Us and Them:The Role of Identity in the International Arena Kathrin Bachleitner (bio) In today's world, "us" and "them" is circumvented by identity. "Identity" is an interdisciplinary concept that describes the "self," or more precisely, the "self" as it is interpreted in the present. In international relations (IR), the "self" can be understood in individual and collective terms, yet it usually means the "state" or a specific community of states. Notably, any such selfhood necessarily requires an "other." Identity always means a specific self, an in-group, and as such, draws boundaries demarcating an out-group. Whether personal or collective, national or transnational, ethnic, race, class, age, gender, or sexuality-based, identities dictate who belongs and who does not belong to a specific group. In other words, there cannot be an "us" without a "them." In IR, the "us" usually refers to a state or group of states, often a regional rather than an international community. The "other" may be defined by geography or territorial boundaries but also by a diverse value system, mindset, or culture. Take the example of Europe—Europe is geographically defined by "others" that exist outside of its territorial boundaries: America, Russia, the Middle East, or Asia. Europe, however, is not a mere geographical entity. It is also a normative community. When it comes to its normative "self," the EU locates itself against "illiberal, authoritarian regimes" or, in some interpretations, against "Islam." "Others" can even stem from "the self" in another historical time. Europe's "temporal other" is its own war-torn past: its periods of totalitarianism, the Holocaust and the Stalinist gulags, and its colonial Empire. These "historical others" are essential in situating the current European "self" and, as such, defining, developing, and shaping Europe's "identity" in the present. "Identity," defined as "the current interpretation of the collective 'self' vis-à-vis 'others,'" therefore offers IR scholars a dynamic concept for their analyses. It helps to describe national interests, state behavior, and the formation of international norms and communities, and it can also explain episodes of conflict and reconciliation or war and peace between states. While identity is situated at the core of IR's constructivist scholarship, realists and liberals cannot afford to overlook it. In fact, a burgeoning body of IR works relies on identity as a concept to show how it shapes interests and state behavior in global politics. The nexus between state identity and state behavior is explored specifically by ontological security scholars. In their view, states strive not only for the physical security of their "body" but also for the "ontological" security of their "mind." In other words, they act in accordance with their established and perceived identities. When explaining the behavior between states and their interrelationships today, IR scholars thus cannot do so without recourse to identity. Yet, while the nexus between identity and state behavior has an intuitive logic to it, its influence is all the harder to prove. Ever since the concept of identity has reached the attention of scholars, attempts have proliferated—albeit often to no avail—to establish causality between this vague and intangible thing that is "state identity" and a specific outcome or state behavior in IR. Moreover, identities and their role in global politics consist of both an active and a passive [End Page 2] component; on the one hand, identities can be actively shaped and manipulated by politicians, but on the other hand, identities passively, often subconsciously, dictate what politicians think, believe, and do in IR. This level of versatility shapes "identity" into the useful, dynamic, and socially constructed concept that it is while also complicating IR scholars' attempts to employ it as a variable in their social scientific research designs (be it when using quantitative or qualitative methods). In IR, "identity" is not singular but plural. Identities are multiple, overlapping, and permanently changing. It follows that they are not static entities with which to explain international relations, but rather they are constitutive to international relations themselves. Take the current example of Germany and its deliberations with its historical identity in the face of the new threats posed to European security by the Ukraine war. IR scholars traditionally used the German...
Read full abstract
Apr 6, 2023
Marius Müller + 3
Open Access
