People are different in innumerable ways, but their main life concerns always appear similar. They have, undeniably, varied social status and diverse religious backgrounds, and when confronted with facts like life and death, hate and love, their reactions may take different shapes. People are different, life tells us, but peaceful human interactions always rely upon mutual understanding. Last month, Timothy Garton Ash, in his column in The Guardian, gently asked Americans to meticulously explore their image in other peoples' minds rather than constantly taking judgmental positions towards every single incident that happens around the world. As a leading European historian that splits his academic year between Oxford and Stanford, Ash seems to realise the genuine obstacle in the way of human interactions: better understanding of oneself and others. Last week, almost 600 participants coming from all over the globe, reflecting diversity in religion, culture and gender, echoed Ash's question in a conference sponsored by the King Abdullah Abdel-Aziz International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue. What images do we store in mind about others, and what do others think of us? People thirst for understanding. Sociologically, the images of others in our minds could be stereotypes or facts. Nevertheless, life is not black and white; rather it encompasses many colours. It is neither realistic nor just for one person or a group of people to claim ownership of absolute reality. During the last few months I got the impression that Westerners, primarily in political circles, allege to know better than Egyptians what happened on 3 July; the majority of Egyptians say it is a “revolution”, while a plenty of Western hallways of power and researchers say it is a “coup”. Although the whole issue is a purely domestic matter, some Egyptian intellectuals and politicians, who roam influential world capitals, have been dragged into an apologetic position. In fact, politicians everywhere assess situations based on their self-conceived interests. On some occasions, the White House puts principles above interests and vice versa. In a meeting with a high-ranking official in Washington in mid-September, I raised the following question: Is it true that the US administration support the Muslim Brotherhood because the latter is presumably a cornerstone in the veiled American political architecture for the Middle East? The answer was “No”, but sometimes the US Congress and administration take actions that ostensibly support my opinion rather than delegitimise it. The suspension of a great portion of US military assistance to Egypt is a flagrant example. Having said that, I have to admit that among Americans themselves, some critical voices act differently, even before the latest statement made by US Secretary of State John Kerry that 30 June was an uprising and removing the first elected president was a corrective step on the democratic path. At the beginning of November, at Kennesaw State University in Atlanta, I lectured students and scholars whose composition reflected diversity in opinion towards the regime change in Egypt. Instead of hearing the same boring dichotomy — coup versus revolution — that I came across a couple of months ago at the Wilson Centre, Atlanta's students expressed different views on the Egyptian case, looking deeply into fundamental issues such as inclusiveness, social justice and consolidated democracy. I was flabbergasted to see critical minds that could successfully manage to keep a distance from biased media and partisan academic analysis. It was Atlanta, the place from which Martin Luther King's Civil Rights Movement sparked, flourished and defeated human exploitation. The students, therefore, acknowledge the power of people to change unjust situations. I left Atlanta with a rosy impression about people who choose to think critically and accept diversity. However, what I came out from Atlanta turned, for me, to a subject of debate last week in Vienna amid 600 persons, including politicians, intellectuals and policymakers from every part of the world. Religion, secularism, good governance, education, media and social justice were among the most discussed topics. Education occupied enormous attention — not only because a number of ministers from different countries came to Vienna to discuss this topic, but also because education is still widely seen as an avenue for reshaping people's minds and perceptions in favour of civic virtues. Social media plays a role in the socialisation process of young generations, but systematic learning is still influential. Indeed, individuals grow up in families, carrying their religious inclinations, social statuses, fears and hopes. When gathered together in schools, despite their differences, students learn how to develop common ground and to constructively work together. Primordial ties such as religious affiliation, family and tribal relations develop among adherents a strong sense of solidarity, but sometimes also hatred towards others. Institutions like the school, army and government agencies undoubtedly consolidate a sense of citizenship, nationhood, and public interest in the hearts and minds of the people. The conference ended up with some recommendations directed to policymakers to include the culture of diversity in school curricula as well as school life. From Atlanta to Vienna, I found myself before an important reality: diversity. Even when I passed through London for a couple of days I found that the number of Eastern Europeans is on rise, and British media is strongly underlining the migration cause. People are different and will remain so until the ends of their lives. I like to hear different views, team up with different people, and exchange views with different minds. Stereotyping is like a sausage-making machine, only producing alike items, bearing identical characteristics, and are sold at the same price. Human beings should be different. There is a real threat posed by a globalised world: the transformation of all socialisation institutions into sausage-making machines. If diversity erodes, the possibility of narrow-mindedness, hatred, prejudice and conflict heats up, simply because people will unwittingly be directed towards the designated ends of dominant politicians. For me, the acknowledgement of diversity is the only way to downplay negative attitudes and make national, regional and international arenas spaces for the creation of the common good and eliminating tension.
