I don’t know as much as I’d like to, but I’ve noticed something. Conflict centered stories became the ‘one twue way’ around the same time that nationalism was at its height and white supremacy was being taught as ‘science’ in most colleges and universities.
This is me combining a bit of knowledge to come up with a lot of ideas. ‘Essay’ I was told in school means ‘I think.’ This is a bit of what I think, backed by what facts I have, on a topic far more complicated and in-depth than I have the personal resources to explore.
Conflict and…
Christianity
Most of the folks involved in the creation of the ‘all stories are conflict’ myth were Christian. (I know of one who wasn’t. I think.) When you stop to think about it, that culture and ideas show through. Christian culture and worldview are also conflict-centered.
The Christian worldview revolves around four conflicts:
God vs Devil
Devil vs. Good Christians
Good Christians vs. Bad Unbelievers
Good Christians vs. Themselves
While some churches have moved away from talk of the Devil and toned down the ‘Bad Unbelievers’ rhetoric, many haven’t. And those churches which have, have often doubled down on the internal conflict — especially in this age of rising atheism and people leaving the Churches. The party line is that lacking a sense of connection to God is not a sign of a problem in your worldview/beliefs/actions, but rather a personal test to be overcome through greater commitment and belief.
Conflict is so central to Christianity that it is part of the most sacred prayer.
“And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.”
Every day observant Christians acknowledge that conflict (internal and external) is central to their lives and ask God’s protection from it.
Contrary to what many Christians believe, this is not a common worldview. I don’t know as much as I’d like about other religious traditions, but I do know enough to know that. The only other religions I know that have anything like this are closely related to Christianity and also have a ‘Devil’ figure (also rare in world traditions) — Islam and Zoroastrianism. Other religions may acknowledge that conflict is a part of life and can be part of spiritual growth, but nowhere near so central a thing.
White Supremacy
This is where I get into stuff I don’t know as well as I’d like. My understanding is that Christianity had a huge influence on the development of White Supremacy. White supremacy also has a conflict-centered world which posits white people as under assault (literal and spiritual) from nonwhite people. The so-called ‘White man’s burden’ is a well-known example of this: white men going out to bring the other races to enlightenment — forcibly if necessary.
Of course, conflict-centered stories ideally figure not ‘just’ a protagonist, but a hero. A hero who in concept reflects all the virtues white supremacy ascribes to the White Man going forth to conquer the world.
The generic ‘hero’ of Anglo cultures is a big, buff, white man strong enough to defeat scores of mooks single-handedly. The hero is the hero because he, like the White man, brings peace and prosperity (or at least a happy ending).
Don’t believe me? Take a look at the early comic book heroes — the ones created around the same time that conflict-centered writing was becoming the end-all, be-all of English literature.
Our idea of heroes has evolved since then, but still, the White Savior looms over all, cape flapping in the breeze.
Imperialism
Western Imperialism comes from Rome. Every Empire of Europe for 2000 years has claimed to be Rome’s successor or the ‘new’ Rome. The label has been given to the US as well, and frequently. ‘Fascist’ comes from the Roman ‘fasces’ — a bundle of sticks with an ax sticking out. It’s been a symbol of government power for well over 2000 years. You can see that bundle on government seals across the ‘Western’ world, invoking the authority of ancient Rome.
The very word “Imperialism” comes from Rome — from “imperare”: “to command.” One might say that imperialism is the belief in the right of empire to command.
The history of Western thought is contained in the unholy alliance Constantine forged: Roman Imperialism given the imprimatur of Christian sanctity. “God is with us!” cried the Catholic armies of the Holy Roman Empire during the 30 Years’ War. Their Protestant enemies responded with similar claims of divine favor. Together they watered the fields of Central Europe with blood for decades.
In the Americas, Catholic Spain and Protestant England exported Roman Imperialism and Christian sanctity to a so-called ‘New World.’
Imperialism cannot exist without conflict, because imperialism requires the borders and powers of empire to be ever-expanding. We measure the greatness of an empire by the /furthest extent/ of its borders. An empire’s collapse begins the moment it stops expanding. To pull back, to dig in and hold is to admit weakness, the ultimate sin of empire.
And Stories
Here is where knowledge fails and I’m in realms of speculation. The facts as we know them:
During the early 20th century, Britain was the Empire the sun never set on and the US was celebrating ‘Manifest Destiny’, supported and buttressed by Christian evangelism and white supremacy. And an idea arose in the heart of English literary philosophy. The idea that all stories are conflict-centered, and plots are defined by their central conflict. Out of this idea came the claim that all stories /must have/ a singular protagonist and an antagonist opposing the protagonist. The antagonist acts as a foil for the protagonist’s hero-dom to be displayed against.
(Antagonist, by the way, is unrelated to ‘protagonist.’ It originated in battle or sport, not literature.)
Outside of English literature, stories that did not fit the 3 or 5-act conflict-centered straight jacket continued as before. Say what you with about Dostoevsky, but his stories did not center on conflict. Nor, I am told, did most other Russian novelists. In East Asia, the many variations on 4-act structure (best known in the US by the Japanese version, ki-sho-ten-ketsu) continued. It was first introduced to English-language audiences through anime and manga. (Hayao Miyazaki is a master of the form.) Hakawati continue to be told and celebrated in Western Asia. And thousands more story-forms I could not learn in a very long lifetime. Contrary to the old saw there are not 7 plots, there are millions.
Stories that don’t center conflict have survived in English literature, but only on the margins. On the one hand, you have Jack Kerouac and other beat/post-modern/literary/etc authors who ‘experiment’ with the limits of the genre. They wrote in ways (it is implied) more mundane writers can’t. On the other hand, you have slice-of-life stories. These were long ago relegated to the ‘chick lit’ section of the store, less respected even than romance, which at least has a ‘proper’ genre and place on the shelves.
But in schools and workshops and writers groups around the country, these are ignored. “You need conflict” writers are told. As if a story suddenly stops being a story because there aren’t enough heroes and villains in it.
A chance of timing? The relatively new popularity of English novels and short stories may have led to a new consideration of literary theory right at the time these conflict-centered worldviews believed they had succeeded in subduing the world.
Maybe I’m missing something. (I’m probably missing a lot of some things.)
But I think — I /feel/ — there is a connection here. Even if I don’t have the words to frame the connection — or even the necessary questions.
In the meantime, I hope I got you thinking.
(As always, credit and thanks to Kim Yoon Mi and her giant-ass essay on story structure. Thanks also to Marcia X for long threads and treasured conversations on the history of White supremacy and colonialism.)