ABSTRACT
This chapter provides a theoretical mapping of the identity/alterity nexus in IR theory from the perspective of both social and political theory. From the perspective of social theory, I argue that the nexus is either altogether excluded from IR theory or is artificially dichotomized into social or corporate identities, thus distinguishing and conflating two “variables” that, I argue, alongside post-structuralism, are actually participating in the same overall process. From the perspective of political theory, I state that a specific mechanism of the nexus, othering, is set at the heart of perspectives, such as those of the post-structuralists, that have been key in providing the main thrust in IR theory to endogenize corporate and social identities. These perspectives have greatly contributed to our ability to articulate the two together, furthering the case for processual approaches to the international, taking most notably into account the resistance of groups on which some identities are imposed (see, for instance, Doty 1996a; 1996b). Yet, by grounding their sociological and political understanding of the nexus on othering, these perspectives face limits in their ability to offer a fully processual theorization of the nexus of identity/ alterity. In order to construct this map, I first present a categorization of IR
theories based on their emphasis on either the corporate or social dimensions of identity (or on both) and whether these dimensions are an intrinsic or extrinsic property of identity. I then reconstruct some of the key tenets around which authors commonly center their work on identity/alterity, despite their analytical and conceptual differences. This reconstruction is a heuristic move, attempting to pinpoint limitations present across diverse perspectives, primarily the omnipresence of, and sometimes an over-reliance on, the idea of othering. Othering remains a historically and contextually bound mechanism, reflecting and leading to certain relations between an identity and alterity. Othering should therefore be placed within larger processes pertaining to the formation, performance and transformation of collective political identities. In order to do so, the final section will introduce the key tenets of a processual reading of identity, setting the stage for a dialogical approach that will be developed in the next chapter.
