In order to understand the traumatising effect of stigma and discrimination on immigrants, the issue of ‘the Other’ should be briefly reviewed from a historical and conceptual perspective. Different human social groupings are commonly seen as ‘others’ by members of other groups. Mercier (2013), philosopher and novelist, captured it precisely as follows: ‘Others are really others. Others’. We human beings need to set up social networks with our fellows for existence and survival, which inevitably sets the basis for social groupings and, in turn, generates the categorisation of ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’, ‘me’ and ‘others’ or ‘us’ and ‘them’.

To obtain an overview of the roots of the issue of ‘the Other’, some of the works by scientists of the humanities were reviewed (see, e.g. Şenel 1982, 2003, 2014; Ilin and Segal 1942; Leakey 1994; Engels [1884] 2010; Hirs 2010; Mayor 2012). Historically, during the hunter-gatherer period of humanity, the main categorisation which was used as a crucial tool for survival was the distinction between ‘harmful/poisonous (food)’ and ‘edible/nutritious (food)’. Any obstacle in reaching necessary aliments was to be removed or killed including the other human beings or animals. These ‘others’, however, were not categorically conceptualised as ‘the Other’; they were merely obstacles to be eliminated in order to ensure survival. The establishment of such categorisations (i.e. ‘in-groups’ vs. ‘out-groups’, ‘me’ vs. ‘others’ or ‘us’ vs. ‘them’) has their roots in the historical period in which people were shifting from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to the period of the first settlements. The first settlements developed near to the big rivers. The Nile, Yellow River, Euphrates-Tigris (i.e. Mesopotamia) and Amazon, with their continuous flow of water, provided the preconditions for the earliest agricultural production. The first horticultural and agricultural societies were formed, and farming offered the inhabitants of these first settlements more sustainable means of nutrition such as wheat, corn and rice. Furthermore, shelters and housing, mainly made of mud and agricultural leftovers such as straw, became the living area; these new homes were obviously more protective than caves had been and were to form protection against the attacks of others. These processes also forced people to create more elaborate social groupings and organisations in these first cities. Göbekli Tepe, in southeastern Turkey, has been shown to be a good example of such a process in modern day (Benedict 1980). This development, in turn, gave way to more clearly defined social strata and the division of labour into categories such as social leaders, priests and workforces. The emerging social classes and hierarchy set the basis for sharing the surplus value and production as well as fulfilling people’s spiritual needs, especially in face of overwhelming natural changes and disasters. These social organisations were established through cooperation, collaboration and solidarity among the members of the ‘in-groups’. Moreover, they were an effective means of defending the group against ‘out-groups’. These modes of production and sharing were also reflected in their corresponding modes of thinking and mindsets. Conceptual categories of ‘members of my city’ or ‘my citizens’ or ‘my civilisation’ and ‘members of other cities’ or ‘non-citizens’ or ‘other civilisations’ or ‘foreigners’ had become a paradigmatic fact of the human condition. The zeitgeist of the city states had developed, and conceptualisations of ‘us/friends’ vs. ‘them/enemies’ had emerged and been established along with the formation of city states and city walls.

The conflicts of interest between members of ‘in-groups’ were solved through the use of inner regulations based on shared goals, ideals, values and rules, while conflicts with ‘out-groups’ were solved either by armed confrontations and wars or negotiations and treaties. Not only socio-economical life itself but also the psychological mindsets and mental structure of humanity gave birth to the categorisation of ‘us’ vs. ‘others’; hence, such categorisation has also been the source of discrimination and stigmatisation in the centuries that followed. This is a reality of human history/existence which cannot be ignored and should not be seen from a romantic idealistic perspective, but rather from a realistic humanistic perspective.

Accordingly, the crucial question is not whether the categorisations of ‘us’ vs. ‘others’ exist, but rather how and by whom these categorisations are determined. In any given society, the ‘social power relations’ determine the stratification of ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ groupings. This stratification works both for intergroup relations and for intragroup relations. Whether a group is to be designated as ‘the Other’ and labelled with prejudice and discrimination will depend heavily on the zeitgeist of the current dominant social power.

Although some sociologists consider the current historical period as the ‘post-national’ era (Soysal 1994), immigration and refugee policies are mainly controlled by national states and to some extent by international organisations founded through treaties signed by these national authorities. According to the zeitgeist of the current times, ‘us’ denotes productive human resources while ‘the Other’ is anyone outside of this group, such as the disabled. Of course, humanity has also developed policies and taken humanistic steps against such discrimination. The human rights of various minorities, including disabled and disadvantaged groups, immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers are protected by many international laws and treaties (see some of the relevant United Nations documents listed at the end of ‘References’), at least de jure, if not de facto.

Here, as far as the focus of our discussion is concerned, it is important to add that each era had inherited ‘the Other’ of the preceding era. Hence, in today’s societies, all the historical ‘Others’ could be and frequently are designated as ‘the Other’. This explains, why in various parts of the world, many people are still discriminated on the basis of their ‘in-group’ features, i.e. on the basis of race, nation, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, skin colour, health condition or abilities and mostly socio-economic class and inequalities.

Prejudice and discrimination based on such designations have been causing devastating trauma due to personal cruelty and mass violence and consequently human suffering on a vast scale in almost all societies. Human history is full of violent acts which are examples of specific discrimination of people with migration backgrounds. Today, the challenge seems to be to confront all the discriminative practices which have built up over the course of human history and have been inherited by our current societies. The solutions in such a process of confrontation do not lie in the challenges and solutions of previous eras; modern challenges cannot be resolved by referring to the means of premodern times. Tackling the discrimination of populations with migration backgrounds, whether it is based on nationality, ethnicity or religious belief, should therefore not be based on the values and zeitgeist of previous eras of national states or emperorships. Fundamentalism based on religious beliefs and national identities are premodern suggestions to postmodern challenges and the ones which lead to deepening suffering rather than furthering human collaboration. Our current task is to develop new postmodern ways of overcoming discrimination, thus leading to a more humane cosmopolitanism (Appiah 2006) by enjoying our intergroup diversities and differences. As stated elsewhere (Bartram et al. 2014), national identity is not the focus of attention in cosmopolitanism; people are considered equal as individuals, as global citizens. In today’s world, migration is considered as a key component of social transformation in general. The salience of national identity is a matter of great regret for many people, in part because of its consequences on how immigrants are sometimes treated by host societies. ‘Nationalism is something to be resisted or suppressed, particularly when one considers its consequences. Modern nationalism had fed vicious violence and wars ranging from individual acts of cruelty to genocide’ (Bartram et al. 2014).