Alt-dictionary: Otherness.
The condition or quality of being different. The other constitutes that which is different from the discursive subject that identifies it as such. In this action of identifying something or someone as the other, the discursive subject constructs its own identity also. In fact, the identity of a collective, be it national, cultural, or racial, is constructed precisely by this action of identifying the other. Once we have identified that which we are not, we have found who we are. In the construction of such dichotomy there is an inevitable discourse of difference that places the discursive subject above its other. Since the construction of an identity is not scientific but mythical, the appreciation that comes with an identity and its other is a qualitative one; the discursive subject sees itself as qualitatively superior to the other. These qualities include concepts that are difficult to observe empirically, but that after the construction of an identity through otherness they come to seem intuitive. A few examples of the concepts that help construct an identity through pointing out the other are race, religion, social development, moral values system and some particular idea of freedom.
Otherness has played and continues to play a very significant role in International Relations practice and theory. In the imperialist and colonialist era, Europe came to define its own identity for the first time by means of distancing itself from everything non-European, which occupied this necessary space of otherness. Through a discourse that observed Europe as being clearly defined by the concepts mentioned above, imperialism and colonialism claimed the entitlement to elevate the other to the status of the Europeans. An assumption was made that the other naturally wanted to be included in Europe’s own identity. What was missed is the fact that after forcing the colonized into the place of otherness, they developed an obvious bitterness, that then turned into pride for its own identity. In the present, identity and otherness construction are still a key issue to understand attitudes in the International stage. The tensions of the Christian/Western world with the Islamic/Arab world are a result of this. The discourses that feed into this tension are constantly repeated, for very few things have the power to generate a huge political response as that of an identity (in which people believe to be) being threatened by a monstrous other.
How IR theory and practice treat otherness should be a central issue in the present globalized world. If IR’s aim is to successfully manage global governance and foresee its conflicts, it must realize how much a certain identity is input into its theory; IR theory claims to be founded upon universal values, but many of the assumptions made by mainstream IR theory are the product of a particular set of values, and for this it has received the critique of being Eurocentric. If IR is Eurocentric, then it has marginalized all otherness to the place where it first did in the colonial times, that of the ignorant, the impure, the violent, and ultimately, that of lack. If IR can instead be founded upon the contemplation and embracement (not tolerance) of otherness, then it might be more successful at achieving its objectives.