The word “phobia,” in its literal sense, refers to the fear, pressure, and anxious psychology that a person experiences in specific situations. Throughout history, people have characterized the “Other,” whom they saw as a natural threat and created, with the concept of phobia. Indeed, the concept of “phobia” has been deeply studied, particularly through psychological and sociological research, in order to understand its causes and sources.
Human societies, especially the institutions of states formed by these societies throughout history, have needed and created an “Other” in order to establish their legitimacy, create a living space for themselves, and especially protect this space. Individuals and communities primarily characterize the “Other” they create as someone who does not share their lineage, religion, culture, or consciousness.
Even beyond human communities, especially in monotheistic or human religions, an “Other” has been created to secure their legitimacy, make their philosophy more livable, and prepare the essential infrastructure for protecting themselves materially and spiritually.
This created “Other” has been the most important tool for nations and states to preserve their values, especially their national identity, and ensure the transmission of these values over generations, thus keeping the memory of nations alive. Throughout history, domestic and foreign policies of states have largely been shaped considering the created “Other,” and this continues to be the case.
World history has since “Ancient Greece” recognized two alternative civilizations and spirits, “East” and “West.” Especially, these two civilizations, which are considered each other’s alternatives, have conceived the other civilization as the “Other” in order to establish their legitimacy and define their sovereignty. The psychology of othering and creating an “Other” has been an inherent aspect of human existence since ancient times, but states and nations have developed it further, as mentioned above, especially since “Ancient Greece.”
“Ancient Greece” and the “Macedonian Kingdoms” characterized the Eastern society, the “Persians,” as the “Other,” and the Iranian Persians defined the Greek and Macedonian states as the “Other.” Particularly, these states constructed their current policies based on this concept of the “Other.” Just as every civilization views its own civilization as superior and noble, the civilization it otherizes is derogated and described as barbaric. An open manipulation policy has been pursued against all the values associated with the “Other.”
Indeed, the famous French literary figure “Dante,” in his work “Divina Commedia/Divine Comedy,” depicted “Prophet Muhammad” as a creature located in the lowest layer of hell.
In fact, we can say that the history of othering is the history of “European History.” Because Europe has always been the center of othering throughout history. This othering has sometimes led to political alliances and agreements. The most significant of these political alliances is the “European Union,” which is currently on the verge of dissolution. The European Union consists mainly of states with a shared mentality and spirit. These states are completely unified internally, but they totally otherize externally. States and societies not included in this union are otherized by its policies and isolated in world politics.
The need for the “Other” and the policy of othering, which began with the existence of humanity and ancient states, reached its zenith with the spread of “Islam” and the message of the “Prophet Muhammad.” The West belittled and characterized the flourishing Islamic civilization of that period, as well as the Muslims they labeled as barbaric, and undertook a material and spiritual struggle against them. This othering also prompted the West to work rapidly in all fields to surpass its created enemy. Indeed, the main gain of the West from its othering of the “Islamic Civilization” has been its superiority in social, political, and economic aspects in the modern era.
While there are many social, political, and economic reasons for the emergence of the “Other” and the policy of othering, one reason for nations to create a negative “Other” in their minds is the psychology of oppression and traumatic events experienced in their historical experiences. Especially, the long-standing superiority of the “Islamic Civilization” over the West, reaching its peak with the Ottoman Turks, caused a feeling of oppression for the West. This traumatic situation created by this psychology led to a sense of oppression in all layers of Western society.
The Islamic Civilization, due to the “Word of the Quran,” never saw an “Other” for Muslims because it viewed differences such as lineage, culture, and history as richness. Although the notion of an “Other,” such as “infidel and non-believer,” was formed in the Muslim mindset due to the policy and belief in Jihad and Conquest, this “Other” is by no means the same as what the West, especially Europe, has created, which completely annihilates, denies, and belittles. In fact, we know that the non-Muslims living in the places conquered by Muslims have always been treated with peace and prosperity, and they were provided with all the opportunities and benefits of the Muslim social state. We also know that they enjoyed almost equal rights with Muslims and lived in peace with Muslims without being demeaned.
Despite the attitude of the Muslim Civilization, the West has always considered its barbaric other created throughout history as a tradition and transmitted it from generation to generation. “Islamophobia and Turkophobia” in the West continues to be passed down as a vital necessity for generations.
The negative image of the “Other” that the West has constructed has turned into a complex in Western societies over time. The created “Other” has become a complex for the West today. Therefore, as a result of this complex, the West continues to vent its hatred against Muslims, especially Turks, in all areas and deprive them of their right to life.
As a famous saying goes, “everything is in its opposite,” meaning one can only exist if they have an “Other.”
In conclusion, we can state the following: for Muslims, the “Other” that serves as a means of integration and getting to know one another, and which is a source of diversity and richness, is a barbaric and negative “Other” for the Western spirit and mentality.
