The Tyranny of Oneness in Tigray: Emotion, Borrowed Truths, and the Digital Manufacture of Unity

In the midst of unprecedented crises, unity is often the only thing that feels like survival. In Tigray, in the midst of genocidal war, blockade, and unimaginable suffering, the imperative to become one, to think alike, feel alike, and speak with one voice, has undoubtedly been compelling. Unity has not been an ideology; it has been a shield.

However, history, anthropology, and even technology tell us that the pursuit of oneness “at all costs” can subtly metamorphose from unity to tyranny. What starts out as unity can subtly become the stranglehold of thought, emotion, and possibilities.

To grasp the dynamics of the tyranny of oneness in Tigray, it is imperative to consider the interplay of three key drivers: the construction of emotion, the ideology of unity, the digital manufacture of unity, while keeping in mind the borrowed truths that have driven the pursuit of freedom.

The Social Life of Emotion in Times of Crisis

The first insight comes from anthropology, specifically the research of Franz Boas, as discussed in an Aeon essay. Emotions, according to Boas, are not simply internal states. They are not universal. They are socially produced. They are produced through culture, through history, through the expectations of society.

This is very relevant to the Tigray case. The trauma of genocidal war creates a shared emotional experience. Grief, anger, defiance, and pride are emotions felt by many. But they are not simply individual feelings. They are socially shared. They are passed around within communities, within families, and especially within the diaspora.

Eventually, they become normal. To not share them, to be ambivalent, to be complex, becomes a moral failure rather than an intellectual difference. The shift is subtle but crucial. Emotion becomes a matter of obligation.

The risk is not that people are feeling. It’s that the acceptable spectrum of feeling becomes narrow. And when emotional orthodoxy sets in, intellectual orthodoxy is sure to follow.

The Political Seduction of Oneness

The second insight comes out of an analysis of political unity, and specifically how this is addressed in an Aeon article on China’s insistence on harmony.


The modern Chinese state align with a tradition that emphasizes unity—internal coherence and external harmony—as a set of civilizational values. But this has developed into a more rigid form in China: a political ideology in which unity equates to stability and dissent equates to threat.


Tigray is not China. But in terms of structural analysis, there is an interesting parallel.

In existential threat, unity is non-negotiable. It is defined in terms of necessity: and this is often true. But there is a risk in this approach. Once unity is defined in this way, any form of dissent or disputation is seen as a break rather than a contribution.

The result is a constriction in internal discourse. This is the trap of oneness: the more it becomes a bulwark against external threats, the more it may undermine internal diversity—precisely the diversity that provides strength in the long term.

Borrowed Truths and the Fire of Liberation

The third lesson is borrowed from political philosophy, specifically from an exploration of “self-evident truths” in the United States Declaration of Independence, as Brookings examines it.

The “self-evident truth” that “all men are created equal” was not, at the time it was written, applied universally. It was, in fact, written from the perspective of people who did not consider enslaved people, women, or those who were colonized to be included within the category “men.” And yet, it became a universal truth because it was borrowed, or "appropriated."

The enslaved, the colonized, the dominated, made the “self-evident truth” their own, using it against the system that had denied them. The power of the “self-evident truth” is not found in its origins, but in its “borrowing.”

Tigray’s appeal to international law, to human rights, to democracy, and to justice is not different from this historical process. These, in a way, are borrowed truths—global truths not necessarily crafted with the Tigray people in mind. Nevertheless, they are potent tools for recognition, for advocacy, for argumentation.


But this process has another aspect. If these truths are exclusively used for outward purposes—seeking recognition from the world—can they be used for instrumental purposes? But the harder question is this: Are they being used in the same way for inward purposes?Do the same principles of democracy, justice, diversity, and dignity operate within Tigray as well? Or does the need for unity overpower everything else, in essence excluding?

Social Media and the Engineering of Groupthink

The fourth reality check can be found in contemporary technology. According to a recent article by The Conversation, recent court cases against Meta Platforms and Google have shown how social media platforms are intentionally designed to maximize their use through emotional stimuli:

Social media platforms, in their current form, aim to maximize their use by stimulating emotional reactions. This is why they amplify what provokes a reaction: outrage, affirmation, loyalty. And why, simultaneously, they tend to suppress nuance.


For Tigray, social media has been invaluable. It has helped to raise awareness and mobilize global opinion in ways that would have been unthinkable before. 

But social media also influences how unity feels: Social media platforms optimize for convergence. The more a message resonates within a dominant sentiment, the more it will rise to the surface. Over time, this creates a feedback cycle: Strongly aligned viewpoints get amplified. Amplified viewpoints foster a sense of consensus. A sense of consensus makes deviance less attractive. This is not censorship. This is convergence. The end result is a form of oneness, but a digital one: quick, emotional, and self-reinforcing.

The Convergence: Emotion, Unity, Truth, and Technology

If we connect these strands, we find that there is a larger picture in Tigray’s present: Emotion is socially constructed. Unity is politically required but also limiting. Truths are adopted and powerful but also two-edged. Technology reinforces and secures agreement. 

Collectively, they may be creating a system where emotion is aligned, thought is restricted, dissent is risky, and consensus feels natural even when nuance is discouraged.

Towards a More Resilient Form of Unity

The solution is not fragmentation. Tigray cannot afford disunity in the face of ongoing challenges. But it cannot afford uncritical unity either. A more resilient form of solidarity would look mean the following:

• Emotional plurality: making space for different ways of dealing with trauma and reality
• Intellectual plurality: recognizing critique as a form of loyalty, not betrayal
• Internalization of principles: putting justice and dignity into practice within, not just invoking them
• Digital literacy: recognizing how digital media influences perception, and resisting algorithmic pressure to conform

This is a harder form of unity. It is less clean, less quick, less easy on the emotions. But, it is also more resilient.

Beyond Oneness

Tigray’s strength has come, in part, from the ability to stand together under extraordinary pressure. That oneness has been important—and it still is. But the future will depend on something more nuanced than oneness. It will depend on the ability to be whole and not uniform. To hold multiple voices and not be fragmented. To hold together in solidarity and not suppress difference. To use borrowed truths not only to speak out—but to look in. To refuse to be one voice—rather many voices in tension. This will result in imperfect agreement—but will bring about robust coherence. This will require tolerance and discourse.


The greatest danger is not division. It is when a people becomes so united they have stopped questioning and have started viewing and fighting each other as enemies.