The Other and its Limits

The primary objective of this set of notes is to provide a critical examination of ‘the Other’, not only as a theoretical construct, but also as a practical tool in shaping social interactions and communications. It’s helpful, where possible, to unravel the complexities of this concept, which has been pivotal in understanding identity formation, power structures, and intergroup relations. However, in doing so, it also recognizes the limitations and challenges inherent in the traditional interpretations of ‘the Other’.

In our pursuit of alternatives, we delve into the realms of metamodernism, symbolic interactionism, and Immanuel Kant’s ‘Transcendental Aesthetic’, seeking perspectives that resonate with the multifaceted nature of modern social communications. These alternatives are not merely theoretical propositions but are grounded in practicality, aiming to offer more inclusive, dynamic, and context-sensitive approaches in understanding and navigating the diverse tapestry of human interactions.

By re-examining ‘the Other’ through these alternative lenses, it should be possible to contribute to the development of more nuanced and effective strategies in social communications. Such strategies are essential for fostering understanding, cooperation, and cohesion in an increasingly interconnected and complex world. The insights gained from this exploration are intended to be particularly valuable for professionals in the field of social communications, offering them new conceptual tools to enhance their practice in a globalised, yet deeply varied, social landscape.

The concept of the ‘Other’ in philosophy and social science is a multifaceted and much used concept that has been explored and developed by various thinkers over time. The concept of ‘the Other’ has been used in philosophy to define another person or people as separate from oneself. In phenomenology, the terms the Other and the Constitutive Other distinguish other people from the Self, highlighting the constitutive factor in the self-image of a person and the acknowledgment of being real. Philosopher Simone de Beauvoir considered “Otherness” as a basic category of human thought, emphasising the tendency to turn fellow humans into abstract entities that can be treated as less-than-human. The process of Othering, as it is known, occurs when we distance ourselves from or treat others as fundamentally different, leading to the mistreatment of those deemed as the Other. The concept of the Other also underlines how societies create a sense of belonging and identity by constructing social categories as binary opposites, leading to an inherently unequal relationship between these categories.

The concept of ‘the Other’ originates from modern forms of philosophy, and has been developed in various fields such as literature, sociology, and psychology.[i] In philosophy, the terms the Other and the Constitutive Other distinguish other people from the Self, as a cumulative, constituting factor in the self-image of a person.[ii] The process of Othering occurs when we turn fellow humans into abstract entities, we can distance ourselves from or treat as less-than-human. In literature, the Other is an individual who is perceived by the group as not belonging, as being different in some fundamental way.[iii] The concept of The Other highlights how many societies create a sense of belonging, identity, and social status by constructing social categories as binary opposites. In psychology, Otherness is an ambiguous term that originated in the writings of GWF Hegel and was later developed in the psychoanalysis of Lacan.[iv]

The origins and elaborations of the use of the term can be traced to several key areas:

Hegelian Dialectics: The notion of the ‘Other’ can be traced back to the work of the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. In Hegel’s dialectics, the ‘Other’ plays a crucial role in the development of self-consciousness. Through the process of recognising the ‘Other’ as distinct from the self, individuals can develop a sense of their own identity. This idea was foundational in the later development of the concept.

Existentialism: The theme of the ‘Other’ is prominent in existentialist philosophy, particularly in the works of Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre’s analysis of the ‘Other’ is grounded in the phenomenological tradition, focusing on how the existence of another person is a fundamental condition of one’s own self-awareness and freedom. He famously stated, “Hell is other people,” underscoring the tension between self and other in shaping personal identity.

Psychoanalysis: Sigmund Freud and later Jacques Lacan contributed to the understanding of the ‘Other’ from a psychoanalytic perspective. Lacan used the term ‘the Other’ to refer to the symbolic order and language into which an individual is socialised. This encompasses the norms, laws, and structures of society that influence the formation of the self.

Postcolonial Theory: The ‘Other’ is a central concept in postcolonial theory, where it is used to describe the social and psychological processes of how the West constructs its identity in opposition to those it colonises or deems as culturally and racially different. Key figures like Edward Said, in his work “Orientalism”, and Frants Fanon have explored how colonial powers have othered non-Western societies, reinforcing a sense of superiority and justifying colonial rule.

Feminist Theory: Feminist theorists, notably Simone de Beauvoir in her seminal work “The Second Sex”, have used the concept of the ‘Other’ to describe the marginalisation and objectification of women in patriarchal societies. Beauvoir famously argued that woman has been historically constituted as the ‘Other’ of man, a fundamental alterity that defines her as secondary and subordinate in a male-dominated society.

Critical Race Theory: This area of study also engages with the concept of the ‘Other’, particularly in the context of race and ethnicity. It examines how racial and ethnic minorities are othered within dominant cultures, leading to systemic marginalisation and discrimination.

The concept of the ‘Other’ in philosophy and social science represents a confluence of intellectual traditions, each contributing to a richer understanding of how individuals and groups construct identities in relation to those they perceive as different or outside of themselves. The concept continues to be influential in contemporary discussions of identity, power, and social relations.[v]


The concept of the ‘Other’ has been subject to various criticisms from different philosophical and theoretical perspectives. Some of the main criticisms include:

Essentialism and Overgeneralisation: Critics argue that the concept of the ‘Other’ often leads to essentialism, where diverse individuals and groups are homogenised and characterised by oversimplified traits. This can result in the reinforcement of stereotypes and fail to acknowledge the complexities and differences within groups. It overlooks the fact that individuals can belong to multiple groups and have intersecting or interactional identities.

Reinforcement of Binary Oppositions: The concept of the ‘Other’ is based on binary oppositions (us vs. them, self vs. other, East vs. West, etc.). Critics point out that this dichotomy can reinforce oppositional and hierarchical thinking, perpetuating the very divisions and inequalities it seeks to critique. It can inadvertently reinforce a sense of superiority in the self or the dominant group, rather than promoting a more nuanced understanding of difference.

Neglect of Individual Agency: The focus on structural and societal factors in the construction of the ‘Other’ can sometimes neglect the role of individual agency. Critics argue that this approach might overlook how individuals and groups actively resist, negotiate, and redefine the categories imposed on them.

Political Implications and Misuse: The concept of the ‘Other’ can be misused in political rhetoric to justify exclusionary or discriminatory policies. By othering certain groups, political entities might legitimise unequal treatment and discrimination. This criticism is particularly relevant in the context of nationalist, racist, or xenophobic discourses.

Methodological Concerns: Some critics point out methodological issues in the way the concept of the ‘Other’ is applied in social sciences and humanities. They argue that there is often a lack of empirical rigour in analysing how the process of othering occurs and its specific impacts.

Failure to Address Intersectionality: The concept has been critiqued for not adequately addressing the complexities of intersectionality – how different aspects of identity (race, gender, class, sexuality, etc.) intersect and interact in complex ways. Critics argue that a more intersectional approach is needed to fully understand the dynamics of othering.

Ethical Concerns: There are ethical concerns regarding the representation and voice of the ‘Other’. Critics argue that discussions about the ‘Other’ can become paternalistic or objectifying, where the ‘Other’ is spoken about rather than engaged with as active agents in their own right.

In response to these criticisms, scholars have attempted to refine and develop the concept, ensuring it is used in a way that is sensitive to complexities, avoids generalisations, and recognises the agency and intersectionality of individuals and groups. Despite these criticisms, the concept of the ‘Other’ remains a valuable tool in understanding and analysing social and cultural relations and power dynamics.

Symbolic Interaction Rather than Intersection

The concept of Symbolic Interactionism, a framework in sociology and social psychology, offers both complementary and contrasting perspectives to the conceptualisation of the ‘Other’. Understanding the relationship between these two concepts involves examining how each addresses identity, social relations, and the construction of meaning.

Construction of Meaning and Identity: Both Symbolic Interactionism and the concept of the ‘Other’ emphasise the social construction of meaning and identity. Symbolic Interactionism posits that individuals create and interpret the social world through the meanings they ascribe to symbols, including language and social actions. The ‘Other’ is a significant symbol in this process, as the way we define and perceive the ‘Other’ shapes our own identity and social interactions.

Role of Social Interaction: Symbolic Interactionism emphasises that self-identity is formed and maintained through social interactions. Similarly, the concept of the ‘Other’ is fundamentally relational – it exists in contrast to and is defined by the self or the in-group. Our interactions with those we perceive as ‘Other’ are integral to how we understand ourselves and our place in the social world.

Dynamic and Fluid Nature of Identity: Both frameworks highlight the dynamic and fluid nature of identity. In Symbolic Interactionism, the self is seen as an ongoing process, continuously shaped by social interactions. The perception of the ‘Other’ is also not static; it evolves based on social, cultural, and historical contexts.

Focus on Power Dynamics: The concept of the ‘Other’ often involves an analysis of power dynamics and how certain groups are marginalised or dominated. It examines the structural and systemic aspects of this marginalisation. Symbolic Interactionism, while it can account for these dynamics, traditionally focuses more on individual and micro-level interactions and may not always directly address broader power structures and inequalities.

Agency and Resistance: Symbolic Interactionism places a strong emphasis on individual agency – the ability of individuals to act and make choices. In contrast, the conceptualisation of the ‘Other’ often focuses on how groups are subjected to processes of othering, which can imply a more passive role. However, this doesn’t mean that those labelled as ‘Other’ lack agency; many approaches within the study of the ‘Other’ also explore resistance and agency.

Methodological Differences: Symbolic Interactionism often employs qualitative methodologies, focusing on individual experiences and interpretations. Studies of the ‘Other’, particularly in postcolonial and feminist contexts, might also use these methods but can additionally employ critical theory and historical analysis to understand larger systemic issues.

While there are areas of overlap between Symbolic Interactionism and the concept of the ‘Other’, particularly in the understanding of identity as socially constructed and fluid, they differ in their emphases on power dynamics, systemic structures, and the level at which social phenomena are analysed (micro vs. macro). Both frameworks offer valuable insights into the complexities of social identity and interaction.


Metamodernism, a cultural and philosophical approach that emerged as a response to and evolution of postmodernism, offers both complementary and contrasting elements when compared to the concept of the ‘Other’. Understanding the relationship between Metamodernism and the ‘Other’ involves examining their respective approaches to identity, reality, and societal structures.

Hybridity and Fluidity: Metamodernism is characterised by a fluid oscillation between varying modes of understanding and experience, such as irony and sincerity, scepticism and hope, or detachment and engagement. This fluidity can complement the concept of the ‘Other’ by challenging rigid categorisations and binary oppositions (such as self/other, us/them) that are often critiqued in postmodern and postcolonial theories. Metamodernism’s embrace of ambiguity and multiplicity can offer a more nuanced understanding of the ‘Other’.

Narratives and Constructed Realities: Both Metamodernism and the concept of the ‘Other’ acknowledge that realities and identities are socially and culturally constructed. Metamodernism often involves a self-aware play with these constructions, which aligns with how the ‘Other’ is understood as a product of social, cultural, and historical narratives.

Engagement with Global and Local Contexts: Metamodernism’s tendency to engage with both global and local perspectives can enrich the understanding of the ‘Other’, emphasising how globalising forces interact with local cultures and identities. This can lead to a more comprehensive view of how the ‘Other’ is constructed and perceived in different contexts.

Critique of Irony and Detachment: Metamodernism often critiques the postmodern emphasis on irony, detachment, and scepticism, advocating instead for a re-engagement with sincerity and authenticity. This contrasts with some interpretations of the ‘Other’, particularly in postmodern contexts, where irony and scepticism might be used to deconstruct and critique the processes of othering.

Emphasis on Hope and Constructive Engagement: Metamodernism’s inclination towards hope, constructive engagement, and the synthesis of opposites can contrast with more critical or deconstructive approaches to the ‘Other’. While the concept of the ‘Other’ often focuses on critiquing power structures and inequalities, Metamodernism might aim to transcend these critiques with an emphasis on positive engagement and the creation of new narratives.

Reconciliation of Dichotomies: Metamodernism’s approach to reconciling dichotomies and embracing a both/and perspective may oppose more traditional views of the ‘Other’ that rely on clear distinctions between self and other, or dominant and marginalised groups. Metamodernism’s approach might aim to integrate and transcend these binaries, offering a more holistic view.

Metamodernism’s emphasis on fluidity, hybridity, and the synthesis of divergent perspectives can complement the concept of the ‘Other’ by offering new ways to understand and transcend traditional binaries and categorisations. However, its critique of pure irony and detachment and its inclination towards hope and positive engagement might contrast with more critical approaches to understanding and deconstructing the ‘Other’. Both Metamodernism and the concept of the ‘Other’ contribute to a richer understanding of identity, culture, and social dynamics in contemporary society.

Transcendental Aesthetics

Immanuel Kant’s concept of the ‘Transcendental Aesthetic,’ as outlined in his seminal work “Critique of Pure Reason,” provides a foundational philosophical framework that can be related to, yet is distinct from, the concept of the ‘Other’. The ‘Transcendental Aesthetic’ deals with the nature of sensory experience and the conditions that make perception possible, while the concept of the ‘Other’ is more directly concerned with social identity and relational dynamics. However, there are points of intersection and differentiation, especially in terms of how these concepts influence ideas of imagination, intuition, and reason.

Conditions of Experience: Kant’s ‘Transcendental Aesthetic’ focuses on the a priori conditions that make experience possible, such as space and time, which he argues are not empirical concepts derived from experience but rather innate forms of intuition. In relation to the ‘Other’, this perspective can be used to understand how our basic perceptual frameworks shape our experience and conceptualisation of those who are different from us. The consequence of which is that our social comprehension is bounded by our capacity to conceive of the world along phenological lines.

Subjectivity of Perception: While Kant’s emphasis on the subjective nature of our sensory experience – that we do not perceive the world as it is in itself, but only as it appears to us through these a priori lenses – resonates with the construction of the ‘Other’ ultimately there has to be a rational basis for our perception of other beings that we interact with. The ‘Other’ is often understood as a product of subjective social and cultural perceptions and projections, but this is not a groundless experience and has roots in our modes of perception.

In Kantian philosophy, imagination is a faculty that synthesises sensory data into coherent images. This is distinct from the concept of the ‘Other’, which doesn’t necessarily involve the creative synthesis of imagination but rather the social and psychological processes of distinguishing self from non-self. For Kant, intuition refers to the immediate, pre-conceptual mode of apprehending objects through sensibility (i.e., space and time). In the context of the ‘Other’, intuition might play a role in the immediate, often unconscious, recognition and categorisation of someone as ‘Other’. However, Kant’s notion is more concerned with the fundamental ways in which objects are presented to us, rather than social categorisation.

Kant distinguishes reason from intuition and imagination, viewing it as the faculty of deriving abstract and universal knowledge. The conceptualisation of the ‘Other’ involves social, historical, and psychological understandings that go beyond the immediate data of sensibility and even the synthesising capabilities of imagination, entering the realm of reasoned analysis and critique.

While Kant’s ‘Transcendental Aesthetic’ provides a framework for understanding the fundamental conditions of human perception, it operates on a different level than the concept of the ‘Other’, which is more concerned with social identity and relations. However, Kant’s insights into the subjective nature of perception and the roles of imagination, intuition, and reason offer valuable perspectives for understanding how we perceive and conceptualise the ‘Other’.

The exploration of the concept of ‘the Other’ in this paper reveals a complex web of tensions that permeate various domains of philosophy, psychology, and social theory. From Hegel’s dialectics to postcolonial critiques, the idea of ‘the Other’ has been pivotal in understanding identity, power, and difference. These tensions, however, are not merely theoretical quandaries but have profound implications for practical applications in social communications.

Attempts at reconciliation of these tensions, while well-intentioned, may not necessarily yield the most effective solutions. The traditional approaches to ‘the Other’ often risk oversimplifying or negating the inherent complexities and paradoxes within intergroup and interpersonal dynamics. The quest for a harmonious resolution can inadvertently lead to the erasure of essential differences and the nuances of individual experiences.

In light of these challenges, the paper advocates for a perspective inspired by Carl Jung’s recommendation to ‘hold the tension of the opposites.’ This approach does not seek to resolve or diminish the contradictions inherent in the concept of ‘the Other’, but rather to acknowledge and maintain them as a dynamic and integral part of human interaction and social communication. By embracing these tensions, we open up a space for deeper understanding and appreciation of the multifaceted nature of human relationships.

Holding the tension of the opposites allows for a more nuanced and empathetic engagement with the concept of ‘the Other’. It encourages an ongoing dialogue and reflection, rather than a premature closure or resolution. This approach is particularly relevant in the context of social communications, where simplistic narratives often fail to capture the complexities of human experiences and interactions.

In conclusion, these notes leave room to embrace the tensions within the concept of ‘the Other’ offers a more fruitful and realistic approach for social communications. It invites professionals in this field to engage with these complexities, not as problems to be solved, but as opportunities for deeper understanding and connection. This perspective aligns with emergent and developmental principles of personal and social growth, fostering a more inclusive, empathetic, and effective practice in the realm of social communications.






Liked it? Take a second to support Decentered Media on Patreon!

Become a patron at Patreon!