The Unifying Potential Of Disaster

When two people bond by openness about their trauma, especially if it is something they both relate to, a unique kind of connection can be forged.  If they were friends or acquaintances beforehand, they could become closer.  If this is their first interaction, they might strike an overtly positive relationship from the start.  Psychological vulnerability is feared or withheld by many because of the capacity to be misunderstood or mistreated.  However, when one party takes the initiative, even enemies might reconcile--or explosive circumstances could possibly influence them to perceive each other in a less hostile manner.  A common threat, concern, or enemy can work wonders.  Pain and fear, particularly among the emotionalistic or the pragmatic (for differing reasons), have the capacity to push people into a more neutral standing.

After two airliners hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists were piloted into the World Trade Center and another into the Pentagon on 9/11, Americans of various racial, political, and broader philosophical factions psychologically united in their collective shock and anger.  Exact feelings or preferences about the following War on Terror might have differed from person to person depending on factors like their worldview, obviously, but there was a reported sense of genuine unity between people as Americans, with other differences rightly (such as race) or wrongly (ideology) being downplayed.  This level of solidarity, whether people contributed out of emotionalistic fury or patriotism or sincere desire to help a grieving country, did not last.  As intoxicating or penetrating as it is, a sense of belonging can fade.

COVID-19, for instance, did not engender the same level of unity due to the heightened political fractioning of America, which started becoming very sharp around the election campaign for Donald Trump.  Since that time, liberals and conservatives in the same country that rallied due to 9/11 have trended towards simply lashing out at the other side no matter what they are believing or objecting to.  Everything from vaccines to masks to working from home and more became an issue many people only held to a position on to spite or deviate from another group of people, rather than because of the objective truth about each individual matter.  No, not even a decade later than 9/11, an event as impactful as the 2020 pandemic brought a changed, divided America more to the spotlight.

Still, great trials or extreme tragedies can inspire a desire to come together with people who might otherwise be cast aside, ignored, or regarded as enemies.  For a fictional example (though neither historical nor fictional examples are needed to know this), there are the utilitarian actions of Ozymandias in DC's Watchmen.  In the original graphic novel and the 2019 HBO show, Ozymandias dropped a giant squid-like animal on a city so that the 1980s public would fall into fear of extraterrestrial invasion and cease the tension that could lead to nuclear war.  Instead of other humans and their governments, the attention was fastened to a seeming alien menace.  In the 2009 Zack Snyder film, Ozymandias instead orchestrates a nuclear explosion that leads to the world averting war by opposing Dr. Manhattan, a hyper-powerful being who can manipulate matter and was blamed for the event.  Manhattan leaves Earth in order to preserve the delicate, deception-based peace, and the volatility of the Cold War calms.  The plot succeeded.

The historical example of 9/11 and the fictional one in Watchmen address how disaster can inspire deep collaboration across vast groups of people or end disharmony between bitter enemies.  Just as two individuals who might not have a lot in common beyond things like their basic humanity might, out of empathy, fear, or sadness, act as temporary allies at the least, so too can nations turn to unity.  The unity might be wholly or partly rooted in erroneous things.  Trials and trauma can still be potent motivators for getting along with unexpected parties.  One person suffering sees themself in another who suffers or cares more about a shared threat than real or imagined grievances against them.