Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemy Closer: Constructive Dialogue and Bounded Collaboration

Original manuscript: August 2026; revised for publication on 13 October 2026. The analysis and recommendations express my views.

Abstract

Can human beings speak constructively with people they regard as enemies, and can they collaborate without trust, affection, or agreement? Research supports a qualified yes, with important limits of context and design. Human beings possess evolved capacities for coalition, threat detection, retaliation, reciprocity, reputation management, and cooperation. These capacities can produce dehumanisation and escalating hostility, but they also permit restraint, negotiated exchange, institutionalised opposition, and peace. An enemy is best understood not as an objective biological type but as a relational judgement: an actor is believed to possess hostile intent, sufficient capability, and persistent motivation to threaten one's safety, identity, status, values, resources, or agency. The practical goal of dialogue is therefore not compulsory friendship. It is to transform an unbounded enemy relationship into a bounded adversarial relationship governed by predictable rules.

This critical narrative review integrates findings from social and political psychology, behavioural economics, organisational science, neuroscience, anthropology, evolutionary theory, deliberative democracy, and peace and conflict studies. Structured contact, non-judgmental narrative exchange, accurate correction of hostile meta-perceptions, high-quality listening, balanced information, superordinate goals, and verified reciprocal commitments can reduce animosity or enable limited cooperation. Effects are not automatic: unstructured exposure can backfire, average depolarisation effects are often modest or short-lived, and contact may conceal injustice when power is unequal. Dialogue should therefore be designed as a risk-managed institution rather than treated as a moral performance.

The article proposes COEXIST, an original evidence-informed framework: Check safety and regulate arousal; Operationalise the dispute; Establish procedure and protected voice; eXchange perspectives; Identify interests, identities, sacred values, and shared constraints; Start with small reciprocal and verifiable commitments; and Track compliance, repair, escalation, and exit. Applications are developed for politics, workplaces, healthcare teams, professional competition, religion, and migration. The central conclusion is that mature coexistence does not require enemies to like one another. It requires them to recognise reality, preserve dignity, limit harm, and construct procedures under which disagreement no longer demands elimination.

Keywords: enemyship; adversaries; intergroup conflict; negotiation; dialogue; coexistence; cooperation; dehumanisation; psychological safety; deliberative democracy

Contents

1. The question and its importance

2. Method and scope of the review

3. What is an enemy?

4. Why human beings create enemies

5. Biology, evolution, and anthropology

6. Why speaking to an enemy is psychologically difficult

7. Does dialogue work? What the evidence shows

8. Conditions for constructive engagement

9. The COEXIST framework

10. A practical meeting and collaboration protocol

11. Applications to work, surgery, politics, religion, and migration

12. When not to meet or negotiate directly

13. Ethical principles and limitations

14. Conclusion

References

1. The question and its importance

Professional and political life inevitably creates conflicts of interest. Individuals compete for recognition, income, authority, research opportunities, promotion, private practice, public influence, scarce resources, and control over decisions. Groups compete over policy, identity, territory, memory, and moral legitimacy. Some conflicts are accidental; others are deliberately intensified. The crucial fact is that many opponents cannot be made to disappear and should not be treated as though disappearance were a legitimate objective. They remain colleagues, citizens, neighbouring groups, parties, institutions, or states. In such settings, the relevant question is not "How do I defeat this person forever?" but "How can we prevent harm, preserve agency, and coordinate where our interests overlap?"

The language of enemyship matters because it changes perception. Once another person is placed in the category "enemy", ambiguous behaviour is more easily interpreted as hostile, concessions may be discounted as tricks, and the other side's setbacks may be experienced as gains. Yet refusing the word entirely can also obscure genuine hostility, exploitation, or danger. A mature approach neither romanticises reconciliation nor glorifies enmity. It asks for accurate classification, proportional response, and carefully designed coexistence.

Modern pluralistic societies already contain a partial answer. Socialists and conservatives, religious and non-religious citizens, majorities and minorities, employers and unions, and governments and oppositions often dislike one another's programmes profoundly. Constitutional democracy does not require them to become friends. It transforms antagonism into regulated adversarial contest: each side is entitled to exist, speak, organise, criticise, and compete under shared rules (Mouffe, 2005). Parliaments, courts, elections, professional regulation, collective bargaining, peer review, and clinical governance are technologies for living with disagreement.

2. Method and scope of the review

This article is a critical narrative review rather than a systematic review or meta-analysis. It integrates foundational and recent peer-reviewed research across intergroup relations, conflict resolution, negotiation, behavioural economics, organisational behaviour, political science, anthropology, evolutionary theory, and social neuroscience. Priority is given to meta-analyses, randomised or field experiments, large multi-site studies, longitudinal evidence, and work that identifies boundary conditions rather than merely reporting positive effects. Recent evidence considered includes a 32,059-participant megastudy of 25 depolarisation interventions (Voelkel et al., 2024), a 2025 evaluation of the magnitude and durability of depolarisation efforts (Holliday et al., 2025), and a 2025 field-oriented study of politically targeted intergroup interventions (Nir & Halperin, 2025).

The evidence base is heterogeneous. "Enemy" is not a single standardised psychological variable, and studies variously measure prejudice, affective polarisation, social distance, trust, willingness to cooperate, support for equality, violence, policy attitudes, and team performance. Findings from partisan disagreement cannot automatically be generalised to civil war, intimate abuse, stalking, workplace discrimination, or credible physical threat. The framework developed below is therefore a reasoned synthesis for practice, not a validated diagnostic instrument or a guarantee of reconciliation.

3. What is an enemy?

3.1 Enemyship is a relationship, not a species of person

An enemy is commonly imagined as an objective kind of person. Scientifically, it is more useful to treat enemyship as a relational perception. Person A regards person B as an enemy when A believes that B has hostile intent, sufficient capability, and a persistent motivation to damage something A regards as vital: physical safety, loved ones, identity, honour, status, livelihood, territory, values, resources, or freedom of action. The judgement may be accurate, exaggerated, culturally shaped, reciprocal, or strategically manufactured. Adams (2005) showed that enemyship is culturally patterned, while Sullivan, Landau, and Rothschild (2010) found that threats to personal control can increase the tendency to attribute broad influence to enemies. The category therefore combines observed conduct with interpretation and existential meaning.

This definition has three advantages. First, it avoids equating disagreement with hostility. Second, it allows evidence to revise the judgement: intent, capability, and persistence can be tested rather than assumed. Third, it shows why enemyship is psychologically sticky. A threat to identity or agency cannot always be settled by dividing money; symbolic recognition, safety, status, and moral meaning may be central.

Table 1. A practical taxonomy of conflict relationships

3.2 The distinction between enemy and adversary

An enemy is imagined as someone whose presence is illegitimate; an adversary is someone whose objectives are opposed but whose right to exist and participate is recognised. This distinction is central to democratic pluralism. It does not require moral equivalence, forgiveness, or surrender. It requires only a minimum proposition: the conflict will be conducted through bounded means, and neither side will make the other's annihilation a condition of its own security. In practice, constructive dialogue is the process by which parties test whether a perceived enemy can become a regulated adversary.

4. Why human beings create enemies

4.1 Categorisation, identity, and coalition

Human cognition organises social complexity by categorising people. Minimal-group experiments demonstrated that even arbitrary group assignments can produce preferential allocation to the in-group (Tajfel et al., 1971). Social identity can then link personal worth to group standing. Competition becomes more than a disagreement about outcomes: it becomes a contest over who "we" are and whether "they" respect us. Recategorisation around a more inclusive identity can reduce bias, especially when subgroup distinctiveness is not erased (Gaertner et al., 1989).

Importantly, intergroup mobilisation is not driven only by hatred. Experimental research distinguishes out-group hostility from in-group protection and shows that people may support costly conflict because they wish to defend their own group, not because they independently enjoy harming outsiders (Halevy et al., 2008). This distinction creates an opening for dialogue: if the underlying motive is security or belonging, credible protection and recognition may reduce aggression more effectively than moral condemnation.

4.2 Scarcity, status, and superordinate goals

When rewards are scarce and groups believe that only one side can succeed, conflict becomes structurally rational. Sherif and colleagues' Robbers Cave field experiment showed how competition over valued outcomes could generate hostility and how superordinate goals requiring joint effort could reduce it (Sherif et al., 1961). Deutsch's theory of cooperation and competition similarly proposed that positively linked goals encourage information sharing and mutual responsiveness, whereas negatively linked goals encourage obstruction and suspicion (Deutsch, 1949). The practical implication is that moral lectures alone cannot resolve a conflict whose incentive structure rewards sabotage.

4.3 Meta-perceptions: what we think they think of us

Conflict is influenced not only by what each side believes, but by what each side imagines the other believes. Partisans often overestimate how negatively the opposing group views them, and these exaggerated meta-perceptions predict hostility (Moore-Berg et al., 2020). Across competitive settings, people overestimated out-group negativity and then attributed obstructive motives to the out-group; correcting the error reduced negative attributions (Lees & Cikara, 2020). Corrective information has reduced support for partisan violence in some experiments (Mernyk et al., 2022), while other large preregistered analyses found that changing out-party misperceptions did not consistently reduce partisan animosity, partisan violence, or support for undemocratic practices (Druckman, 2023). Before negotiating motives, mature dialogue therefore asks: "Which of our beliefs about the other side are observations, and which are untested predictions?"

4.4 Dehumanisation and reciprocal escalation

Dehumanisation is not merely an insult; it is a cognitive and moral process that places another group outside ordinary concern. Blatant dehumanisation predicts aggressive attitudes and discriminatory outcomes (Kteily et al., 2015). Metadehumanisation - believing that the other side sees one's own group as less than human - can provoke reciprocal dehumanisation and conflict (Kteily et al., 2016). This creates an escalation loop: "They deny our humanity, therefore restraint towards them is naive." Constructive dialogue must interrupt the loop without denying accountability. Humanisation means recognising a person's agency, complexity, vulnerability, and rights; it does not mean approving their conduct.

5. Biology, evolution, and anthropology

5.1 Humans are capable of both coalitionary violence and flexible cooperation

Evolutionary accounts do not support a simple claim that humans are naturally peaceful or naturally warlike. Repeated interaction can make cooperation evolutionarily stable because present restraint affects future treatment (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981). At the same time, models of parochial altruism show how intense in-group cooperation can coevolve with hostility towards outsiders under conditions of intergroup conflict (Choi & Bowles, 2007). Historical and ethnographic analyses debate how much ancestral warfare shaped social behaviour (Bowles, 2009; Fry & Söderberg, 2013). The safest conclusion is plural: human beings possess capacities for affiliation, reciprocity, punishment, revenge, reconciliation, alliance, and institutional rule-making. Context determines which capacities are recruited.

Anthropology is especially important because it prevents biological determinism. The prevalence, meaning, and organisation of enemyship vary across societies. Some conflicts are highly centralised; others arise from personal disputes, revenge, marriage, or local status. Social norms determine who may negotiate, how apology is expressed, whether compensation is legitimate, how face is preserved, and which third parties have authority. There is no universal conversation script independent of culture.

5.2 The social brain under intergroup competition

Social neuroscience illustrates mechanisms, not destinies. In competitive contexts, group identity can shape neural responses to another group's gains and harms (Cikara et al., 2011). Empathic responses to in-group and out-group suffering can differ, and those differences can predict costly helping (Hein et al., 2010). Such findings should not be used as biological excuses or as diagnostic tests of individuals. They show that attention, empathy, and reward are context-sensitive. Change the relationship, expectations, norms, and incentives, and the same nervous system may respond differently.

5.3 Institutions extend cooperation beyond personal affection

Large societies cannot rely on friendship. They use reputations, contracts, professional standards, courts, elections, audit, and enforceable sanctions. Experimental and institutional research shows that communication, covenants, repeated interaction, and proportionate punishment can sustain cooperation among non-kin (Ostrom et al., 1992; Fehr & Gächter, 2002; Dal Bó, 2005). The civilisational achievement is therefore not the elimination of conflict but the construction of systems in which hostile preference does not automatically become hostile action.

6. Why speaking to an enemy is psychologically difficult

Meeting a disliked or feared person is difficult because the encounter activates several systems simultaneously: threat vigilance, moral judgement, memory of injury, reputation concerns, status protection, and predictions of betrayal. Under arousal, attention narrows and ambiguous cues are read pessimistically. Anger increases confidence and approach motivation; fear encourages avoidance; disgust supports moral exclusion. The body may therefore prepare for attack or withdrawal before deliberate reasoning begins.

Table 2. Common cognitive and relational traps, with evidence-informed countermeasures

6.1 Perspective-taking, perspective-giving, and being heard

Perspective-taking - deliberately considering how the situation appears from the other side - can improve discovery of compatible interests and increase negotiated value, whereas emotional empathy without strategic understanding may not produce the same bargaining benefit (Galinsky et al., 2008). Yet in asymmetric conflicts, telling the lower-power party to take the powerful party's perspective can feel like another demand for submission. Research on perspective-giving shows that the opportunity to explain one's own experience and feel heard can be particularly important (Bruneau & Saxe, 2012). A fair process therefore alternates the two: each party speaks without interruption, each listener summarises accurately, and neither is required to agree.

6.2 Emotion regulation and self-distancing

Constructive dialogue is not emotionless dialogue. The aim is to keep emotion informative without allowing it to control the method. In intractable political conflict, reappraisal training has changed attitudes by altering how people process anger-provoking information (Halperin et al., 2013). Self-distancing - examining the dispute as though advising another person or viewing it from a third-person perspective - can improve wise reasoning and reduce self-other asymmetry (Grossmann & Kross, 2014). High-quality listening can also increase a speaker's ability to tolerate ambivalence and think in less defensive ways (Itzchakov et al., 2017).

6.3 Intellectual humility without self-erasure

Intellectual humility is the recognition that one's beliefs may contain error and that evidence matters. It is associated with openness to opposing views (Leary et al., 2017; Porter & Schumann, 2018). It does not require saying that all claims are equally valid or that mistreatment is imaginary. The mature sentence is: "I may be wrong about some facts or motives, while remaining entitled to safety, fair procedure, and reasons for decisions that affect me."

7. Does dialogue work? What the evidence shows

7.1 Intergroup contact: useful, conditional, and not magical

The most influential evidence comes from intergroup contact research. Pettigrew and Tropp's meta-analysis of 515 studies and 713 independent samples found that contact generally reduces prejudice, with stronger effects under favourable conditions such as equal status, common goals, cooperation, and institutional support (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Later reassessment noted that rigorous causal field evidence was historically thinner than the sheer size of the literature suggested, strengthening the case for careful design and measurement (Paluck et al., 2019). Contact is therefore a mechanism, not a ritual. A hostile, humiliating, unequal, or competitive encounter can reinforce prejudice.

Mousa's randomised field experiment in post-ISIS Iraq placed Christian players on football teams with Muslim players. Cooperative contact improved behaviour and tolerance towards Muslim teammates and league peers, but the effects did not generalise uniformly to unfamiliar Muslims outside the intervention context (Mousa, 2020). The result is encouraging and sobering: collaboration can create a real local bridge, yet one bridge does not automatically transform an entire worldview.

7.2 Conversation and narrative exchange

Kalla and Broockman (2020) conducted three field experiments involving 230 canvassers and 6,869 voters. Non-judgmental exchanges of narratives produced durable reductions in exclusionary attitudes. The intervention did not simply deliver a superior argument; it elicited personal experience, listened, and invited analogous reflection. By contrast, cross-partisan conversations can produce strong immediate warmth with limited persistence or policy spill-over. Santoro and Broockman (2022) found that a brief conversation about an ordinary personal topic reduced affective polarisation immediately, but effects were substantially weaker later. These findings imply that the first successful conversation should be treated as the beginning of a relationship architecture, not proof that the conflict has been solved.

7.3 Structured deliberation

The America in One Room field experiment brought 526 registered voters into moderated small-group deliberation supported by balanced briefing materials and compared them with an 844-person control group. Participants deliberated across major policy domains and showed substantial depolarisation in policy attitudes and affective evaluations (Fishkin et al., 2021). The design matters: participants had time, vetted information, equal procedural standing, diverse small groups, moderated discussion, access to competing experts, and confidential final judgements. This is very different from placing opponents in a televised argument designed for humiliation or attention.

7.4 Correcting meta-perceptions and tailoring interventions

Because people frequently overestimate out-group hostility, accurate corrective information can reduce escalation. Moore-Berg et al. (2020) linked exaggerated meta-perceptions to partisan hostility, and Mernyk et al. (2022) found that correcting inaccurate meta-perceptions reduced support for partisan violence. Other preregistered evidence found no consistent downstream change across several hostile attitudes, demonstrating that correction is not a universal solution (Druckman, 2023). Effects vary by outcome and audience. Nir and Halperin (2025) tested three interventions among 2,288 Jewish Israelis and found that conservatives responded best to correction of hostile meta-perceptions, centrists to social-norm information, and liberals to a malleability message; a social-media field study extended the approach. The practical lesson is not political stereotyping. It is to diagnose the psychological obstacle rather than delivering one generic message to everyone.

7.5 Megastudies, effect size, and durability

A large 2024 megastudy randomly compared 25 interventions among 32,059 participants. Several treatments reduced partisan animosity or anti-democratic attitudes, especially interventions that presented relatable out-partisans, corrected misperceptions, or invoked common identities; no single treatment solved all outcomes (Voelkel et al., 2024). A 2025 evaluation of depolarisation efforts concluded that average effects are often modest and decay rapidly (Holliday et al., 2025). This is not evidence that dialogue is useless. It is evidence that one-off exposure is an insufficient institutional strategy. Durable coexistence usually requires repeated contact, reinforced norms, incentives, leadership, and procedures that survive the return of stress.

7.6 Backfire and the justice problem

Exposure to the other side is not always beneficial. In a randomised social-media field experiment, exposure to opposing political messages increased polarisation for some participants (Bail et al., 2018). Contact can also improve feelings while reducing disadvantaged groups' motivation to challenge inequality. Saguy et al. (2009) described the "irony of harmony": pleasant contact may create false expectations of equality. Large-scale cross-national evidence likewise indicates that the consequences of contact differ for advantaged and disadvantaged groups (Hässler et al., 2020). Dialogue must therefore include power, rights, resource distribution, and accountability. Civility cannot be used as a demand that the less powerful remain quiet.

Table 3. Selected high-value evidence and its practical meaning

8. Conditions for constructive engagement

The evidence supports nine design conditions. None guarantees success, but their absence substantially increases risk.

Safety and voluntary participation. No one should be pressured into direct engagement where there is credible danger, coercive control, stalking, severe harassment, intoxication, or inability to respect boundaries. Mediation and indirect communication are legitimate forms of dialogue.

A bounded purpose. The meeting should answer a concrete question: prevent a specific harm, allocate a resource, coordinate a task, exchange information, establish rules, or test a small collaboration. "Resolve our entire relationship" is too broad.

Equal procedural dignity, not fictional equality of power. Each party receives protected time, reasons, and a route to challenge decisions. Existing power differences are named rather than concealed.

Shared facts and balanced information. Parties distinguish agreed facts, disputed facts, interpretations, and values. Independent data and transparent criteria reduce argument about motives.

High-quality listening and accurate summaries. Each side must be able to say, "You have represented my position accurately, even though you reject it." Being heard is not the same as winning.

Recognition of identity and sacred values. Some issues symbolise honour, religion, nation, family, professional integrity, or historical suffering. Treating them as ordinary price negotiations can provoke backlash.

Superordinate or shared constraints. Patient safety, business continuity, public order, children's welfare, constitutional rules, or avoidance of mutual ruin can become a limited common project.

Reciprocal, reversible, and verifiable steps. Trust should not be demanded in advance. Begin with actions small enough to reverse and clear enough to monitor.

Repair and exit mechanisms. A mature agreement specifies how breaches are investigated, repaired, escalated, and, if necessary, how cooperation ends without retaliation.

8.1 Why common goals must not erase legitimate difference

A shared goal is useful only when it is sufficiently real and sufficiently narrow. "We both want peace" may conceal incompatible meanings. "Neither side will threaten staff; decisions will be documented; disagreements will go to an independent chair" is more operational. Common-identity appeals can reduce hostility, but they should not force minorities or lower-power groups to abandon identities or grievances. The strongest design often combines a common category - colleagues, citizens, clinicians, parents, residents - with protected subgroup identity and explicit rights.

9. The COEXIST framework

COEXIST is an original evidence-informed synthesis developed for this article. It is not yet a validated psychometric instrument. Its purpose is to translate diverse findings into a memorable sequence for political, professional, and interpersonal adversarial dialogue.

Table 4. COEXIST: an evidence-informed framework for dialogue with adversaries

9.1 C: Check safety and contain arousal

The first question is not "Can we forgive?" but "What form of contact is safe?" Risk includes physical harm, retaliation, reputational manipulation, disclosure of protected information, destruction of evidence, and unequal capacity to refuse. A mediator, union representative, legal adviser, senior neutral clinician, or professional regulator may be required. A written exchange can be more mature than a face-to-face encounter when spontaneous intimidation is likely.

Preparation should also reduce physiological overload. Participants can write their strongest claim, strongest evidence, largest uncertainty, and minimum acceptable outcome. They should identify phrases that would trigger escalation and prepare neutral alternatives. A useful internal instruction is: "My task is not to prove my worth in every sentence. My task is to obtain information, protect boundaries, and test whether bounded cooperation is possible."

9.2 O: Operationalise the dispute

Enemy narratives are global: "They always block me"; "They want our group gone"; "Nothing they say is sincere." Operationalisation replaces totalising claims with events, decisions, dates, criteria, and foreseeable consequences. A four-column conflict map is useful: observed facts; my interpretation; their stated interpretation; evidence needed. The process often reveals multiple disputes that require different remedies - for example, a competence question, an allocation question, an interpersonal injury, and a status question.

9.3 E and X: Establish rules, then exchange perspectives

Dialogue fails when the procedure itself becomes a contest. The parties should agree in advance who chairs, what can be decided, what remains confidential, and how interruptions or insults will be handled. Each person then receives an uninterrupted account. The listener must summarise the content and the perceived impact without adding rebuttal. This method corrects false meta-perceptions, exposes ambiguity, and provides the perspective-giving that lower-power participants often need. Rebuttal follows only after verification of understanding.

9.4 I: Identify interests, identity, and sacred values

Positions are proposed solutions; interests are the needs those solutions protect. "I must control the rota" may protect patient safety, status, convenience, or fear of blame. "I must operate this case" may protect professional development, autonomy, income, identity as a surgeon, or concern that competence is being discounted. Interests can sometimes be combined through supervision, staged responsibility, transparent competency criteria, shared operating, or outcome review. Sacred values require special care. Research suggests that adding money to a sacred-value dispute can intensify outrage, whereas sincere symbolic recognition may create room for practical negotiation (Ginges et al., 2007).

9.5 S and T: Start small, verify, and repair

The alternative to blind trust is calibrated trust. Parties can agree to a limited pilot with objective success criteria and a review date. Repeated-game research explains why a credible future can support cooperation (Dal Bó, 2005), while peace-agreement research shows the value of monitoring, third-party guarantees, joint commissions, and clear implementation provisions (Fortna, 2003). A breach should trigger a defined inquiry: Was the commitment unclear? Was there incapacity, changed circumstances, negligence, or bad faith? Repair may involve acknowledgement, restitution, process change, supervision, sanction, or termination.

10. A practical meeting and collaboration protocol

10.1 Before the meeting

Clarify the mandate. State what the meeting may decide and what it cannot decide.

Choose the safest format. Direct, mediated, shuttle, virtual, or written; select neutral location and appropriate representation.

Prepare a one-page conflict map. List facts, disputed facts, interests, feared outcomes, non-negotiables, possible shared goals, and evidence.

Define the BATNA. Know the best realistic alternative if no agreement is reached; this prevents desperate concession or theatrical threat (Fisher et al., 2011).

Set behaviour rules. No personal abuse, threats, discriminatory language, public ambush, unauthorised recording, or retaliation.

10.2 A 90-minute structured dialogue

Table 5. Suggested agenda for a first adversarial meeting

10.3 A bounded collaboration compact

Collaboration with an adversary should be narrower and more explicit than collaboration with a trusted friend. The compact below can be adapted to a department, political group, business partnership, community project, or inter-organisational task.

Table 6. Minimum terms for bounded collaboration

10.4 Language that lowers heat without surrendering substance

"I want to distinguish what I observed from what I inferred about your intention."

"I do not agree with your account, but I want to represent it accurately before I respond."

"Which part of my request threatens something important to you?"

"What evidence would change either of our views?"

"We may not be able to repair the whole relationship. What is the smallest reliable agreement we can test?"

"Respect here means following the procedure and protecting dignity; it does not require agreement or affection."

"What would a fair review mechanism look like if either side believes the agreement has been breached?"

Language to avoid includes global accusations ("you always"), mind-reading ("your real intention is"), identity attacks, collective blame, humiliation, threats disguised as predictions, and demands for trust before evidence of reliability exists.

11. Applications to work, surgery, politics, religion, and migration

11.1 Workplace conflict and professional competition

Workplaces contain real competition over promotion, income, access to influential tasks, research authorship, private-sector opportunities, and professional status. The language of enemyship can be tempting when a pattern feels deliberate. Organisational research, however, distinguishes task conflict, process conflict, and relationship conflict. Relationship conflict is consistently damaging, and even task conflict is often associated with poorer performance and satisfaction when it becomes personal or occurs without psychological safety (Jehn, 1995; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Teams perform and learn more effectively when people can raise concerns, admit uncertainty, and challenge decisions without humiliation (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson & Lei, 2014).

The first professional discipline is therefore to resist unsupported motive attribution. A colleague may obstruct for reasons of bias, rivalry, fear, risk governance, resource scarcity, habit, or a sincere but mistaken assessment. Several causes may coexist. The mature response is not passivity; it is to translate the concern into auditable questions. What rule governs allocation? Is it published? Is it applied consistently? Who has decision authority? What evidence of competence, outcomes, demand, or capacity is required? What review and appeal exist? This approach can reveal discrimination while avoiding the error of treating every unfavourable decision as proof of hatred.

11.2 Application to trauma and orthopaedic surgery

Consider an internationally trained consultant surgeon who believes that access to complex cases, leadership roles, research, or private practice is being restricted by established colleagues. The perception may reflect bias or status competition, but it may also involve credentialing, case-mix, indemnity, referral networks, theatre capacity, team familiarity, governance, or disagreement about risk. The COEXIST approach converts the grievance into a patient-safe and professionally fair process:

Define the disputed opportunity precisely: which cases, referrals, lists, leadership roles, or private-sector pathways?

Request written, prospectively applicable criteria based on competency, volume, outcomes, case complexity, team resources, and governance rather than nationality, personal familiarity, or informal patronage.

Use objective evidence: logbook, outcomes adjusted for case mix, peer review, appraisal, training evidence, patient feedback, and multidisciplinary judgement.

Propose a staged pathway: joint operating, proctoring, agreed case selection, prospective audit, and a review date.

Separate patient-safety disagreement from personal disparagement; challenge discriminatory conduct through formal equality, HR, freedom-to-speak-up, professional, or legal routes where indicated.

Document decisions and reasons. Informal ambiguity disproportionately benefits established networks and makes both fairness and safety difficult to audit.

Leader inclusiveness is especially important in healthcare because professional status differences can suppress speaking up. Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) found that inclusive leadership supported psychological safety and improvement efforts in healthcare teams. In an operating theatre or major trauma service, the superordinate goal is not sentimental harmony; it is safe, timely, high-quality patient care. That common purpose provides a legitimate basis for collaboration while preserving robust disagreement about technique, indication, or governance.

11.3 Politics: institutionalising opposition

Politics shows why coexistence cannot depend on affection. Democratic opposition parties seek to defeat one another electorally, yet must recognise the legitimacy of constitutional procedures and the possibility of alternation in power. Structured deliberation can reduce polarisation when it provides balanced information, equal voice, moderation, and time (Fishkin et al., 2021). At the level of violent conflict, agreements are more durable when they reduce uncertainty and commitment problems through monitoring, power-sharing, third-party guarantees, demilitarised arrangements, or joint institutions (Fearon, 1995; Hartzell & Hoddie, 2003; Fortna, 2003). Dialogue without credible implementation can become theatre; deterrence without an off-ramp can become permanent escalation.

The political transformation is from antagonism - "only one of us may legitimately exist" - to agonism - "we oppose one another profoundly but compete within a shared political space" (Mouffe, 2005). This is not moral relativism. Crimes, rights violations, and abuses remain accountable. The point is that accountability is pursued through evidence, law, proportion, and institution rather than collective revenge.

11.4 Religion, atheism, and moral difference

Religious and non-religious citizens may reject one another's metaphysical claims, but stable coexistence does not require a shared theology. It requires reciprocal civic rights, freedom of conscience, limits on coercion, and institutions that do not make one group's disappearance a precondition of public belonging. Dialogue is most useful when it addresses conduct and rights - education, dress, worship, expression, equality, public services - rather than demanding that participants negotiate the truth of God as a prerequisite for peace.

11.5 Migration, nationality, and belonging

Conflicts between established populations and migrants are often narrated as a clash of essential identities, but practical disputes usually combine labour-market competition, housing, language, security, cultural change, discrimination, and uncertainty about norms. Enemy labels intensify collective blame. Constructive engagement should disaggregate the issues, avoid treating either "foreigners" or "native people" as homogeneous, protect equal legal dignity, and make expectations explicit. Integration is most credible when it is reciprocal: newcomers receive rights and real access, while all residents understand the same lawful boundaries and routes for participation.

12. When not to meet or negotiate directly

Dialogue is not always courageous, and refusal is not always immature. Direct engagement may increase danger, contaminate evidence, expose confidential information, or give an abusive actor access to the person they control. The correct alternative may be written communication, a legal representative, a manager, mediation with separate rooms, safeguarding, security, police, a professional regulator, or complete no-contact.

Direct dialogue should normally be avoided or tightly controlled where any of the following applies:

credible threats of violence, stalking, coercive control, or access to weapons;

acute intoxication, severe behavioural dysregulation, or inability to understand and follow boundaries;

ongoing criminal, disciplinary, safeguarding, or legal proceedings where contact may create risk or interfere with evidence;

severe power asymmetry combined with retaliation risk and no independent protection;

a repeated pattern of using mediation to locate, intimidate, manipulate, or exhaust the other party;

the proposed meeting has no mandate, no enforceable procedure, and no realistic path to protect participants;

the costs of contact substantially exceed the value of the bounded issue under discussion.

Even in war and high-risk political conflict, "dialogue" may occur indirectly through diplomats, intermediaries, deconfliction channels, prisoner exchanges, technical committees, or written guarantees. The ethical principle is proportionate contact: use the least dangerous form capable of achieving the necessary objective.

13. Ethical principles and limitations

13.1 Five ethical disciplines

Dignity without endorsement. Recognise the other person as human and rights-bearing without approving beliefs or conduct.

Empathy without exoneration. Understand motives and experience without erasing responsibility or harm.

Accountability without humiliation. Use evidence, proportionate consequences, restitution, and review rather than degradation.

Coexistence without naivety. Maintain boundaries, verification, deterrence, and exit; do not confuse civility with trust.

Peace with justice. Measure not only whether people feel warmer, but whether rights, resources, safety, and voice become fairer.

13.2 Limitations of the science

Several limitations should temper confidence. Much psychological research uses short interventions and self-reported attitudes rather than long-term behaviour. Samples are often drawn from Western, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic populations. Publication and measurement choices can exaggerate apparent success. Interpersonal, organisational, partisan, ethnic, and interstate conflicts differ in stakes and structure. Positive contact may not generalise beyond the individuals involved. Some interventions reduce dislike without changing discriminatory institutions, and some effects decay when the intervention ends. Recent megastudy and durability evidence strengthens, rather than removes, these cautions (Voelkel et al., 2024; Holliday et al., 2025).

The word "enemy" itself is a limitation. It may accurately communicate perceived threat, but repeated use can harden categories and justify collective blame. A useful practice is to preserve it only at the level of self-description - "I experience this person as an enemy" - while using behaviourally precise terms in analysis: competitor, obstructing colleague, hostile actor, opposing party, abusive person, or armed adversary. Precision is not politeness; it is a protection against both paranoia and denial.

13.3 What success should mean

Success should not be defined only as liking, forgiveness, or consensus. In serious conflict, meaningful outcomes include fewer threats, more accurate beliefs, protected voice, fairer allocation, reliable communication, safer handovers, verifiable compliance, reduced retaliation, and the ability to disagree without sabotage. Bounded cooperation may be a higher and more realistic achievement than emotional reconciliation.

14. Conclusion

Can one meet an enemy, speak constructively, and plan collaboration? Yes - provided that "constructive" is defined realistically. The parties do not need to eliminate dislike, forget injury, or pretend that interests are aligned. They need enough safety and self-regulation to think, enough procedural fairness to speak, enough accuracy to distinguish evidence from projection, enough imagination to identify a bounded common task, and enough institutional support to make promises verifiable.

Human beings are neither condemned to permanent enmity nor naturally destined for harmony. Our species carries capacities for coalition, fear, revenge, reciprocity, care, punishment, compromise, and rule-making. Civilisation advances when it builds institutions that recruit the latter capacities before the former destroy the relationship. Parliaments, courts, professional standards, mediation, clinical governance, and peace agreements all embody the same insight: a stable society is not a society without conflict; it is a society in which conflict is made governable.

The deepest practical shift is from asking whether an enemy deserves closeness to asking what kind of proximity is safe and useful. Keep the conflict cognitively close enough to understand, procedurally close enough to regulate, and institutionally close enough to monitor - but not physically or emotionally close when safety requires distance. The mature endpoint is not friendship. It is a world in which opponents can remain different, compete, criticise, and even dislike one another without treating elimination as the solution.

References

References are presented in APA-style form. The selection prioritises foundational theory, meta-analyses, field experiments, recent large-scale studies, organisational evidence, and work identifying limitations or adverse effects.

Adams, G. (2005). The cultural grounding of personal relationship: Enemyship in North American and West African worlds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 948-968. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.948

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390-1396. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7466396

Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216-9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115

Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170-188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170

Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13(5), 497-513. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.497.7816

Bowles, S. (2009). Did warfare among ancestral hunter-gatherers affect the evolution of human social behaviors? Science, 324(5932), 1293-1298. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1168112

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429-444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126

Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. (2012). The power of being heard: The benefits of perspective-giving in the context of intergroup conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 855-866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.017

Choi, J.-K., & Bowles, S. (2007). The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science, 318(5850), 636-640. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144237

Cikara, M., Botvinick, M. M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Us versus them: Social identity shapes neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychological Science, 22(3), 306-313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610397667

Dal Bó, P. (2005). Cooperation under the shadow of the future: Experimental evidence from infinitely repeated games. American Economic Review, 95(5), 1591-1604. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282805775014434

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741

Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human Relations, 2(2), 129-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674900200204

Druckman, J. N. (2023). Correcting misperceptions of the other political party does not robustly reduce support for undemocratic practices or partisan violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(37), e2308938120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2308938120

Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S., & Durrheim, K. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(6), 411-425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002214

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305

Fearon, J. D. (1995). Rationalist explanations for war. International Organization, 49(3), 379-414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300033324

Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137-140. https://doi.org/10.1038/415137a

Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2015). From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665-1681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215607842

Fishkin, J. S., Siu, A., Diamond, L., & Bradburn, N. (2021). Is deliberation an antidote to extreme partisan polarization? Reflections on "America in One Room." American Political Science Review, 115(4), 1464-1481. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000642

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin.

Fortna, V. P. (2003). Scraps of paper? Agreements and the durability of peace. International Organization, 57(2), 337-372. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818303572046

Fry, D. P., & Söderberg, P. (2013). Lethal aggression in mobile forager bands and implications for the origins of war. Science, 341(6143), 270-273. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235675

Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Murrell, A. J., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 239-249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.239

Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective-taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378-384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x

Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., & Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(18), 7357-7360. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701768104

Glowacki, L., Isakov, A., Wrangham, R. W., McDermott, R., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2016). Formation of raiding parties for intergroup violence is mediated by social network structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(43), 12114-12119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610961113

Grossmann, I., & Kross, E. (2014). Exploring Solomon's paradox: Self-distancing eliminates the self-other asymmetry in wise reasoning about close relationships in younger and older adults. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1571-1580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535400

Halevy, N., Bornstein, G., & Sagiv, L. (2008). "In-group love" and "out-group hate" as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict: A new game paradigm. Psychological Science, 19(4), 405-411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02100.x

Halperin, E., Porat, R., Tamir, M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). Can emotion regulation change political attitudes in intractable conflicts? From the laboratory to the field. Psychological Science, 24(1), 106-111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612452572

Hartzell, C., & Hoddie, M. (2003). Institutionalizing peace: Power sharing and post-civil war conflict management. American Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 318-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00022

Hässler, T., Ullrich, J., Bernardino, M., Shnabel, N., Van Laar, C., Valdenegro, D., et al. (2020). A large-scale test of the link between intergroup contact and support for social change. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 380-386. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0815-z

Hein, G., Silani, G., Preuschoff, K., Batson, C. D., & Singer, T. (2010). Neural responses to ingroup and outgroup members' suffering predict individual differences in costly helping. Neuron, 68(1), 149-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.003

Holliday, D. E., Lelkes, Y., & Westwood, S. J. (2025). Why depolarization is hard: Evaluating attempts to decrease partisan animosity in America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(39), e2508827122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2508827122

Itzchakov, G., Kluger, A. N., & Castro, D. R. (2017). I am aware of my inconsistencies but can tolerate them: The effect of high-quality listening on speakers' attitude ambivalence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216675339

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638

Kalla, J. L., & Broockman, D. E. (2020). Reducing exclusionary attitudes through interpersonal conversation: Evidence from three field experiments. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 410-425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000923

Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & Cotterill, S. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 901-931. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000048

Kteily, N., Hodson, G., & Bruneau, E. (2016). They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 343-370. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000044

Leary, M. R., Diebels, K. J., Davisson, E. K., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., Isherwood, J. C., Raimi, K. T., Deffler, S. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (2017). Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual humility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6), 793-813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217697695

Lees, J., & Cikara, M. (2020). Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(3), 279-286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0766-4

Mernyk, J. S., Pink, S. L., Druckman, J. N., & Willer, R. (2022). Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans' support for partisan violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(16), e2116851119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2116851119

Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L.-O., Hameiri, B., & Bruneau, E. G. (2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14864-14872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001263117

Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. Routledge.

Mousa, S. (2020). Building social cohesion between Christians and Muslims through soccer in post-ISIS Iraq. Science, 369(6505), 866-870. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb3153

Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941-966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413

Nir, N., & Halperin, E. (2025). Politically-targeted intergroup interventions promote social equality and engagement. Communications Psychology, 3, Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00228-3

Ostrom, E., Walker, J., & Gardner, R. (1992). Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 404-417. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964229

Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129-158. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

Porter, T., & Schumann, K. (2018). Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view. Self and Identity, 17(2), 139-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861

Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20(1), 114-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x

Santoro, E., & Broockman, D. E. (2022). The promise and pitfalls of cross-partisan conversations for reducing affective polarization: Evidence from randomized experiments. Science Advances, 8(25), eabn5515. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn5515

Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. University Book Exchange.

Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 116-132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116

Sullivan, D., Landau, M. J., & Rothschild, Z. K. (2010). An existential function of enemyship: Evidence that people attribute influence to personal and political enemies to compensate for threats to control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 434-449. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017457

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149-178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202

Thompson, L., & Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(1), 98-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90048-E

Voelkel, J. G., Stagnaro, M. N., Chu, J. Y., Pink, S. L., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., et al. (2024). Megastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity. Science, 386(6719), eadh4764. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh4764

Appendix A. One-page COEXIST preparation worksheet

Appendix B. Rapid decision tree

1. Is there credible danger or coercion? Yes: do not arrange unprotected direct contact; use safeguarding, legal, security, regulatory, or mediated routes. No: continue.

2. Is there a concrete issue that dialogue can influence? No: decline symbolic confrontation. Yes: define the smallest useful objective.

3. Can a fair procedure and enforceable boundaries be created? No: improve the process or use a third party. Yes: continue.

4. Are the parties willing to exchange accurate accounts and consider evidence? No: restrict the encounter to information exchange or formal decision. Yes: use COEXIST.

5. Can the first commitment be small, reciprocal, reversible, and verifiable? No: reduce scope. Yes: pilot, monitor, and review.

6. Is compliance improving safety, fairness, or performance? Yes: cautiously expand. No: repair, sanction, suspend, or exit.

Prepared as an academic-style narrative review and professional discussion paper | August 2026

Relevance to a secular democratic Iran

A pluralist Iranian coalition must be able to cooperate while preserving real disagreements about monarchy, republicanism, economic policy and religion. The proposed framework offers procedural questions for that work: who has a voice, what conduct is unacceptable, how commitments are checked, and how disputes are repaired. Evidence from other settings cannot establish that the framework will succeed in Iran. Its democratic value lies in making cooperation accountable and keeping equal citizenship independent of political agreement.