The Other and the Self

      It is an aspect of human nature to seek out the differences and similarities between yourself and the people around you. This establishes distinctions between the citizens of the world; creating cultures, societies and social classes that make up the category of the “other.” Without the other, there is no way to define the self, because the other is defined as something different from the self. Therefore, the other and the self are counterparts; equal because they help define each other. Because it is impossible to eliminate the self, it is impossible to eliminate the other as well. Although history proves that many consider the elimination of the other to be a worldwide ambition, there is no way for “the other” to cease to exist while “the self” continues.

            The human identity is what embodies the self. Humans look at their own societies and cultures as root of the self. However, the sphere of the self can be defined in many ways. One way to analyze the self is as a society. When looking at differences in a society, the largest among the people is often class. Frequently, a society will set a goal to eliminate the other within them; a prime example of such an attempt of elimination is the formation of the Soviet Union. This state was formed under the principle of communism. Communism is a principle created to generate a classless society; in other words, to eliminate the other. However, this state eventually fell apart along with their communist society, reviving a society with classes. Among other reasons, this communist society did not function well because it eliminated the other. When there is no one for citizens to compete and compare to, not only is there no other, but there is no self as well. A society will not function without a definition of who a person is and what they are working for, which is essentially what happens with the absence of both a self and other.

            In the sphere of the world, the other is defined more broadly; class still differentiates the two bodies, however, the distinction between them is much greater. If we now define the self as an industrial state, the other is defined as developing states. Many organizations intend to eliminate the other by helping them become industrialized and providing them with the means to heighten their standing among states. However, these organizations may be successful in reducing the gap between the self and the other, they will never successfully eliminate it because the worldwide society will not be able to function. Without the other, or the developing states, there would be no definition of the self, or the industrial states. Thus, society would not be able to function as it does now.

            Although a fair society without class and other differences seems appealing, it is inevitably impossible to achieve and sustain. As history demonstrates, eliminating the other is impossible. No matter the sphere it is defined in, whether it is a person or the world, the self cannot function without the other and a society cannot function without a self. Therefore, society cannot function without “the other,” making it impossible to remove, as so many have set out to do. Because the other is impossible to eliminate, those focusing on doing so should instead attempt to lessen the gap between the self and the other, leaving more bearable differences and a functioning society and world.

The Other Side of the Debate on Differences

            In his writing The Conquest of the Other, author Tzvetan Todorov explores the implications of, “the other.” Created through the identification of self, “the other,” is thought to represent those that exhibit differences from what one culture perceives as a norm. In the context of a generation conditioned to reject ideas of racism, hasty generalizations, and bitter discrimination, and taught to tread the fine lines of what is considered politically correct, the creation of “the other” seems backwards and offensive. Despite the negative connotation associated with “the other,” the idea itself begs the question as to whether or not this concept of “the other,” as proposed by Todorov is something which is inherently evil. Though skeptics would condemn the creation of “the other,” as a clear flaw of the international system that comes with the adoption of state identities, I would assert that “the other” is in fact a neutral byproduct of the international system and is inevitable.

            With this in mind, it is important to note the origins of the idea that the other is malicious. As introduced by Todorov, in his discovery of Native Americans, Christopher Columbus found the new humans he encountered to be “noble savages,” defined by their gentle but coarse nature. So far removed from the cultural practices, language, and societal norms which Columbus had brought with him from Spain, the Native Americans were perceived as a lesser breed of human. He went so far as to describe them as bereft of the ability to speak; though they had a clearly established language, Columbus made no attempt to learn it, and instead proclaimed the Native Americans illiterate. Instances such as this, in which the ignorance of one international actor belittles the practices and norms of another, are the cases in which the establishment of “the other” is a malignant force. In the modern international system, we may see “the other,” as a problem in cases where impoverished or developing countries are subjugated by powerful countries belonging to the Western Order due to the skewed belief that citizens of these developing  countries are bereft of an established social structure, educational opportunities, or even modern practices.

            This being said, I would argue that cases such as these, in which one state asserts its assumed superiority over another, are the exception rather than the rule. The creation of “the other,” is not evil in and of itself, for if it were, the very concept of states having their own identity would be called into question. Under the realist assumption that each state has a series of ambitions and a need to ensure its survival, it is obvious that each state seeks an individual identity. Differentiation between state goals is the very basis of what creates “the other,” and as such, the establishment of self and the other are inevitable within our current state system. Rather than regard this inexorable pattern as something which needs to be eliminated, we must instead acknowledge that in order to maintain the sovereignty of states, which is ultimately the development of individual state identity or “self,” the “other,” must always exist. These are two inalienable characteristics of our international state structure.

            Rather than attempting to eradicate “the other,” from our international system, perhaps it would be well-suited to incorporate and celebrate the differences between states. While this may seem idealistic to some, the concept of respect for the variance in cultural particularism will encourage citizens of different states to learn more about others, and perhaps adopt a different perspective. As discussed in class, there is a great significance to the identity of each state, and while there are those who would condemn the construction of the “other” as a catalyst for discrimination and superiority complexes, in the absence of assumption there is room for a wealth of knowledge and tolerance. Considering that the creation of the other is an inevitability of the international system of our modern, state-oriented world, rather than attempting to reject the obvious differences, I think it would do states a great service to work to understand the differences between states in order to facilitate cooperation in the future. 

Prediction of Terrorism

When it comes to terrorism, the country of the United States counts on its intelligence agencies to warn them of upcoming attacks. However, having been attacked twice on a grand scale in the past 100 years, questions are raised about the intelligence’s ability to predict upcoming attacks as well as their ability to have prevented devastating attacks such as Pearl Harbor and September 11. The United States, having never been attacked directly prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, made a mistake by assuming no one would ever try to attack. By assuming this, American intelligence overlooked even thinking about an attack. Shelling suggests that when the United States runs into unfamiliar territory, it seems unlikely that it would ever happen to us, which then leads to ignoring that sort of problem. By having this mentality, the United States avoided giving an attack much thought. In Nate Silver’s The Signal and the Noise, he suggests that the possibility of an attack became an unknown unknown to the United States. Being such a powerful nation in the world, the US failed to predict terrorist attacks because it’s experience was inadequate to imagine it. 

In the events of the Pearl Harbor and September 11 attacks, Silver gives us clear evidence to believe that American intelligence could have predicted and consequently prevented the attacks. With the help of the Wohlstetter signals that preceded the Pearl Harbor attack and the evident clues leading to the September 11 attack such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice being warned in July 2001 about heightened Al Qaeda activity as well as the arrest of Moussaoui due to suspicious behavior, it’s easy to believe these traumatizing events could have been avoided. However, with the knowledge American intelligence has today concerning the clues they had overlooked in the past, it’s safe to say that we are no longer an unattainable and invincible nation. The United States, no matter how powerful a nation it may be, has to find ways in which they can prevent attacks in the future. Our nation is one that must predict the unpredictable, and in order to achieve this, we must work on our imagination. By imagining and predicting different scenarios we always believed to be unimaginable, we may be able to work on preventing just a few of those scenarios and saving American lives.

Industries Interaction with the Environment

It is no secret that the environment we live in today is changing for the worse, and something needs to be done about it. The relationship between governing bodies and the way we as a population interact with the environment is crucial in ensuring that we do not destroy our environment. In Thomas Dietz’s “The Struggle to Govern the Commons” he makes the case that without a strict governing body with a set of rules watching over how we interact with our environment than we will over use our natural resources and degrade the world we live in. I agree with this notion very much for without a set of guidelines monitoring pollution, fishing, and deforestation these things would run rampant.

             Looking at ecosystems in Maine, an example proposed by Dietz, they are a prime example of where regulation promotes a healthy and preserved ecosystem while deregulation of these fisheries leads to an ecosystem breakdown. The inshore ground fisheries are operated by a set of loose guidelines not stemming form any credible source. Therefore overfishing is abundant for higher profits are on the minds of the fishermen and a complete degradation of the inshore fishery grounds. This is a complete contrast to the lobster fisheries. They are bound to a strict set of guidelines that fisherman must follow. The resulting affect is an ecosystem that is able to handle the amount of fishing and still thrive. This highlights how in a situation without a governing body the leading affect is positive. This example can undoubtedly be used as a metaphor for many other industries. Pollution and deforestation are both industries that must be monitored by a governing body for without one their damage to the environment would be too great. But with a set of strict rules they can be monitored to the point of keeping a safe environment. By looking at a numerous number of industries and how they interact with the environment it is clear that it is best to have a governing body in order to monitor their harmful affects on the environment. 

Hindsight is Twenty-Twenty

            In the field of intelligence, officials are trained to identify anything out of the ordinary, whether that be noticing the absence of ‘signals’ as Nate Silver calls them in his book The Signal and the Noise, or uncovering any amount of information possible out of a jumble of competing signals. However, perhaps intelligence officers are neglecting a very important entity of possibilities, the unknown ones. As a powerful nation in the international system, we have overlooked the possibility of our own attack too many times. As Thomas Schelling states, “There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable” (Schelling). This failure to prepare for the unexpected, opens up the window for devastating attacks by outside organizations and terrorist groups. Schelling states, “When a possibility is unfamiliar to us, we do not even think about it” (Schelling), therefore putting our nation in a vulnerable position. The fact that the US is a nation of both capital and military strength may frame this false sense of security. But just because something has never happened before, does not mean that it never will as was proved by being blindsided both at Pearl Harbor and 9-11. Taking a realist perspective and realizing that power in the current international system is always up for grabs, states must realize that the motivation and likelihood of an attack is all the more realistic. Therefore no state, no matter how powerful should feel as if they are immune from attack.

            Looking back, the signs were all there in both situations that an attack was possible. The lack of radio waves from the Japanese should have been a red flag to American intelligence during WWII, and US security was aware that Al Qaeda had shifted their focus from foreign targets to the United States. So why was the US so unprepared for these attacks? Our ignorance to the threats around us can be linked to a failure of imagination. While in hindsight these red flags can be identified with much ease, these attacks were unknown unknowns, gaps in our knowledge that we didn’t even know existed. It is quite logical to assume that you are safe until your safety is threatened. In this way, it is quite expected that the US would not be prepared for an attack from a state that they technically weren’t at war with. The solution to this problem of unpreparedness then becomes not only making ourselves aware and prepared for the likely attacks, but more importantly the unlikely ones. A state’s safety in the international system is never guaranteed and therefore must be fought for every day. The only way to secure our nations safety is to expect the unexpected. “When making predictions, we need a balance between curiosity and skepticism. By knowing a little more about what we don’t know, we may get a few more predictions right” (Silver).

The Dark Side of NGOs

Sam Feldman

                                                   The Dark Side of NGOs


          Many non-governmental organizations, such as Red Cross, Greenpeace, and Human Rights Watch involve themselves in a wide range of issues that include pressing injustice or oppression, in which local governments are unable or unwilling to help.  Intuitively, many people believe that these organizations completely solve issues and partake in all positive encounters in areas of the world where people are suffering. Many of these issues include the environment, poverty, and human rights, and while their goal may be to help people in certain situations, they often end up doing the opposite and critically harming the people they claim to be helping.  In Sebastian Mallaby’s article “NGOs: Fighting Poverty, Hurting the Poor”, he exploits these organizations and has first hand evidence that they are damaging the people’s lives that they declare to be making significantly better.
          When Mallaby visited Uganda, he personally saw what these NGO’s were doing to supposedly “fight poverty” and “protect the environment”.  They were campaigning on behalf of these poor people, however many of their campaigns ended up harming the poor.  Many projects of these NGOs either ended up being useless to the Ugandans or disrupted their already difficult lives.  Similarly, they also claimed to be helping the environment, but after they forced out the World Bank (a financial institution that provides loans to developing countries), these NGO’s proceeded without the environmental safety precautions that the bank would have imposed on them.  This type of behavior is not uncommon among NGO’s around the world as they gain public support for their campaigns that they pledge to be saving lives and providing justice for certain parts of the world.
          A similar event happened not too long ago in 2010 with the earthquake in Haiti.  In 10th grade, I remember doing a research project on organizations devoted to helping aid the Haitians that were affected by the earthquake, and what I read was shocking. I always thought that these organizations did nothing but rebuild houses and donate money to save the destroyed lives of Haiti’s citizens.  However, the exposure of the failure of NGO’s during this time of suffering became clear.  Even after many NGO aid systems claimed to have solved many problems and provided tons of aid in Haiti after the devastating earthquake, there were still more than a million people living in overcrowded camps, many of which didn’t have toilets or safe drinking water.  These people were not necessarily even better off after the “help” of these NGO’s.  When money from foreign governments and private donors is pledged to Haiti, it usually goes directly to NGOs, which is then to be used at their discretion.   This is the perfect example of the corruption of many NGOs that claim to provide aid to underprivileged parts of the world.  While many organizations declare to be providing relief in areas during harsh times, it is important to research and find out what is actually going on in these NGOs, rather than blindly following their agenda.

United Nations Legitimacy

The United Nations (UN) is a multi-national body, which has the primary purpose of joining all of the world’s countries together with the set goal of maintaining peace and bringing development to the world. With this heavy task at hand the UN must have a sense of legitimacy. For without legitimacy any action or proposition set forward by this entity could be viewed as not having any real affect, or illegitimate. This sense of legitimacy, as argued in “Legitimacy, Power, and the Symbolic Life of the UN Security Council” by Ian Hurd, states that the legitimacy comes from the symbol that the worlds greatest powers come together in the Security Council for peace and positive development. I argue that the overall sense of legitimacy clearly comes from the Security Council and without it the UN would appear as an illegitimate body.

            The Security Council consists of 5 permanent states, The U.S, Russia, China, Great Britain, and France, with 10 other non-permanent states. This body’s purpose is to maintain global security when needed and to project force as well. The Security Council itself derives its power from the symbol of power and the projection of that power if needed. Within the Security Council 5 of its permanent members are the leading superpowers in the world the power is there. For if 5 nations that were not leading superpowers were permanent members of the Security Council it would lose legitimacy for the ability to project power would be lost. This projection of power in the Security council also leads to the overall legitimacy of the United Nations.  Without it any decree, or action for that matter, handed down by the United Nations would have no backing by powerful states to enforce it and therefore be illegitimate. It is power that fuels the United Nations legitimacy.