This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lebow, R. N. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Identity and International Relations

Drawing on Kant and Hegel, debates in political theory and international relations generally assume that an identity cannot be created without the simultaneous creation and negative stereotypy of an `other'. Figures such as Schmitt and Huntington accept and even welcome this binary, while others, among them Nietzsche, Habermas and Rawls, look for ways of overcoming it. Drawing on Homer's Iliad and psychological research, I challenge the assumptions on which Kant and Hegel, and their successors, build their argument. The Greco-Roman literary tradition and recent survey and experimental research indicates that identities generally form prior to construction of `others', that `others' need not be associated with negative stereotypes, and that even when they are, boundaries between in- and outgroups are quite plastic. Nor must stereotypes be negative. Homer and modern history suggest that identity construction and maintenance often take place through positive, although not necessarily equal, interactions with `others'.

Key Words: Gordon Allport • constructivism • Jürgen Habermas • G. W. F. Hegel • Homer • identity • Immanuel Kant • `other' • F. Netzsche • stereotype

International Relations, Vol. 22, No. 4, 473-492 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0047117808097312


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?