Understanding the "other"

The clash of Western and Islamic civilizations cannot be discussed without considering the concept of the "other". The manifestations of this creature are many and varied whether be it in discussing corruption of political leaders, distrust in business dealings with the "other", religious fanaticism or cultural eccentricities of the "other". No matter the topic there is always that "other" looming its head as the protagonist of the story. In this context one has to conclude the inevitable necessity of the "other". There is no escaping it, the "other" is the vehicle by which the story becomes more exciting, the standard by which human beings define themselves, the vital component that lends itself to how we shape our ideologies. Human beings are only as good as they can be compared to or against the "other". This therefore suggests that the whole debate over the West versus the Middle East is highly over-dramatized and spurred more by an ignorance of who and what constitutes either party. I would venture to even declare that the greater part of this pervasive ignorance is on the part of Westerners who often do not take the time to understand beyond popular rhetoric all the issues surrounding dialogue on the the Middle East.

Other than discovering who is responsible for fueling the clash, one is faced with the regrettable fact that there can never be realistically a world without the "other". Simply put, it is the basis of human understanding and we need for there to be an "other" in order to understand ourselves. People are skinny because there is an "other" who is fat, well mannered as opposed to the "others" who are not, and religious fanatics instead of God know how the West would describe itself in terms of religion. It is a phenomenon of life that is essential to self-identity therefore one should not lose it in the popular band wagon of hatred and animosity rather, the "other" should merely be understood and accepted as part of one's everyday reality.