"The real problem is that the way that power is given out in our society pits us against each other"

The problem lies less in individual malice than in the design of institutions that distribute power by scarcity, tokens, and gatekeeping. When authority, credibility, and opportunity are treated as limited goods, people are nudged to compete for a few sanctioned seats rather than to expand the table. That scarcity logic manufactures rivalry: colleagues become threats, allies become competitors, and those with the least leverage are encouraged to police one another instead of challenging the structure that created the shortage.

Hierarchies amplify this by rewarding conformity to those already in charge and by filtering advancement through subjective, often opaque judgments. The result is tokenism, one “spot” for a woman, one for a person of color, which pressures would-be allies to differentiate themselves at one another’s expense. Policies such as forced arbitration, nondisclosure agreements, and fragile job security intensify the effect, because speaking up risks exile while silence promises proximity to power. The structure generates horizontal conflict so that vertical accountability never arrives.

Psychologically, this arrangement normalizes zero-sum thinking. It frames dignity, safety, and recognition as prizes to be won rather than rights to be guaranteed. Communities fracture; grievances become individualized; the powerful appear indispensable because they mediate the competition they orchestrate. Even reform efforts can be co-opted, asking the marginalized to prove their exceptional worth instead of questioning why worth must be proven to access basic protections.

A different distribution of power treats it as relational and expandable. That means transparent decision-making, independent oversight, worker and community voice in governance, and remedies that change incentives rather than merely punish individuals. It means replacing tokenism with proportional representation, tying authority to accountability, and building processes that reduce the costs of dissent. When security, time, and information are shared rather than hoarded, cooperation becomes rational; solidarity becomes practical. The measure of progress is not who wins the scarce seat, but whether the seat is no longer scarce.