In a world riven by ethnic and religious conflict, we’re often urged to tolerate difference, as though tolerance alone could sustain peace. But Iranian philosopher Hamedeh Rastaei warns that tolerance by itself is dangerously unstable, since it merely buries conflict, which is liable to resurface at moments of strain. Far better, Rastaei argues, to recognise the deep metaphysical truth that the identity of our self depends on the difference of others. This idea can support a more stable peace, as rival identity groups can come to see each other not as threats but as mutual foundations.

An inevitable boundary exists between the Self and the Other. I am “I” precisely because I do not possess the characteristics, beliefs, and lifestyle of the Other. This difference—whether at the individual or collective level—erects a boundary between us that, in the initial encounter, provokes defensiveness. By virtue of being different, the Other appears at first glance as an “alien” and a “stranger.” This boundary, though natural and unavoidable, is inherently violence-inducing.

It might seem that our encounter with the Other is not always one of conflict or mere tolerance; in romantic or affectionate relationships, for instance, the Other is embraced and differences are celebrated. Yet, even in such bonds, the fundamental difference between two subjects does not dissolve; rather, love makes tolerating these differences possible, pleasant, and meaningful. However, in structural, social, and discursive domains, this encounter typically reduces to one of two primary paths: fighting or enduring.

1. Fighting can take various forms, ranging from indifference and exclusion of the Other to overt violence. In this mode, difference is perceived as a threat that must be eliminated or subdued. Yet historical experience shows that this path fails to destroy the Other; instead, it frequently unleashes a cycle of violence and retaliation. Even if violence appears victorious on the surface, it inflicts long-term damage upon the individual and the group itself, as the Other inevitably responds in kind.

2. Enduring involves striving to accept and tolerate difference. Although this path appears more humane and ethical on the surface, it faces serious challenges. First, merely preaching tolerance is often superficial and ineffective, failing to uproot the deeper causes of violence. Second, even if it halts overt violence, it may subject the individual to persistent psychological strain and internal conflict, as the difference remains an unresolved, alien element in the mind. In this state, a person or group must continue to wrestle mentally with their disparities and disagreements with the Other, struggling to ignore or suppress them without ever attaining genuine peace. Thus, tolerance here is not a serene acceptance, but an ongoing internal struggle that drains significant psychological energy and preserves latent violence within the deeper layers of human relations.

Thus, the boundary between the Self and the Other is not only inevitable, but also inherently violence-inducing. In confronting this boundary, one of two paths are often taken: either to fight the Other and eliminate or control difference, or to endure the Other and ignore difference. The question now arises: Is there a third way that transcends this dichotomy? Emphasizing our shared humanity is not a third way on a par with fighting or enduring. Such an emphasis becomes possible only once the identity of “I” and “we” has already been formed in distinction from the Other. Even the statement “we are all human” presupposes a “we” and a “them.” Commonality, then, does not erase that fundamental difference; it rests upon it.