At the heart of Lebanese identity’s divisions are three competing narratives today: those who see Hezbollah’s resistance as a unifying national defense; those who blame Hezbollah for Lebanon’s current decline, demanding accountability; and a third, emerging view among Lebanese youth, which calls for transcending sectarian divides altogether. Each of these narratives represents a segment of the Lebanese population, and each is steeped in deeply rooted psychological and social dynamics. To understand Lebanon’s path forward, it is essential to examine these narratives through the lens of collective identity and social psychology.

Collective identity and group narratives in times of conflict

In political psychology, collective identity refers to the shared sense of belonging to a group, a bond that transcends the individual and links people to a larger cause. Collective identity is not merely a personal identification but an emotionally charged connection that influences how groups perceive themselves in relation to others. In Lebanon, these identities are tied closely to narratives that have been shaped by generations of conflict, collective trauma, and survival.

Group narratives, particularly in societies experiencing ongoing conflict, function as survival mechanisms. They help maintain group solidarity, foster resilience, and reinforce a shared vision of the group’s place in the world. In Lebanon, the “resistance” narrative – supporting Hezbollah as a national defense against external threats – is viewed by its adherents as essential to Lebanon’s survival. This narrative discourages dissent and emphasizes unity, particularly in times of conflict, underlining that internal critique only serves the enemy. Supporters of this view often label critics as “traitors” or “Zionist sympathizers,” using powerful psychological tools to reinforce loyalty and unity.

Divergent narratives on resistance and accountability

In contrast, the accountability narrative offers a starkly different perspective. Those who see Hezbollah as responsible for Lebanon’s current state argue that openly assigning blame is not only necessary but also a path toward understanding why Lebanon is in crisis. In their view, Hezbollah’s actions – aligned with Iranian interests rather than Lebanese ones – have contributed to Lebanon’s economic decline and international isolation. This group sees transparency as essential for real change, criticizing the resistance narrative as an excuse to ignore critical internal issues. In a country where distrust and blame have been pervasive since the civil war, this narrative reflects a psychological need for accountability and for Lebanon to reclaim its own identity, separate from sectarian allegiances.

Each of these narratives, while rooted in Lebanon’s collective memory and trauma, has unique psychological effects on its adherents. The “resistance” narrative fosters a sense of loyalty and self-preservation, but it can also lead to polarization and suppression of dissent. The accountability narrative, while grounded in a call for transparency, often deepens divisions by attributing the entire national crisis to one group, labeling Hezbollah supporters as “Iranian agents.” Both narratives, while psychologically compelling, struggle to address the complex reality of Lebanon’s multifaceted identity.

The legacy of dual narratives post-Taif Agreement

Lebanon’s dual narratives did not emerge in isolation; they are rooted in the country’s history, particularly the aftermath of the civil war. The Taif Agreement of 1989 brought an end to the violence but did little to resolve the underlying causes of the war. Instead, the agreement established a fragile unity, a veneer of peace that masked unresolved tensions and suppressed opposing identities.

Psychologically, the post-Taif era fostered what we might call “false unity” – a situation where differences are ignored rather than reconciled. This forced unity was unable to withstand external pressures, and it is this fragility that we see reflected in Lebanon’s current crisis. When people are not given the space to voice their grievances or explore their collective traumas, the unresolved past becomes a source of tension and a breeding ground for new conflicts.

A third perspective

In recent years, a new narrative has emerged, particularly among Lebanon’s youth, who are less invested in the sectarian identities of the past. For many young Lebanese, sectarianism no longer serves their interests; they see it as an obstacle to national progress and unity. This non-sectarian narrative rejects the old identity struggles, viewing them as distractions from the real issues Lebanon faces—economic collapse, political corruption, and social inequality.

This shift among the youth is a significant development in Lebanon’s collective identity. Political psychology tells us that identity formation is a dynamic process, influenced by both local and global forces. For Lebanese youth exposed to global values and ideas, identity is increasingly tied to broader, universal aspirations rather than narrow sectarian loyalties. This generational shift suggests that Lebanon may be on the cusp of a new collective identity—one that transcends the sectarian divisions of the past.

Why all narratives hold partial truths

Each of these narratives – the resistance narrative, the accountability narrative, and the non-sectarian youth narrative – captures an aspect of the Lebanese experience. However, none of them fully addresses the complex identity struggles that have shaped Lebanon’s past and present. In political psychology, we understand that group narratives are often partial, shaped by selective memories and reinforced by collective traumas. The danger of these partial narratives is that they prevent a more comprehensive understanding of Lebanon’s identity and history, leading to a fragmented society where each group views the other with suspicion.

The coexistence of these narratives reveals the challenge of building a cohesive national identity in a deeply divided society. Lebanon’s identity struggles are not unique; they are part of a larger pattern seen in post-conflict societies where suppressed differences eventually resurface. Without an inclusive dialogue that acknowledges all perspectives, Lebanon risks remaining trapped in a cycle of unresolved conflict and fragile unity.

Lebanon’s future hinges on reconciling its divergent narratives. A lasting national identity cannot rely on superficial unity or silencing dissent; it must be grounded in open dialogue that respects all perspectives. Political psychology shows the value of addressing collective traumas and finding pathways for true reconciliation. Lebanon’s challenge today is not only to counter external threats but to confront the internal fractures that divide its people. Only by embracing an inclusive approach to collective identity, can Lebanon foster a unity that honors its diversity and builds collective resilience for the future.

Ramzi Abou Ismail is a  political psychologist and researcher at the University of Kent.

The views in this story reflect those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of NOW.