When necessary, its image is rebuilt and reedited. What the "other" means according to its own realities is not important at all; what matters is how we perceive it and the image we accordingly attribute to it as a result. A rationalizing formula has been discovered for this process: "What you say is not important; how you are perceived and understood is important." This is exactly what Orientalism is all about. This is the real message: "If I perceive you in a certain way, than you are exactly that; you should also perceive yourself that way." Dialogue or the desire to establish a relationship with the "other" by getting to know it harm those in power because "one is the enemy of what one doesn't know." Keeping the enemy alive, or more precisely, always having an enemy is tantamount to consolidating our power. The never rectified error in the process of otherizing is that one never endeavors to get to know and understand the perceived enemy in terms of its intrinsic content or reality.
Ensuring that the "other" lives in an isolated ghetto in its own neighborhood is possible by building "thick walls" between neighborhoods. Information exchange and mutual visits, in this sense, damage the usual power relations. New bus lines should be prevented from being set up between such neighborhoods at all costs, (or symbolically speaking, there should be no ferry lines set up between the isles of prejudice.)
The "other" should also be prevented from expressing its thoughts about our common problems, and the rest of "us" should thus be prevented from knowing what sort of stance the other takes in regard to those problems. The defining politics and the political power which this defining politics gives to interest or pressure groups encompasses an approach that looks less than fondly on new and different pieces of information. As Aristotle put it, knowledge itself is power, or at least has the power to open up new power zones. We already know what the other thinks, (we assume we do) and have already been informing the residents of our neighborhood of its thoughts using our own rhetoric. What we expect from the residents in return is that they should perceive the other the way we do and eventually take sides with us in the struggle for political power.
Just like the industrial policies that are based on the replacement of the locally made with the imported, thus disabling homegrown goods and services to participate in free competition, such forms of politics prevent different ideas and information from becoming a part of the free competition of thoughts. The political elites (the central bureaucracy, interest and pressure groups) that will benefit from this situation will always tell us that they are not against us, but against the "other", that is, our enemy, and will thus further consolidate their political power.
In order to make the conflict an everlasting one, a new threat definition should be made every day and according to every situation, and new policies that are in line with the old ones should be made in accordance with the new threat definition; consequently, the hawks will always be in power as long as this vicious circle persists. If you ask me whether hawks or doves are stronger, I would say with no hesitation that doves have a much greater advantage. The hawks of politics feed on conflict; this is for sure. So where will the doves find their power? Without a doubt, in conciliatory politics, or put another way, in the words supported by a sound moral foundation, in the power of the words' sincerity.
Conciliatory politics is the art of solving every social problem by using the possibilities of politics, expecting a solution from politics and basing politics on respect, dialogue, negotiation, mutual visits, discussion and intellectual exchanges. The modern theories of democracy haven't quite reached the moral and harmonizing references of conciliatory politics with regard to their intellectual resources. However, there is a very conscientious ongoing search throughout the world for such politics. When we view Islam and its historical references from this perspective, it is apparent that it has very rich philosophical resources that will help current democracies prosper. The fundamental problem lies in the intrigue of otherization, although we may accept those who have the right to regulate political power relations. When we surmount this problem, we will reach the moral aim of conciliatory politics.
Benzer Haberler 
