjected. Technology companies use seduction and entertainment to make money from advertising (Seymour, 2019). Enemyfication is a path to subjectivity in which the subject resists the existing order, in other words, a “will to become an actor” (Touraine, 1995). Enemy, making is a way of highlighting that the world is not merely consensus, driven but that conflict also exists, which may be hidden at first. Ethical demonization occurs when the agent seeks the good life while simultaneously identifying enemies, primarily within structures, that is, structural demonization. Ethical demonization also draws lessons from Machiavelli and strategic thinking, but in the pursuit of the good life (2008, 2013). However, ethical demonization is limited by the need to avoid falling into other imbalances, such as the brutalization of the opponent. The starting point is defense, defense against oppression by others.
The socio, technologies present in ethical enemy, making include, for example, speed, courage, and boldness; unmasking and exposing others’ power techniques; and welcoming struggles as a way to grow in strength (Collins & McConnell, 2015). Through ethical enemy, making, a will-to-power is channeled toward being recognized as equals in citizenship (Fukuyama, 2020). Megalthymos, the will to be better than others, should be channeled toward being the most ethical and attaining status as such: the best, hero, like citizen.
Perhaps even better than ethical demonization is Etzioni’s concept of the “moral wrestler” (1990, 2001). Disconsensus involves morally wrestling with dilemmas, ambiguities, and paradoxes, as well as with other actors who may be unbalanced and block others and themselves from the good life.
At the same time, disconsensus requires a capacity for cooperation that has been weakened in today’s societies (Sennett, 2013). Today’s public sphere can be viewed primarily as a ritualization of conflict, often with a low degree of deliberation.
Imbalances
Below are various imbalances in this dimension.
Excessive conflict
There are various forms in which conflict dominates too much: the manipulative personality, misidentification of enemies, and the self as enemy.
The manipulative personality and the authoritarian personality were two personality types that Theodor Adorno viewed as dominant in modernity. The manipulative personality has become accustomed to being manipulative and can employ this at various levels. The authoritarian personality is shaped to obey for the sake of obedience and is drawn toward overly hierarchical structures. For these individuals, dissent has become too dominant, and conflict with others is misdirected. The manipulative personality has turned everyone who stands in their way into an enemy, and the authoritarian personality has turned those who reject authoritarianism into enemies. The manipulative personality has mastered symbolic dexterity (Jackall, 2010) and can use symbols to their advantage.
Brutalized
The struggle against and with other people can go so far that one may brutalize others through various forms of violence. In a sense, the brutalization of others is also a brutalization of one’s own self, since we are harmed by what has been called a “moral wound,” which can become particularly deep if we ourselves are the ones brutalizing the other. Those who brutalize others often possess a “pugilative habitus” (roughly, a combative habitus). According to Wacquant (2004), the pugilative habitus describes a physical and mental readiness characterized by aggression and a habit of violence. It develops in environments where violence is a central and normalized way of handling conflicts and building social status. We often live with militarism on a global level, where masculinity is strongly associated with militarism, a militarized masculinity. Other forms of brutalization include various types of violence: slow violence, such as when a population is subjected to slow poisoning that leads, for example, to a higher prevalence of cancer. Structural violence (Galtung) occurs when structures have violent effects. The brutalization of others can also occur even if the person who is partly responsible for it appears very empathetic, sympathetic, and generally good, natured. Mestrovic cites as an example those who are kind within their own community but may condone the brutalization of people on the periphery of the global economy so that they can have access to cheap consumer goods (1996). The brutality of accepting that certain people on Earth need to work so much harder, which can even occur within one’s own country due to national inequality, such as how hard cleaners may have to work, is a brutality born of indifference and a lack of moral consideration for these individuals’ lives, from which one simultaneously benefits. Structural violence is often mediated through organizations. Organizational violence takes many different forms. A key feature of today’s corporations is that they externalize risks and responsibility onto the rest of society in order to maximize profits. They may undertake charitable projects to demonstrate that they are taking responsibility, but this is often a form of whitewashing and fails to acknowledge the extent of the harm they cause. These companies can amass significant power to weather any criticism they may face by using their revenue to invest in lawyers to handle pressure from the judicial system or in lobbyists to achieve “regulatory capture” to the greatest extent possible. People are forced to cope with the reality of working for ruthless companies. They sometimes experience that brutality firsthand, whether they’re working in customer service and hearing a desperate person in need of help, or being laid off themselves when they’re no longer needed. This brutalization takes root in us, just as the brutalization of others always does. What Bauman calls “liquid modernity” is a social condition in which the elite are no longer on the ground but can, from on high, indirectly control people’s lives and steer the game from a distance (2000). The elite are so far removed that they are unaware of the effects their actions have on the ground. On the ground, everything is fluid, characterized by rapid, constant change that demands flexibility, a capacity for opportunism, and the ability to navigate networks and physical spaces. This indirect brutality is also evident in Bauman’s analysis of the Holocaust, where he focuses on its industrial aspects. This analysis is similar to Hannah Arendt’s analysis of Adolf Eichmann, whom she describes as an embodiment of “banal evil”, someone who merely followed orders without thinking for himself and was, in effect, a non, person. Both Bauman’s and Arendt’s analyses have been criticized for underestimating the emotional intensity and brutality of ideology in the immediate, non, industrial manifestations of the Holocaust, for example, the mass murders of Jews in Poland and the hunting of Jews in various villages (Browning, 2017).
False enemifycation can involve either being enemy-less, believing oneself to be surrounded by a consensus, based community, which makes one naive to the techniques of power used against them in various spheres, such as tech companies that use seduction through entertainment as a key technique to generate advertising revenue. Misdirected enemyfication can also be a naive or short, sighted form of enemyfication where one fixates blindly on the person standing right in front of them, for example, a classmate whom they feel looked at them the wrong way. This person is caught up in a micro, level status struggle that has nothing to do with those who truly influence that student’s life. It is misdirected enemyfication. This occurs in a context where they are dominated at other levels that they do not question or are not fully aware of. This demonization of others is a risk factor for criminality, reduced life opportunities, and anti-civic behavior. This enemyfication could be channeled into something more productive, shifting from viewing the teacher as an enemy to seeing the teacher as an ally in the search for other, greater enemies. One form of misdirected enemyfication is creating enemies in one’s personal struggles and making them the greatest enemies in one’s life.
“Today, everyone is a self, exploiting laborer in his or her own enterprise. People are now both master and slave in one. Even class struggle has transformed into an inner struggle against oneself.” Byung, Chul Han
Part of the hostility toward the self is that doubt has been magnified and has come to dominate. Other emotions can also be magnified, turning them into inner enemies. These are various emotions or chains of thought that have become so dominant that they harm the self and turn it into its own enemy. Having something inside you that doubts everything you try to do can paralyze you. Being extremely critical, even brutal, toward yourself also makes it difficult to act. The punishment you inflict on yourself becomes severe and burdensome. Similarly, the internalization of discourses, emotional rules, emotional regimes, thought patterns, and thought practices can become internalized enemies. Surveillance and control, along with excessive discipline and misguided discipline, prevent the person from acting in a way that is best for a good life.
Another form of “false enemyfication” is incorporated resistance. Incorporated resistance is resistance that is enacted but does not harm or affect the social order with which one is dissatisfied (Paulsen, 2013, 140). Žižek uses the concept of “pseudo-action,” where, for example, a protest may appear to be an act of resistance but makes no difference, perhaps even reinforcing the social order one is resisting. There are numerous examples of this, such as capitalism as a regime incorporating new ideals due to resistance against a particular capitalist regime (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2007, Jäger, 2026). The act of resistance involving taking to the streets to demonstrate has been dismissed by many thinkers because such actions are easily co, opted and do not challenge the underlying logic; it is taken for granted that the left should be out demonstrating (Srnicek & Williams, 2015). Other forms of resistance can actually reinforce one’s own subjugation, for example, anti, school norms as a form of resistance against a school system that does not function optimally (Willis, 1970).
Finding gaps, such as resistance to the work society as an ideology, and building alternatives is a skill that requires practice (Paulsen, 2010). Paulsen has demonstrated various ways in which people engage in “empty work”, work in which most are not very productive, with exceptions such as someone who wrote a master’s thesis (Paulsen, 2013). However, most “empty work” is incorporated in the form of digital labor (Paulsen, 2013; Fuchs, 2017), where one’s attention is exploited by platform companies. This is an archaic form of resistance that is reactive and directionless. This approach, resisting a specific company rather than engaging in more structural, systematic, and active resistance, is the most common.
Consensus driven
This is an imbalance characterized by acceptance of what is happening. Little or no resistance is offered to what might be interpreted as wrong. Moreover, not resisting can be seen as something dignified. People do not view themselves as victims because they see no harm that has been done. Actors who might be seen as being in conflict are instead viewed merely as lacking coordination, and solutions to problems are sought unilaterally through consensus. Collaboration is forced onto all solutions like a Procrustean bed.
Another form of “consensus surplus” is overcompliance (Alvesson, 2016), which occurs when one is overly compliant without actually needing to be so. One form of overcompliance is being too flexible and adaptable in both space and time, as Sennett, for example, has described as part of a new character type: the rootless, malleable subject (2002). Overcompliance takes various forms, such as cynicism, despair, seduction, authoritarianism, or functional stupidity (Paulsen, 2017). One cause of consensus surplus is the belief that one lives in a world without conflict, since one believes it cannot be any other way, and that if anything is wrong, it is oneself. Excessive consensus in the world outside the self can thus interact with the tendency to blame all one’s problems on oneself. This false consciousness is a central part of how oppression works, by creating shame that causes the individual to blame themselves for their own failures (Wettergren, 2013).
A variant of consensus surplus can develop regardless of whether the culture is a moral culture of victimhood, a culture of dignity, or a culture of honor, when one does not question those in one’s own in, group but may exhibit an excessive level of conflict toward the out, group (Manning & Campbell, 2018). A culture of dignity can become overly consensus, driven if it leads to an excessive belief that one should not care at all about what others say. This can result in “banal relativism,” where everyone is free to hold their own opinions, and the only response is to not take things personally (Engdahl, 2024).
Over-victimization
This occurs when one views oneself as a victim to an excessive degree, which undermines one’s own agency (Manning & Campbell, 2018). It can manifest as blaming societal and personal imbalances on something (the media, men, women, young people, a specific ethnic group, trauma, the elite, technology, the climate, the wealthy). The idea that someone else is doing something for which one bears no shared responsibility shields one from thoughts of accountability; it keeps one morally pure. On the other hand, over, victimization can stem from focusing too much on conflicts and differences. This form of over, victimization involves identifying oneself as a victim of various injustices that are exaggerated. Excessive victimhood involves exaggerating the extent to which one is a victim and the degree to which one is dominated by conflicts (Furedi, 2019). This represents an imbalance characterized by an excess of demonization and, to some extent, misdirected demonization.
A variant of “over, victimhood” is “militant vulnerability,” in which a high degree of vulnerability and victimhood is combined with a militant approach to seeking conflict, for example, threatening violence or damage to a person’s reputation, while simultaneously maintaining a self, image of vulnerability (Szetela, 2025). Victimhood culture is characterized by a mixture of victimhood that has been exaggerated and distorted, combined with a form of hyperpolitics that focuses on silencing people (Manning & Campbell, 2018). Another variant of being over, victimized while simultaneously possessing a will to fight is found in honor cultures, where minor signs of disrespect are magnified (Manning & Campbell, 2018).
The uncooperative self (Sennett, 2013, 179)
Sennett has pointed out how our times suffer from the fact that people have become less skilled at cooperating. This decline in cooperative skills makes it difficult to solve problems. Cooperation is rarely seen as a skill that requires curiosity, patience, and practice to master; instead, people shy away from cooperation (Sennett, 2013). This avoidance makes people even worse at cooperating. The uncooperative self tends to see that the problem lies with oneself, because one is unaccustomed to relying on oneself rather than collaborating with others. The uncooperative self is prone to misdirected hostility, such as turning against oneself, or to narrow, minded hostility in personal conflicts, such as with one’s family, where one fails to take into account the social context in which one’s parents operated, for example. Apathy is when neither conflict nor cooperation is possible. Apathy is an extreme form of withdrawal from the world, which is often perceived as impossible to cope with following a traumatic experience.