In the essay On the Cannibals of Montaigne, the critical analysis of European and Brazilian society through the perspective of the "other" establishes the distinction between the two worlds. However, the definitions of “self” and “other” quickly become confused as Montaigne links more synonymous aspects in the governance and functioning of the two groups of people. By labeling outsiders as the “self” and accepting their formalities as the norm, he undermines Europeans as the “other” and uses the barbarians to examine the civilized with an untainted perspective, allowing for close examination and analysis of both societies . It is through this definition that Montaigne is initially able to criticize the ignorance of European arrogance and supposed superiority over barbarians. Montaigne concludes that both the civilized and the uncivilized possess aspects that deviate from Nature's idealized state of purity. The Europeans are much more corrupt but, upon further introspection, the cannibals are evolving towards the same nature of developing a more inorganic society. Thus, the definition of “self” offers a deeper understanding of the Barbarians and rejects the importance of Montaigne's society, while affirming the inevitability of the Barbarians' transition to a more developed culture such as that of Europe. The “foreigner” as defined by Montaigne's definition The problem is Europeans who ignorantly consider their society to be the center and pinnacle. For the cannibalistic natives who run a much more primitive society than Europe and who care only about the rudimentary aspects of life, European society is peculiar. The Europeans “agree to obey a boy” (p.240) and have an extreme social injustice where “…… middle of paper…… er” they become the Barbarians. If foreigners were the cannibals, then the status quo of French society would be preserved and foreigners' cannibalistic behaviors would become unconventional. This presupposes the belief that Europeans are the norm. Identifying the “self” and the “other,” he first defines the differences between the two and then nuances them to assert that the universal human being possesses characteristics of both societies and that one is not necessarily more civilized than the other. As the essay progresses, the encounter between the barbarian and the European suggests that the cannibals are closer to the operations of nature but will ultimately progress to the same social structure as that found in Europe. It therefore addresses the universal human by examining both societies but not offering an absolute standard for which is more barbaric.