The phenomenon of non-acceptance, on the other hand, has always existed and can almost be considered a constant in human behavior, along with selfishness and narrow-mindedness, which can even occur within the same family. Therefore, it is not surprising that all moral teachings of global philosophies and religions promote tolerance and better understanding of others.
The concepts of separation and segregation have existed in ancient times in very different forms from what we know today. However, even when a people or individual was considered different, this concept never became a group ideology.
For the Romans, on one hand, there were those who were civilized, and on the other hand, there were the barbarians, in other words, everyone else. But this segregation was neither ethnic nor religious. jerska: The discussion revolved around whether certain individuals or nations were integrated into civilization or not. In that sense, a barbarian was simply a foreigner, and no value judgment was attached to that term. However, a barbarian could integrate and assimilate and become a full-fledged Roman citizen. It was only after the fall of the Roman Empire that the foreigner became “evil”. In the 5th century, barbarians attacked the Empire and destroyed it. It was then that the term “barbarian” started to refer to a “destroyer”, a meaning that was not part of the original expression.
In a harmonious society, differences are seen as a source of dynamics, originality, and harmony. In ancient Egyptian society, for example, there were nine ethnic groups living together in harmony, and it was important to be an Egyptian. The legal principles on which the state was structured made it a multicultural society, and at that level, society was successful.
Rome had dark-skinned African generals. It was important to be a Roman, and the color of the skin was not important. The Roman The Enlightenment era developed the idea of a “citizen of the world”. After its downfall, what happened to this great idea of a world where all races and religions could freely move and express themselves?
Human beings have always been aware of differences; they are part of our everyday existence. However, are these differences negative or, on the contrary, an expression of diversity that enriches us?
With the advent of the Middle Ages, religion and politics became inseparable, and political and religious power became equal. This is when a new kind of difference emerged, related to the religious aspect. The attempt to homogenize the world resulted in the emergence of new differences, which made people very defensive towards their own way of thinking. From this narrow perspective, the inability to understand that others might also be right arose.
Religious or ethnic intolerance flourished and spread in the 18th century, when all techniques of scientific classification were developed. After classifying minerals, plants, and animals, the inventory included and man. The development of biology has contributed to the development of racism based on physical differences. The belief that the differences of others are innate and therefore fixed has fueled the idea that the “other” cannot develop. Thus, in the 18th century, the West came up with the idea of the need to imprison or exterminate “savage” peoples. Diderot’s encyclopedia defined the word “savage” (French: sauvage) as “barbaric peoples who live without law, without police, without religion, and who have no fixed place of residence”. It etymologically explained the use of a word derived from silvaticus [from the woods], as, according to the Encyclopedia, savages generally lived in the forests, giving America as an example which was allegedly still mostly inhabited by wild peoples. No king, no religion, no law, no fire, nor home. At first glance, a series of negations implies a wild state, or the natural state of society.
Anthropology during the Enlightenment was particularly significant as it sought to provide a detailed description of t During the discovery of the existence of wild tribes, the goal was to better contrast them with the civilized European world. What interested philosophers at that time was to discover the meaning of human history in relation to the development of European nations. In doing so, they “confused racial phenomena with sociological and psychological constructs of human culture” (Claude Lévi-Strauss, Race and History) and tried to place contemporary wild tribes among the historical ancestors of modern humans.
In 1739, Count de Buffon, in his Natural History, made a clear distinction between humans and animals. He attempted to explain the causes of variations within the human species. The criteria recognized by Buffon were skin color, shape, and height – in short, what he called “natural” characteristics. While the first three criteria are physical and visible, “natural” also includes the interpretation of cultural behaviors. However, in order to explain the variations arising from the unity of the human phenomenon, it was necessary to believe that human beings have progressively differentiated from the original model through degeneration as they moved away from the moderate zone. “Because,” writes Buffon, “the model or unit to which all other parameters of color and beauty must refer is found in this region.” Thus, according to Buffon, these are the random causes that cause the nations inhabiting the Earth to differ, widening the gap between civilized Europe and the world of savages. Due to the progress shown by civilized Europe, savages must be convinced, as Buffon stated, to become part of human nature again.
Therefore, considering the degeneration of savages, Europe wanted to take on the role of leading them to a higher law. This became an excuse for colonial conquests.
If Voltaire’s goal was different, his conclusions reflected Buffon’s in placing Europe at the pinnacle of civilization. He saw such differences among the inhabitants of the Earth that he believed wild people belong to another species.
People easily fall into habits: routine, comfort, and unwillingness to question ideas greatly limit us. The burden of prejudices, of which we are mostly unaware, hinders opening up to others. People breathe the same air, share the same planet, have the same origin, the same mother (Nature). Our physical, psychological, and spiritual makeup is collective. Our experiences have changed us, but our paths have not changed. The truth is that every human being is different due to their external and internal goals, and this can be seen in their psychology, sensitivity, tastes, etc. However, it is equally true that there is a common denominator, and that is humanity. This common root creates an alliance, but the dynamics inherent in life inevitably create differences. We must be open to dialogue, understanding, and acceptance, with the goal of building a harmonious and inclusive society. Fragmentation goes hand in hand with homogenization since it often involves disappearance and destruction. Doesn’t Claude Lévi-Strauss insist on the fact that any inclination towards homogenization inevitably entails annihilation? Diversity of experiences enables us to develop undeniable qualities of survival. All human groups have contributed something to the human experience. Developing a singular culture would result in a global catastrophe. That’s why certain international organizations attempt to promote diversity, but not segregation.
All systems aiming to homogenize society lead to it losing its individual quality. This is the case with collective societies that don’t allow for the expansion of human potential; they deprive millions of people the opportunity to retain a vivid memory of multiple possibilities. Their tendency is a world without roots, an empty slate.
1 Denis Diderot; French writer and philosopher from the 18th century.