ABSTRACT
Three different sets of arguments lie at the heart of the theoretical endeavor of this book and provide a rationale for developing a processual account of the international in light of the identity/alterity nexus (see Chapters 1 and 2). First, from the perspective of social theory, IR often considers identity to be either a corporate or social dimension of a social entity, thus crystallizing a spatial conceptualization of the international that is divided into an inside and an outside (Walker 1993). This crystallization is even more apparent when considering IR’s propensity to consider identity as an intrinsic property of a social entity. By either distinguishing between corporate and social identity or by considering identity to be an intrinsic property of a social entity, IR theories face a form of process-reduction (Elias 1978: 112-16). In other words, IR theories run the risk of overlooking the trans-actions of articulations at the heart of an identity in relation to alterity. To do so requires going beyond the strict spatial considerations usually used to think about the international. Second, from the perspective of political theory, while most IR theories
do take alterity into account, they often do so in a limited and limiting way. In fact, most IR theories are not interested in understanding the formation, performance, or transformation of collective political self-understandings/ representations per se, instead taking the state for granted as the main social entity comprising these identities in order to approach the international. In a sense, these theories are shying away from the processes that are sociologically as well as politically constituting and shaping the international, thus limiting the analyst’s access to its complexity. More generally, when trying to understand the relations of power constituting collective political subjects, one is entitled to look at both the “corporate” and “social” dimensions of a social continuant’s identity, thus showing the need to collapse those categories into constitutive processes, thus going beyond the inside/outside dichotomy (Ferguson and Mansbach 1996b). Finally, from the perspective of both social and political theory, most IR
theories center their understanding of the international on the mechanism of othering. Moreover, even among those focusing on processes and practices, there is a reliance on a vision of identities as being the result of strategically or
historically determined sub-sets of domestic identities. This approach precludes considering complex configurations of power relations that exist not only between identity and an “external” alterity, but also those within the competing articulations of an identity. These configurations reflect the formation, performance, or transformation of a specific collective political identity at a specific time. An over-reliance on othering is based on a dichotomized vision of the identity/alterity nexus, as well as on a belief in the centrality and dominance of the figuration of inversion, whereby alterity is the inverted other of identity. One consequence is the a priori elimination of other figurations of alterity, such as comparison, from our conceptualization of the identity/alterity nexus and thus of the international. Figurations other than inversion and mechanisms subtler than othering participating in and constituting the international are consequently considered only through a normative prism. The empirical chapters clearly demonstrate the relevance of these three
arguments. The distinction between “corporate” and “social” identity collapses, since both “dimensions” are intricately intertwined in discourses and practices. This highlights the relevance of a dialogical approach to identity and the international. Moreover, a dialogical approach enables us to study the relations between a multitude of potential and possible articulations of an identity in order to see how, across time, emerging hegemonic collective political identities – as well as their alternatives – are in continuous transaction with alterity and among themselves. Finally, these transactions cannot be only thought through binaries and dichotomies. As earlier chapters demonstrate, focusing solely on the mechanism of othering limits our ability to grasp the complex configurations of power relations at play in the formation, performance and transformation of a Japanese collective identity. The empirical discussion further indicated the importance of considering
identity dialogically, as a social continuant and as the interweaving of its expressivity, contextuality, and relationality. Each competing collective political self-understanding/representation in Japan represented a significantly different vision of the Japanese polity. Despite these crucial differences, all of these dialogical transactions participated in a triangular relation with the east and, even more pre-eminently with the West. As Eiji Oguma (2002 [1995]) has argued, a heterogeneous self-understanding/
representation was the hegemonic articulation during the period under consideration in Chapter 4. This identity was significantly articulated through a “mimetic” relation to the West, in the context of Western military and cultural imperialism in Asia. We saw that homogeneous self-understandings/ representations, dominant until the end of the Tokugawa era, had to recast themselves in light of the transformations of the Meiji Restoration. To do so meant adopting specific forms of expression, notably the discourses of science and civilization, in order to compete with heterogeneous articulations that also sought to provide legitimate descriptions of what the Japanese polity should look like.
