|
In phenomenology, the terms the Other and the Constitutive Other each identify a cumulative, constituting factor in the self-image of a person - the acknowledgement of being real. As such, the Other is dissimilar to and the opposite of the Self, of Us, and of the Same.〔“the Other”, ''The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought'', Third Edition, (1999) p. 620.〕 Otherness, the characteristics of the Other, is the state of being different from and alien to the social identity of a person and to the identity of the Self. In relation to the Self, the Constitutive Other is the relation between the essential nature (person) and the outward manifestation (personality) of a human being. In a binary perspective of the essential and of the superficial characteristics of personal identity, each personal characteristic is the inverse of an opposite characteristic. The difference is inner-difference, within the Self.〔 “The relation of essential nature to outward manifestation in pure change . . . to infinity . . . as inner difference . . . (within ) its own Self”〕 In the discourse of philosophy, the term "Otherness" refers to and identifies the characteristics of the ''Who'' and ''What'' of the Other. These characteristics are distinct and separate from the Symbolic order of things, from the Real (the authentic and unchangeable), from the æsthetic (art, beauty, taste), from political philosophy, from social norms and social identity, and from the Self. Therefore, the condition of "Otherness" is a person’s non-conformity to and with the social norms of society and to the condition of disenfranchisement (political exclusion), either by the activities of the State or by the activities of the social institutions (e.g. the professions), which are respectively invested with political and social Power. Therefore, in the condition of "Otherness", the person is alienated from the center of society and is placed at the societal margin for being the Other.〔“Otherness”, ''The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought'', Third Edition, (1999) p. 620.〕 When the term "the Other" is applied as the noun Othering, it is a usage that distinguishes and identifies (labels) someone as belonging to a category, defined as "Other". In practice, Othering excludes those persons who do not fit the norm of the social group, which is a version of the Self. Likewise, in the field of Human geography, the verbal-action term to Other refers to and identifies the action of placing someone outside the center of the social group, at the societal margins, where the social norms do not apply for the Other person. ==History== Conceptually, the Self requires the existence of the Other, as the counterpart entity required for defining the Self; in the late 18th century, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) introduced the concept of the Other as a constituent part of self-consciousness (preoccupation with the Self), which complements the self-awareness (capacity for introspection) propositions of Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814). Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) applied the concept of the Other as a basis for intersubjectivity, the psychological relations among people. In ''Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology'' (1943), Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) applied the dialectic of intersubjectivity to describe how the world is altered upon the appearance of an Other person, of how the world then appears oriented to the Other person, and not to the Self; however, the appearance of the Other occurs as a phenomenon in the life of the person, and not as a radical threat to the existence of the Self. In ''The Second Sex'' (1949), Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986) applied Otherness to indicate that the Master–Slave dialectic (of G.W.F. Hegel) as analogous to the Man–Woman relationship in the course of societal treatment and mistreatment of women throughout history. The psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan (1901–1981) and the philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas (1906–1995) were the intellectuals instrumental to coining the contemporary usages and applications of the Other, as the radical counterpart of the Self; Lacan associated the Other with the symbolic order and language; and, in ''The Infinite Other'', Lévinas associated the Other with the supernatural deity of scripture and tradition, thus, ethically, the Other is superior and prior to the Self. Moreover, the concept of the face-to-face encounter (wherein a person is responsible to the Other person) later was re-written to assume the propositions of Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) about the impossibility of the Other being a metaphysical pure-presence, that the Other could be an entity of pure alterity (Otherness) from which arise the matters of language and of the representation of an other human being. The conceptual re-writing of the nature of the Other was partly accomplished with Lévinas’s analysis of the distinction between “the saying and the said”, whilst retaining the priority of ethics over metaphysics. Lévinas describes the Other in terms of “insomnia and wakefulness”; an ecstasy (an exteriority) towards the Other that forever remains beyond any attempt at fully capturing the Other, whose Otherness is infinite; even in the murder of an Other, his or her Otherness remains uncontrolled and not negated. The infinity of the Other allowed Lévinas to derive other aspects of philosophy and science as secondary to that ethic; thus Lévinas said: Moreover, the term the Other also identifies and refers to the unconscious mind, silence, insanity, and language (to what is referred and to what is unsaid). There might also arise a tendency towards relativism if the Other, as pure alterity, leads to a notion that ignores the commonality of truth; likewise, problems might arise because of non-ethical uses of the terms the Other, Otherness, and Othering, which reinforce ontological divisions of denotation and connotation. In ''The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq'' (2004), the academic Derek Gregory said that the responses of U.S. President George W. Bush (2001–2009) to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 reinforced philosophic divisions of connotation and denotation that perpetuated the negative representation of the non–Western Other, when he rhetorically asked the U.S. populace ''Why do they hate us?'' as political prelude to the War on Terror.〔''The Colonial Present' Derek Gregory'', p. 21.〕 President Bush’s rhetorical question led the U.S. populace to make an artificial, Us-and-Them division in the relations between the U.S. and the countries and cultures of the Middle East, which artifice is a basic factor of the perpetual war on terrorism, and is a step away from eradicating the imaginary representations of the Self and the Other created with the Orientalist geographies produced by the fields of Oriental Studies; about which the cultural critic Edward Saïd said that: 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「other」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|