Self and Other

When Charlotte Mary Matheson began writing The Feather in 1929, numerous movements regarding women's rights were emerging. However, despite various references to contemporary issues, Matheson’s book initially did not receive much attention from critics; it was only after a few decades that The Feather became one of the best-selling novels, especially in Iran. In this article, a feminist reading of the novel was conducted on the basis of the alterity of the Other and the ethics of the French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. The common ground between the theories of feminism and Levinasian philosophy is the relationship between the Self and the Other, which according to both theories, needs to change. Traditionally, men were accepted as the dominant power or the Self and women as the second sex or the Other. On the other hand, ethics, according to Levinas, emphasizes a proper relationship between the Self and the Other. Hence, the kind of relationship between the Self and the Other and the alterity of the Other become important; thus, this relationship requires a new definition. This reading of the novel shows how the relationship between the Self and the Other in the story, which begins with carnal desires, eventually ends in a moral one. In addition, the female character rediscovers her independence and identity, which was initially dominated by men.

In the present paper, “Self” and “other” and their relation have been questioned. 7 types of political confrontation between self and other and, in a wider scope, between “our” culture and “their” culture are perceivable: conquest, conversion, assimilation and acculturation, partial assimilation: cultural borrowing, liberalism, conflict, and dialogical engagement. The first six were dominant in political history of humankind. But the last type is the only appreciated one that provides the path of development and progress in the shadow of peace and security.Findings of this article show that although the dialogical engagement is not the dominant type, there are some prominent and obvious cases in the Islamic heritage. Scientific contestation of Imam Sadeq and Imam Reza (PBUT), the believers of other religions and even atheists as well as the encounter of Abū al-Rayhān Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Bīrūnī and Indians in his everlasting book, India are examples of dialogical engagement.

Achieving peace in contemporary societies has become a fundamental issue in political and ethical thought due to complexities in identity, cultural pluralism, and political challenges. This article focuses on how the concepts of the "Self" and the "Other" are defined, and examines the impact of ethical readings on the possibility of achieving peace. The main research question is: How can ethical readings of the "Self" and the "Other" contribute to achieving peace in contemporary societies? This article explores the dominant frameworks for confronting the "Other" through a comparative analysis of the ideas of Carl Schmitt (friend/enemy dichotomy), Liberalism (rational consensus), and Chantal Mouffe (agonistic pluralism). Then, in contrast to these approaches, it introduces the responsibility-centered ethics of Emmanuel Levinas as a fundamental alternative. The hypothesis is that although each of these approaches offers a way to manage differences, stable peace is only possible through understanding the "Other" as an ethical existence that has precedence over the "Self," and establishing a relationship based on empathy and asymmetrical responsibility, as explained by Levinas. Using a qualitative content analysis method, this research shows that the transition from a purely political logic to an ethical logic is a necessary condition for peaceful coexistence and can lead to the development of theories related to dialogue and justice in human relations.