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.