Influenced especially by Tzvetan Todorov's analysis of early modern European travelogues, travel literature has provided a strong heuristic for comprehending the development of modern and contemporary expressions of the international. This heuristic tends to emphasize the overpowering frameworks of the figure of inversion and the mechanism of othering to make sense of the relation between identity and alterity. This article retains the intuition that travel literature can provide for an heuristic of this relation while exploring an alternative way to decenter the European centeredness and modernist core of contemporary theories of international relations (IR) and calling on a non-European and non-modern travelogue to provide for such heuristic. Specifically, it explores some aspects of classical Greece as offering both a similar and a dissimilar experience to alterity by analyzing Herodotus' travel literature and the ways by which he translates difference into the realm of sameness. Calling upon Herodotus' writing shows that narration of difference does not necessarily imply othering and thus opens up new ways to conceptualize identity and alterity.
travel writing, identity, alterity, Todorov, Herodotus
The discovery of the Americas, and more particularly Tzvetan Todorov's analysis of certain early modern European travelogues, has had considerable influence in the way some theorists of IR have conceptualized the identity/alterity nexus over the past twenty-five years. Whether directly or indirectly, they have used travel writing as one of their central sources for conceptualizing and reflecting on the sociological, political, and normative dimensions of the identity/alterity nexus. More specifically, this literature centers on the discovery, exploration, conquest, and colonization of the Americas, and the travel literature attached to it, because this specific event is believed to help situate Western/ Christian/modern responses to difference. This partly explains the centrality of static and dichotomized modes of representation in the field of international studies despite professed commitments to processes and practices.
Modem European travel literature, and especially its eighteenth- and nineteenth-century incarnation influenced by the process of colonization, has provided IR theory with a strong heuristic for comprehending the development of modem and contemporary expressions of the international. This heuristic, however, emphasizes the overpowering frameworks of the figure of inversion and the mechanism of othering to make sense of identity and alterity. These frameworks are limited and limiting for our ability to conceptualize identity and alterity with social and political theory. (1) This article, while affirming the fundamental intuition that travel literature provides a useful heuristic for the identity/alterity nexus, looks for an alternative way to decenter Eurocentricism and the modernist core of contemporary IR theory. It calls on a non-European and non-modem travelogue to provide for such heuristic.
The analysis starts by identifying the influence of modem European travel literature on IR theory and then contextualizes Todorov's interpretation to show the westem-centeredncss and the modernist assumptions shaping the appropriation that has been made of Todorov's work in IR theory in order to ground a specific understanding of identity and difference at the global level. The counterpoint I propose to explore derives from classical Greece as both a similar--the ancient Greeks' relation to alterity was mediated by travels, voyages and, ultimately, colonization--and a dissimilar--the perception of the self and the foreign was not based on a sense of centeredness but on a culture of the periphery -- experience of alterity. I do so especially by looking at the writings of Herodotus, and the way they translate difference into the realm of sameness. Herodotus shows that the narration of difference does not necessarily imply othering in the modem sense and opens up new ways to conceptualize the identity/alterity nexus.
Travel Literature and IR Theory: A Quest for Origins
One of the most important sources mobilized to think through the identity/alterity nexus in theories of IR has been a specific literary genre set in a specific period: early modem European travel literature. This is clearly a relevant move in that travel writing has been one of the primary modes by which difference has been historically appraised, constructed, and represented in the modem West, both spatially and temporally.(2) Writers such as William Connolly, David Campbell, David Blaney, Naeem Inayatullah, Iver Neumann, Richard Shapcott, and Michael Shapiro (3) --to name just a few who have made use of travel literature while invoking the insights offered by Tzvetan Todorov's La conquete de l'Amerique (4) --have used travel writing as one of their central sources for conceptualizing and reflecting on the sociological, political, and normative dimensions of the identity/alterity nexus. As Connolly has put it, "Todorov introduces a zone of intertextuality between late-medieval Christianity and late-modem secular internationality in order to open the present to an interrogation of itself and its past." (5)
Discussing what he views as paradigmatic sixteenth century's travelogues of the conquest of the Americas, Todorov reads them as best expressing the "direct causality" the conquest of the Americas had on "our present identity."(6) From the sixteenth century to the present, western Europe was largely successful in imposing its way of life and values to the world and in assimilating the other; "as Columbus wished, the colonized have adopted our customs and came to wore clothes." (7)
The exploration and interpretation of the New World is an historical moment of significant proportions in the development of the modern identity. It is a moment of intertextuality in which traditional modes of representation struggle to make sense of contemporary observations. It is a moment in which (international relations are promulgated between divergent groups. And it is a moment when the intertextual and (inter) national relations are implicated in interracial relations. In the invention of America the confrontation between the European, Spanish, and Christian "self "and the "other" of the indigenous peoples is an encounter of lasting significance for the way in which it brings to the New World the orientations towards difference and otherness of the Old World. (8)
Modern European travel literature on the Americas, as the main conveyor of this "moment of intertextuality," is thus considered an important window for understanding not only the institutionalization of a specific form the identity/alterity nexus took in its western experience, most notably through othering and assimilation, but also the institutionalization of the international as such. This interrogation of identity, alterity and the international takes two forms. One is a form of genealogical interrogation on the modem origin and contemporary endurance of othering, what Todorov terms the "double movement" (9) at the heart of the western relation to alterity; this movement transforms alterity into an inferior other while equality is seen through the lenses of sameness. The second form is a normative interrogation of the possibility of moving beyond the " structural temptation" of the double movement; this temptation to other alterity into an inferior difference is not a psychological disposition but reflects the "logic of identity" and "the structural imperatives of social organization." (11) To ground responsibility through an interrogation of this specific historical event is normatively necessary to "imagine a world in which a given field of identities might hope to recognize differences without being internally compelled to define some of them as forms of otherness IT to be conquered, assimilated, or defiled."(12)
Thus in order to demonstrate how "America is the imagined community par excellence," (13) Campbell begins a reconstitution of different key moment of "foreign policy" in relation to alterity between the discovery of the Americas and the early times of the U.S. republic. (14) This reconstitution is set under the aegis of Todorov's analysis of the confrontation between Christian/Spanish conquerors and the American Indians. While acknowledging the limits of tracing a direct link between the discovery and conquest of the Americas and the United States of America, Campbell nonetheless notes that "there can be little doubt that, given its genocidal impact and philosophical resonances, this encounter profoundly though indirectly affected the country that now exercises hegemony over the term 'America.' " (15) This influence essentially lies in the fact that the self is "tempted by the logics of defilement [i.e., othering]" as the self is compelled by the "modernist requirements of order and stability." (16) While going beyond this logic is normatively possible, and necessary, this outcome is but a rare actual possibility.(17)
Similarly, for David Blaney and Naeem Inayatullah, Todorov's idea of "nonviolent communication," along with AshisNandy's notion of "dialogue of visions," are necessary elements to start seeing the "other" as a subject, thus going beyond the mostly Western conception of the other-as-object. (18) Furthermore, Todorov provides an inspiration for their treatment of the modem origin of the practice of othering as they examine several travelogues or thinkers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. (19) For Blaney and Inayatullah, "the self comes to know and act toward the other" (20) through the double movement; this highlights the "reflexes" of othering (21) that have to be fought in order to reach a situation of critical dialogue. (22)
Richard Shapcott also employs Todorov's analysis of the European encounter with the Americas as it makes "the argument for communication over and against its alternatives of assimilation and coexistence." (23) Shapcott is inferring four "modes of engagement" between a self and alterity from Todorov's La conquete de VAmerique. These four "modes of engagement"--annihilation, assimilation, coexistence, and communication--are not only practices but also "correspond to normative and philosophical positions." (24) Moreover, they structure Shapcott's main theoretical and normative argument, as they inform his discussion for providing an account of justice as recognition of difference.
Todorov's analysis encourages all of these writers to call upon what they consider authoritative discourses and voices setting the terms of the relations between a western identity and alterity: whether it is Columbus, Las Casas, or Sahagun, (25) Francisco de Vitoria, Jean de Lery, Hugo Grotius, or Tomasso Campanella. (26) Yet, it is necessary to ask, what was the actual place of these travelogues in the representation and performance of a "European" collective identity? Were they the only authoritative voices in their times? Were they the sole histor, (27) the voices setting the knowledge and moral spaces through which alterity is understood? This is not obvious. Rather, it is necessary to put early modern European travel literature on the Americas into some perspective: to turn, first, to Todorov's interpretation of these travel accounts, second, to travel literature as a specific literary genre, and finally to the contexts of enunciation of some of these texts.
The reliance on travel literature on the conquest of the Americas, and Todorov's specific account and conceptualization, can be problematic for several reasons. From the perspective of the literature on IR whose call is to reach an "ethical way of being" emerging from the recognition of "the very necessity of heterogeneity for understanding ourselves and others," (28) Todorov can actually be a problematic source. He has been criticized by Americanists for reproducing forms of homogeneity whether on the side of the Europeans or on the side of the Amerindians by shying away or ignoring many historical facts and sources that would go contrary to his argument and by reconstructing a completely inadequate account of an "Indian," an account, moreover, that is enabled by an uncritical adoption of the conqueror's tales about the "Indians." (29) As Deborah Root argues:
Todorov's apparent rejection of historical factors, particularly those which refer to dissensions within the Aztec empire, results in what is essentially a racialist explanation. In effect, Todorov is suggesting that the Mexicans were defeated because they were "Indians, " This not only assumes that the "Indians" were more like each other than like the Spaniards... but it erases the particular histories of both the Mexicans and the European invaders. In this way the conquest is produced as symmetrical, totally unique "event" in which "Spaniards" defeated "Indians." (30)
This homogenization of both Europeans' and Indians' stories and realities results from their categorization by Todorov into binary, symmetrical, and static items that are presented in an oppositional mode. (31) These forms of categorization into symmetrical and static dichotomies are also reproduced in theories of IR. (32) To give just one example, the index of International Relations and the Problem of Difference itemizes no less than thirty-three dichotomies identified and discussed throughout the book. (33) As Gesa Mackentuhn notes, however, "the dualistic theoretical framework of Todorov's analysis is basically identical with the dualism of the colonialist ideology it opposes. Sixteenth-century reality can hardly be pressed into a dualist mold without a few kicks and shoves." (34) Moreover, Todorov's reading of early modern travel literature seems more influenced by a postco-lonial reading of post-mid-eighteenth-century travel literature discussed by Mary Louise Pratt. (35) This reading centers on the intricate relations between writer and colonizer but is less "clearly applicable to the earlier narratives of exploration" (36) usually referred to in IR theory. It may be that early modern travel literatures "(in varying forms and degrees) bear the marks of a 'colonizing imagination'--tropes, fantasies, rhetorical structures--whereby the writers/travelers frequently fall back on defining the cultural others they encounter in terms of binaries that later consolidate and justify full-blown colonialism." (37) Yet, the "early modem travel narratives do not produce Said's orientalism, but instead recount cultural encounters in which self and other are not fixed in opposing positions hut are rewritten through discursive and social interventions." (38) What Todorov and many others miss are the "textual strategies" at play in these texts, confounding these "textual strategies with what [they] take as the authors genuine experience and [do] not always clearly distinguish between the discourse of the marvelous and the sensations of the authors (of which we can speak only by presupposing textual transparency)." (39)
Therefore, it is important to stress the difficulty of reconstructing a single European experience of or even a Eurocentric stance over alterity from this specific "event" (spanning over centuries) and the translations of this "event" through a specific literary genre (itself evolving over centuries). Travel literature as a genre and the "travel knowledge" that is linked to it is "hardly unmediated insofar as it is shaped by political factors, subject to authorial intervention, and plagued by general epistemological problems that attend the movement of information from one culture to another." (40) To take into account travel literature as a literary genre is to comprehend it as a "genre composed of other genres." (41) For Mary Campbell,
It is a genre that confronts, at their extreme limit, representational tasks proper to a number of literary kinds: the translation of experience into narrative and description, of the strange into the visible, of observation into the verbal construct of fact; the deployment of personal voice in the service of transmitting information (or of creating devotional texts); the manipulation of rhetorical figures for ends other than ornament. (42)
Travel literature thus works on the basis of "an operation of translation: it is aimed at transforming difference into sameness." (43) From the perspective of identity and alterity, travel literature has always been one of the first and primordial sources to narrate difference and to translate the latter into something intelligible for the self; more precisely, the discourse of the traveler offered "the textuality of a personal discourse ... accounting for the experience of the encounter with Otherness." (44) Difference is always translated through textual strategies from which difference becomes apprehensible and comprehensible in the cognitive, semantic, and semiotic realm of sameness.
From the perspective of travel literature as a literary genre, three stylistic conventions can be delineated in these textual strategies as to how the Americas were translated into European readers. These conventions span from the more monologic in relation to difference to the more polycentric. (45) First, whether through inversion or comparison, this literature in describing difference remained attached to ways of narrating using "one way" formulations by which one see, basically, what has already be seen. What is different, therefore, is not seen as such but as an aspect of something that is already known. Columbus is not discovering the Americas per se but comforting his biblical vision of the world. He is seeing in the "new world" what he already knew. These monologic formulations lead most of the time to mistaken representations with consequences onto what was represented. (46) A second stylistic strategy to make intelligible difference was found in keeping American names to American things. Naturally, this form of representation already required a certain acquaintance with this new reality, thus leading the way to more precise narratives. The third strategy is the descriptive style by which the autonomy of what is seen becomes possible to be narrated.
Moreover, these textual strategies and conventions are participating in forms of figuration of alterity that are dependent or function of a specific historico-intellectual period, a specific genre and its stylistic rules, and, further, of the own idiosyncrasies of the narrators. Figurations of alterity are forms aiming at and helping in translating difference into something intelligible to a specific self-understanding/representation; in so doing, they are part of the process of identity formation, performance, or transformation that takes the form of a "dialogue" between this specific, and usually hegemonic, self-understanding/representation, and alternative ones, alterity. (47) Figurations of alterity can take two basic forms: inversion and comparison. Both forms are "heuristic principles" aiming at making intelligible an alterity that would be opaque without it, they help forming a representation of the world, informing an understanding of it, that lay outside the world from which this world is uttered. (48) Todorov, and much of the literature on IR influenced by him, tend to limit their analysis of the identity/alterity nexus to the figuration of inversion as it simply allows to say that there is only a dichotomized binary whereby the self (a) is the inverted subject of the other (anti-a). (49) They rarely, if ever, consider other figurations such as comparison where dichotomization and symmetries are not necessarily at work. (50) While one can make a link between inversion and othering, thus tending to ground one's analysis on essentialized and static dichotomies, one has always to keep in mind that even these dichotomies are participating in a more complex system of representation that is not necessarily dualistic. Inversion is thus invested to "other" difference in a context of expression, yet this context might differ and inversion might only become a tool to tell difference without necessarily othering it.
The historical and literary contexts of enunciation are thus crucial. Without denying the importance of the discovery, exploration, and conquest of the Americas had in setting up the European moral and knowledge spaces in regard to difference, (51) one should replace this "event" in the contexts of the actual place and impact travel literature on the Americas had on the actual formation of an European/western self-understanding/rcpresentation. (52) In the context of French travel writing, for instance, Friedrich Wolfzettel notes that from the mid-fifteenth to the early seventeenth centuries and the advent of "Enlightenment's America" (L 'Amerique des Lumieres) it is difficult to "defend oneself from the impression that the genuine center of interest of French travels during this period was the Levant and that "orientalia" were far more in vogue than expeditions and explorations leading to the New World .... Therefore, the isolated narratives of a Jacques Cartier or a Jean de Lery are literally submerged by a flood of hundreds of travel narratives situated more or less within an ancient mentality." (53)
This ancient mentality is opposed in many ways to the modem movement of secularization, subjectivization, and the greater place given to the actual experience of travel, its lived moments (ve'cu), a movement somehow synthesizing the evolution of this genre. (54) What should we make of other narratives, in Islam, for instance, which is most often left out of these discussions, with the exception of Neumann's work on the Turks. (55)
Islam has been one of, if not the, most important interlocutors of the western/Christian experience of difference. (56) It is, for example, at the source of an articulation of the Spanish self-understanding/ representation through the Reconquista that only afterward came to the Americas. (57) Further, Islam has for long been associated with the East/Orient, which has been often, but not solely, (58) constructed from early on as the inversion of European's experience of subjectivity, polity, and society. (59) This relation to Islam and Muslims is notably important for understanding the forms that travel literature of the Americas took in Hispanic literature. The image of the Moor and the specific literature attached to it (60) has been shown to have echoes in Cortes' correspondence with Charles V (61) and a lasting influence on the ways Hispanic literature has dealt with the question of difference. (62) Again, far from denying the importance of the Americas in the development of a European self-understanding/representation, this discussion should make us aware of the limitations arising from relying solely, or mainly, to one particular experience, however central, expressed in a very specific genre in a limited period in order to provide for a more general understanding of the identity/alterity nexus.
To rely almost entirely on a specific corpus and genre to conceptualize the process by which the identity/alterity nexus function is problematic for this corpus is not a stable one but evolve through space and time. (63) Further, the static, symmetrical, dual, and dichotomized modes of representation on which IR scholars generally rely to think about the identity/alterity nexus were far from being the sole employed in early travel European writing. This therefore indicates a more complex relationship to difference during at least early modem times than is often depicted in IR theory. It thus calls to put into perspective the reliance on modern European travel writing to conceptualize the identity/ alterity nexus whether from its cognitive, sociological, political, and normative dimensions. Modem European travel literature, however, and its eighteenth- and nineteenth-centuries incarnation through the process of colonization has provided a strong heuristic for comprehending the development of the contemporary international. Yet, while retaining the fundamental intuition to mobilize travel literature to provide for a heuristic of the identity/alterity nexus, one might want to look for a way to decenter the modernist and European centeredness of contemporary IR theory and call on another figure to provide for such heuristic. Herodotus should then come naturally to mind as he not only assumed an equivalent position in his time as did the modem European travel writers, but also because to analyze his narratives provide us with hints as to how to consider the cognitive, sociological, political, and normative dimensions of the identity/nexus beyond their current modem and western comprehension.
From the Moderns to the Premoderns
To call upon a premodern figure to help us grounding a specific approach or to offer new insights is hardly new in IR theory. Thucydides, to name but one, is overwhelmingly seen as a patron for the study of IR in general and traditions of political realism in particular. (64) The use of such intellectual figures or historico-intellectual eras such as classical Greece to define IR is a legitimate undertaking to the extent it docs not run the risk of becoming ahistorieal and teleological, effacing the contexts of enunciation and the intents of the authors in order to legitimize a parochial and hegemonic reading. (65) What is first required is a reflexive approach to our use of past figures or epochs, whether premodern or modern. The best illustration of this reflexive move is to be found in the criticisms that have rightly been presented to this reading of Thucydides as a forbearer of realism. There has been, for example, a call for providing a more contextualized and balanced account of Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War as the latter has been shown not only to be only marginally "realist," but even "constructivist." (66)
Indeed, as argued most recently and cogently by Ned Lebow, (67) while most textbooks on IR would present Thucydides in the light of either the entire Book I of The Peloponnesian War or the famous Melian dialogue, (68) they will generally do so completely disconnected with the more general normative framework from which Thucydides is actually speaking. (69) One is here confronted with the tension between the nomothetic drive to generalize and the idiographic drive to comprehend specificities. (70) The idiographic drive has especially been present in recent attempts to integrate the premodern past as a way to both conceptually and empirically go beyond modernist and Euro-centrist, that is, largely nomothetic, conception of the "international." This effort has spread from rethinking our conception of political units acting in the "international" realm, (71) of the processes at work in the formation of those units, (72) of the idea of nation (73) and difference, (74) of power, (75) of postcolonisation, (76) of the political and justice, (77) or of religion. (78)
Calling upon Herodotus to show that narration of difference does not necessarily imply othering. Rather, he offers a way to open up how we might consider our conceptualization of the identity/alter-ity nexus is relevant for several reasons. Herodotus is one of the major histdr in Ancient Greece. He is a witness of certain acts he conveys to his contemporaries. (79) Moreover, an histdr's narrative places the ordering of one's own self-understanding/representation into a space, which is both a knowledge space and a moral space. He has an ability to tell sameness in telling difference. (80) The choice of Herodotus as a contraposition to modem European travelogues is also justified for several reasons tied to the period in which he was writing. (81) On one hand, both classical Greek and modem European experiences of difference were mainly related to travels, voyages and, ultimately, colonization. Both experiences were articulated through rhetoric of alterity translating difference into the realm of sameness, "through the filters of the colonizer's mentality." (82) There is, therefore, an apparent commonality in these experiences making their paralleling relevant. The main relevance of this paralleling, however, is situated in the differences between these experiences. First, there is a difference in how both conceived their point of departure. While the European experience is rapidly seen from a culture of the center, leading more naturally to the specific figure of inversion, the Hellenic culture, at least up to the classical period, was a culture of the periphery. As Jean-Pierre Vemant notes in relation to the ways by which the Hellenes made sense of and interacted with alterity, the Hellenes never radically rejected the latter; there has always been room for the commerce, in its encompassing sense, with difference. "It is an attitude among the Greeks, it seems to me, consisting in a properly rational dimension, a distantiation to the self, a critical opening." (83)
"The Greek starting point of 'place' was one of diffusion, not concentration. ... The Greek place in the Archaic period consisted of difference. Aside from occupying ourselves with the observation of differences between 'others' that seems to be the focus of so much intellectual discourse, we should look for a more sophisticated difference within a 'same.'" (84)
So a first lesson to be drawn from the Hellenic experience is the multiplicity of the self and the necessity to take into account alternative self-understandings/representations whether inside or outside a "collective self." Hellenes saw their identities not only through ethnic or religious prisms, if those prisms actually had the same importance or value as they had in the modem period in the west, but also through their political or civic identities, their federal, colonial, intra-Hellenic, or Panhellenic ones. Moreover, "In no way were such collective identities exclusionary; nor can we point to a priori hierarchies among them." (85) A second point of divergence between the European and Hellenic experiences of difference lies in their conceptions of alterity. Alterity was not seen by the Hellenes as absolute as many Europeans came to see it in the modem period. As Malkin puts it, "Distances, although relative to the technology of travel, still did not imply the complete unawareness and novelty of Columbus's time." (86) Thus, the second lesson to be drawn is the fact that Hellenes' figurations of alterity were in general more open to difference as telling and acting toward difference, the translation into the realm of sameness, did not necessarily lead to the assimilation to sameness.
In that respect, Herodotus' Histories represent a significant example of the nonreliance by the Hellenes to the sole figure of inversion. As Frangois Hartog points out, inversion is but one of the figurations of alterity that a narrator will use to tell difference to the group from which she or he is narrating. Inversion participates in a figuration of difference as an "operation of translation" aiming at making intelligible the world uttered to the world from which the utterance emanates. As such, difference is always somehow deformed; those who are actually saying difference might lack the proper intellectual categories to make sense of difference in its totality. Translation makes intelligible something/one that might have remained completely opaque without it. (87) Translation, however, is not bound to posit difference as an anti-self as the figure of inversion would tend to. To narrate difference does not either imply othering whereby a specific figuration is translated and transformed into a politics of alterity. If Herodotus is using elements of inversion, his whole narrative is "not organized according to a simple framework of inversion; its motive is not a generalized inversion." This actually cannot be the case since the Herodotean ethnography is not aiming at fixing a stable image of each population he is narrating the difference, whether the Egyptians, the Persians, the Scythians, the Indians, or the Amazons. (88) Further, Marco Dorati notes that,
But if all the barbarians are, by definition, different from the Greeks, all are not seen as such according to the same principle. To the Greek normality, ...an undistinguished and homogenous alterity representing all the barbarians is not opposed to dualistically; on the contrary, alterity is presented with very diverse levels. (89)
Even though the Hellenes are posited at the "center," that is in the world from which difference is uttered, Herodotus remains quite agnostic about others' ways of life, their ndmoi. (90) More, Herodotus is using others' traditions and sources, and more specifically the Egyptians', as a critical resource to decenter the Greeks' traditions and sources, seen as based on mythoi rather than logoi that he deemed to be often unreliable.(91) Indeed, "wherever the opportunity presented itself he challenged the mythoi of the poets and attempted to establish in their place 'true' logos, which constituted a revised history of men, heroes, and gods." (92)
In order to better understand how alterity is articulated within self-understandings/representations thus requires a wider scope of heuristic tools than inversion. Other figurations of alterity, such as comparison and analogy, could help us to do so. (93) This is not to suggest that IR scholars are wrong in using the figure of inversion, through the mechanism of othering. On the contrary, I believe that they make a strong case for its use. Yet, it is important to remember that this figure is used within-- and thus should be interpreted within--specific discourses located in time and space. Thus, any figuration of alterity--whether inversion, comparison, or analogy--participate in diverse horizons of possibility bounded by contextuality, by the histdr's cultural, political, and social capital, and their relationality to specific differences. Not only is the world from which difference is related an interwoven space of self-understandings/representations in which some are trying to become hegemonic, so is the world that is uttered one of multiplicity. Othering, as participating in a figuration of alterity, is not a necessary and sufficient condition of possibility of the self. It is but one possible figuration participating in a more general process of identity formation, performance, and transformation, even though it might predominate in certain historical-intellectual contexts.
The importance of a contextualized reading of travel writing to ground an approach to the construction of the identity/alterity nexus will become clear after discussing Herodotus' travel narrative. While the reliance on European/modern travel literature helps us to think about European and modern representations and attitudes to difference, they are not sufficient to altogether ground, through the figuration of inversion and the mechanism of othering, a comprehensive approach to the constitution, maintenance, and transformation of collective political identities over space and time. (94) To construct one's understanding of the identity/alterity nexus on a single, historically localized and culturally specific experience runs the risks of reproducing some of the limitations of this experience. As an analysis of Herodotus' travel narratives shows, and to which we will now turn to, a figuration of inversion is not necessarily linked to othering. In other words, other experiences, non-western and/or non-modem, of the identity/alterity nexus might offer us alternative ways to conceptualize the problematique of difference.
Herodotus' Travel Narrative
Herodotean studies have witnessed important developments and a revival over the past three decades, (95) prompting some to characterize the last ten years as having witnessed "a veritable explosion of Herodotus-related research and publication." (96) These developments were essentially prompted by engagements with works in the philosophy/theory of history, postcolonial studies as well as in anthropology and sociology. Through these engagements, Herodotean studies, and ancient Greek studies more generally, gave more importance to the Greek narratives and forms of representations about the Greek selves and their alterities by considering that they might not be as self-centric and monological as scholars thought them to be until then. (97) Prominent among these engagements, Francois Hartog's Le miroir d'He'rodote: essai sur la representation de l'autre, first published in French in 1980 and translated in English in 1988, "almost literally turned on its head" Herodotean scholarship. (98) Hartog set to the fore the proble'matique of difference in Herodotean studies by showing how Herodotus' description of alterity--the Egyptians, the Persians, the Scythians, and so on--was a mirror to "the Greek conceptualization through which the Other is grasped, [through] the systematic differentiation from the Greek; but that Greek conceptualization is often assumed. rather than being the 'real' or primary focus of interest." (99) In Hartog's words, Herodotus' mirror
can be understood in two [different] ways. If difference is a negative mirror, the mirror of Herodotus is to be found in the logoi dedicated to the non-Greeks, the mirror he holds up to the Greeks. ... The mirror of Herodotus also is the hi star's eye wandering and relaying the world, ordering it into a Greek knowledge space, and constructing for the Greeks a representation of their recent past. (100)
Hartog presents Herodotus as one of the major hi star in Ancient Greece, he is a witness to certain acts and relates them to his contemporaries. (101) In a similar fashion as Homer, one of the first Greek hi star, he gave to the Hellenes the "intellectual framework of their heterology." (102) Homer's Odyssey, in contrast to Herodotus' Histories, is a "poetic anthropology" at the origin of the "vision that the Greeks had of themselves and of the others. [The Odyssey] contributed to, not in an abstract way but through an adventure narrative, a framework, a long-standing paradigm in order to see and say the world, to traverse it and have a representation of it, or to 'inhabit' its lands and make it a 'human' world, that is to say a Greek one." (103) The Histories offer instead a critical enquiry (104) of the Greek knowledge and moral spaces Herodotus is himself helping to constitute. While the Odyssey is a "poetic anthropology," the Histories are a social and political anthropology.
While Hartog has written a seminal and groundbreaking book on Herodotus which "transforms our understanding, not only of Herodotus himself, but of much of the world in which he operated," (105) he has been rightly faulted to have vastly underestimated Herodotus critical and cautious perspective toward his sources, whether Greek or non-Greek, and to have set up rather "stable categories" to approach both the Greek selves and the non-Greek alterities. (106) As we have seen with Todorov and his depiction of the Europeans and their others, Hartog tends to present the Herodotean mirror of a rather homogeneous Greek self and non-Greek other. Later Herodotean scholarship, at a level or another inspired by or engaging with Hartog's work, have shown however how Herodotus is conscious of both the "internal" and the "external" diversity of the Greeks and non-Greeks alike and how he has depicted this diversity beyond dual and oppositional modes. (107) Christopher Pelling, for instance, clearly shows Sparta is "often serving as a sort of internal Greek 'Other'" in Herodotus, (108) while Rosaria Munson notes "When Herodotus describes how various ethnographic subjects differ from the Greeks and emphasizes their separate identities--the different ways in which they differ from the Greeks--this also conveys the different ways in which they resemble the Greeks or different groups of Greeks. The glosses of similarity compensate for the propensity of ethnography to result in a discourse on alterity, especially the alterity of the barbaroi as a whole to the Greeks as a whole." (109)
What interests us more precisely at this point of my argument, and following this recent Herodotean scholarship, is how Herodotus, in his relations to difference, is using a diverse range of figurations of alterity among which inversion. Yet, inversion did not necessarily bear the same value and significance than in its European and modern expression. While it is true that the figure of inversion has been present for a long time in Hellenic thinking (110) and came to bare more and more importance in Hellenic's depiction of the self as one can witness an evolution from a self-understanding/rcpresentation that tended to be aggregative before the fifth century B.C. to another one that tended to be oppositional. (111) It is crucial, however, to note that
Rather than being defined "from without," [the "Greek" self-understanding/representation] was constructed cumulatively "from within." It was a definition based not on difference from the barbarian but on similarity with peer groups which attempted to attach themselves to one another by invoking common descent from Hellen. Since this cumulative aggregation of identity was enacted in the absence of any clear, determinate boundary between Greek and non-Greek, it is inevitable that the definition of Greekness could hardly be as all-encompassing as that which was later to be established externally and through opposition. (112)
However, this opposition did not necessarily mean "othering" difference. Herodotus1 Histories are in this respect particularly interesting as he is among the first to provide a definition of Greekness in an external and oppositional way in a speech he attributed to the Athenians addressing Alexander. (113) Yet, throughout his work the figure of inversion comes across as one that does not necessarily "other" difference. This is particularly clear in Herodotus' depiction of the Egyptians, their environment, their culture (nomoi), and their religion. Egypt and Egyptians possess a central role in ancient Greece's depiction of alterity, and by extension of itself. (114) In order to establish the ground for translating difference into something intelligible to "sameness," Herodotus posits certain numbers of tropes allowing him to make the translation possible; as he himself states "we may draw on the familiar to understand the unknown." (115) For instance, Herodotus compares Egyptian and Hellenic religions through the trope of ritual. (116) Rituals, whether through rites or cultic practices, are actually one trope that is thoroughly used in the Histories insofar as foreign cultures are often depicted through their religious or "political" rites.
Herodotus posits rather bluntly the place Egypt has vis-a-vis "everyone else." Indeed, "In keeping with the idiosyncratic climate which prevails there and the fact that their river behaves differently from any other river, almost all Egyptian customs and practices are the opposite of those of everywhere else." Of course, when Herodotus is speaking of "everywhere" or "everyone" he is referring to a specific type of "universal" self; that is a Hellenic self-understanding/representation. (117) This universalization of a specific self is a classical example of a way to "mask the procedure of inversion, to erase its trademark" rather than a way to equate the Hellenes and "everyone else." (118) Herodotus then goes on in listing a series of cultural practices that are the exact opposite of the Hellenes', such as the fact that "whereas everyone else weaves by pushing the weft upwards, the Egyptians push it downwards," that "[s]ons do not have to look after their parents if they do not want to, but daughters must even if they are reluctant," that "priests have long hair, but in Egypt they shave their heads," or that "[o]ther people, unless they have been influenced by the Egyptians, leave their genitals in their natural state, but the Egyptians practice circumcision." (119)
This figure of inversion, however, does not lead Herodotus to state that the Egyptians are inferior to the Hellenes. Quite the contrary, Herodotus is placing in many instances the Egyptians at least on an equal footing with the Hellenes and quite often see them as superior to the latter. For instance, he not only judges that, from a practical point of view, "the Egyptian monthly system is cleverer than the Greek one" (120) but that, from a general point of view, "for the actual people of Egypt, those who live in the cultivated part of the country make a particular practice of recording the history of all peoples, and are consequently by far the most learned people I have ever come across and questioned." (121) Yet, he does not take their traditions and records for granted and he put them thoroughly through a critical assessment based on probability and the presence of reliable sources. (122)
This is evident in the Egyptians' account of Helen's abduction. In this story, the Egyptians are depicted as morally superior to the Hellenes on some issues. Herodotus narrates this alternative account of the events in which the Egyptians are not only shown to deliver fair justice against Helen's abductors but also to suffer unjustly from Menelaus' anxiety to sail back home after the Egyptians "looked after him magnificently, returned Helen to him completely unhurt, and gave him back all his property as well." Indeed, Menelaus "treated the Egyptians unjustly. He was impatient to sail away, but adverse winds were holding him up; after this had been going on for a long time, he found a solution, but it was an abomination. He seized two children from local families and sacrificed them." (123) In sum, from these accounts we can see that Herodotus uses the figuration of inversion yet does not necessarily fall into othering the Egyptian's difference. On the contrary, as we have seen, the Egyptians are praised as intelligent, religious, and moral. More, Herodotus presents them as devote to "memory" and "records," and thus as reliable sources, contrary to the Greek poets who are devote to the muses. (124) This alternative story about the Trojan war, an account in opposition to Homer's which is taken for granted by Thucydides for instance, (125) is therefore evaluated as a reliable and plausible version whereas Homer's is relegated to the specific need of an epic as a genre. (126)
In another instance where the Greeks' lo'goi are decentered, Herodotus makes a great case of the Hellenic import of Egyptian religious life, indeed the "very knowledge of the gods and many religious rituals central to Greek cult practice" are thought by him to be borrowed from the Egyptians. (127) Herodotus, for instance, traces back Dionysus cult in Greece from an Egyptian origin but states, more generally, that "[t]he names of almost all the gods also came to Greece from Egypt. My enquiries led me to discover that they arc non-Greek in origin, but it is my belief that they came largely from Egypt." (128) Moreover, customs or techniques that Hellenes employ are also deemed of Egyptian origin such as geometry that was discovered by the Egyptians as a "land-surveying technique" and was "then imported into Greece. But the Greeks learned about the sundial, its pointer, and the twelve divisions of the day from the Babylonians." (129) Furthermore, from an ethnographic point of view,
While Herodotus clearly has a sense of each group's "ethnic identity" and ethnic characteristics, he seems equally keen to tell us what one group has borrowed from another. Thus these groups are not isolated, completely discrete entities; cultural traits are borrowed and passed around. There is surprisingly little evidence to be found in Herodotus for the idea of static, "natural," or "original" ethnic characteristics. ... At any rate, he seems willing to collapse the strict divisions between Greeks and non-Greeks and to lay emphasis upon customs and culture, alongside descent, as decisive determinant of ethnicity. (130)
Such a perspective can be equated to the descriptive style, mentioned in the previous section, in which the world that is told becomes somewhat autonomous from the world from which it is told. (131)
Another figuration from which a descriptive style can as well be attained is comparison. Indeed, in the same way as inversion, comparison is a "heuristic principle" aiming at making intelligible difference. Comparison can take two basic forms: simple comparison and complex comparison. Simple comparisons are following an elementary schema by which two terms a and b are made directly comparable by stating that a is like b; complex comparisons, for their parts, are akin to an analogy, they are using four terms organized in a parallel fashion: a is to b what c is to d. (132) Like for the figure of inversion, expression, context, and relations are as well necessary for these forms of figuration to become forms of representation, (133) without these inversion and comparison are simply either basic forms of argumentation (134) or forms of translation. (135) Turning again to Herodotus' Histories, we can see how these forms of figurations were at work.
The simple comparison, for instance, can be seen at work when Herodotus is discussing Egyptians' nomoi. "The Egyptians were the first to ban on religious grounds having sex with a woman within a sanctuary and entering a sanctuary after having sex without washing first. Almost everywhere else in the world, except in Egypt and Greece, people do both these things, since they do not differentiate between humans and other animals." (136) Herodotus is thus stating that the Egyptians' nomoi regarding sexual taboos related to religious places are like the Hellenes'. In another instance, Herodotus explains that "[t]he rest of the festival of Dionysus the Egyptians celebrate pretty much as the Greeks do, except that there are no choral dances." (137) Other simple comparisons are offered in regard to the names of the gods or to certain customs; in a way, even the ways by which the Egyptians are looking at difference are, implicitly, shown to be like the Hellenes': "The Egyptians-- indeed--refer to anyone who does not speak the same language as them as a barbarian." (139)
One can argue, however, that since Herodotus is presenting the Egyptians at least on equal footing with the Hellenes, and situating them often at the origin of many Hellenes' nomoi, he might be a bit positively "biased" toward them. This cannot be said of the Persians and the Scythians. Yet, Herodotus uses comparisons, whether simple or complex, in the same ways he has been with the Egyptians. He is providing a functional comparison of different nomoi between the Hellenes, on one hand, and different social and ethnic groups, on the other. (140) From a geographical point of view, for example, Herodotus is trying to situate Scythia using a complex comparison equating one, the Taurian territory for the Scythians, with another, the Cape Sunium for the Athenians. (141) Herodotus is conscious of the "conditions of validity of his comparison" as he states that "though in saying this, I am comparing something small with something large." (143) Yet, as Hartog notes, " ... the difference between the two is purely quantitative, and by no means qualitative ...; difference is not negated, but is channelled." (144) In another interesting instance, even when he is facing with an ultimate other, cannibalism, (145) Herodotus is still able to provide a functional description of rituals.
Issedonian customs are said to be as follows. When a man's father dies, all his relatives bring livestock to his house. They sacrifice the animals and chop the meat up into pieces--and then they chop up their host's dead father, mix all the meats together, and serve them up as a special meal. What they do to the head, though, is pluck all the hair off, clean it out, and then gild it. Then they treat it as if it were a cult statue, in the sense that the dead man's son offers it magnificent sacrifices once a year, just as in Greece sons commemorate the anniversary of their father's death. (146)
In sum, inversion or comparison can be seen as, and have to be regarded as, forms of figurations; as such they do not tell us much about the forms of understanding and representation they are pertaining to. In order for these forms to take a meaning, we have to pay attention to the ways by which they are expressed, in which contexts they are so and through which relations they are participating in. Using this variety of figurations, Herodotus blurred the boundaries between selves and others; "That does not mean that the categories [of a Greek self and a non-Greek other] do not exist, or that they are not important; but they are problematic from the start." (147)
Herodotus' travel narratives, as far as figurations of alterity are concerned, and in contrast with the modem figurations we encountered in relation to the travelogues about the Americas, help us to draw three conclusions. First, the figure of inversion is not necessarily linked to the mechanism of othering. Inversion is one figuration of alterity among a variety that encompass as well figurations such as comparison or analogy. Second, othering is not necessarily the sole mechanism by which collective self-understandings and representations are formed, performed, or transformed. This calls into question the prominence of othering as one of the dominant political and sociological framework by which the identity/alterity nexus is understood. Third, non-othered articulations of a collective identity, articulations that do not imply any form of inferiority of alterity, are not necessarily linked to a normative posture from the "self." These articulations might simply be forms of representation that cannot be assumed to be participating to a good and just dialog with alterity.
These different points are important as one of the key tenant of IR theory's reading of the identity/ alterity nexus lies in the adequation between how representations are articulated--whether alterity is situated through a figuration of inversion or comparison--and the normative value attached to these representations--whereby inversion is usually synonymous of othering. This adequation is equally present in a variety of IR traditions, (148) whether it is grounded on social identity theory or a certain poststructuralist or postcolonial reading of the nexus. Herodotus' example calls for a reading of the nexus that is not necessarily immanently linked to this adequation but which can nonetheless integrate it within this reading as othering is very much present in modern politics of alterity. While such a reconceptualization of the identity/alterity nexus is not possible here, (149) this excursion to premo-dem and non-European hopes to offer some tracks as to how to continue decolonizing IR theory (150) by multiplying the paths by which such decolonizing can happen.
The author would like to thank David Blaney, Michael Bloch, Naeem Inayatullah and Rob Walker for their useful comments on previous drafts.
Note that all translations are of the author's as are all mistakes that may remain in this paper.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article
(1.) See Xavier Guillaume, International Relations and Identity. A Dialogical Approach (London: Routledge, 2011).
(2.) See, for instance, Stephen Greenblatt, Marvelous Possessions: The Wonder of the New World (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1991); Anthony Pagden, European Encounters with the New World: From Renaissance to Romanticism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993); Mary Louise Pratt, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation (London: Routledge, 1992); Tzvetan Todorov, La conquete de VAme'rique: la question de Vautre (Paris: Seuil, 1982, Translated by Richard Howard as The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1984). This centrality is still reflected in contemporary attempts by IR scholars to not only make sense of the identity/alterity nexus per se but other issues such as global politics or security studies; see, respectively, Debbie Lisle, The Global Politics of Contemporary Travel Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) and Lene Hansen, Security as Practice. Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War (London: Routledge, 2006).
(3.) See William E. Connolly, "Identity and Difference in Global Politics," in International/Inter textual Relations, Postmodern Readings of World Politics, ed. James Der Derian and Michael J. Shapiro (New York, NY: Lexington Books, 1989), 323^2; William E. Connolly, Identity\Diffe rence: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991), chapter 2; David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1992), chapter 5; David L. Blaney and Naeem Inayatullah, "Prelude to a Conversation of Cultures in International Society--Todorov and Nandy on the Possibility of Dialogue," Alternatives: Global, Local Political 19, no. 1 (1994): 23-51; Naeem Inayatullah and David L. Blaney, "Knowing Encounters: Beyond Parochialism in International Relations Theory/' in The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, ed. Yosef Lapid and Friedrich V. Kratochwil (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1996), 65 84; Naeem Inayatullah and David L. Blaney, International Relations and the Problem of Difference (London: Routledge, 2004); Iver B. Neumann, Uses of the Other: "The East" in European Identity Formation (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999); Richard Shapcott, Justice, Community, and Dialogue in International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Michael J. Shapiro, "Moral Geographies and the Ethics of Post-Sovereignty," Public Culture 6, no. 3 (1994): 479-502.
(4.) Todorov, La conquete de VAmerique, note 2.
(5.) 5 Connolly, Identity/Difference, note 3.
(6.) Todorov, La conquete de VAme'rique, note 2, 13.
(7.) Ibid., 308.
(8.) Campbell, Writing Security, note 4, 111, my emphasis.
(9.) Todorov, La conquete de VAmerique, note 2, 58, 67-68, 308-9.
(10.) Connolly, Identity/Difference, note 3, 1991, 8.
(11.) Ibid., 9.
(12.) Ibid., 48. A more thorough discussion of othering and structural temptation and their place in IR theory can be found in Guillaume, International Relations and Identity, note 1, chapter 2.
(13.) Campbell, Writing Security, note 4, 105.
(14.) Ibid., chapter 2.
(15.) Ibid., 106.
(16.) Ibid., 93, my emphasis.
(17.) Ibid., 99-101,252-9.
(18.) See Blaney and Inayatullah, "Prelude to a Conversation of Cultures in International Society," note 3.
(19.) See Inayatullah and Blaney, "Prelude to a Conversation of Cultures in International Society," and note 3,2004.
(20.) Inayatullah and Blaney, "Knowing Encounters," note 3, 1996, 75.
(21.) Inayatullah and Blaney, "Prelude to a Conversation of Cultures in International Society," note 3, 11, 15.
(22.) Blaney and Inayatullah, "Prelude to a Conversation of Cultures in International Society," note 3, 45; Inayatullah and Blaney, International Relations and the Problem of Difference, note 3, 2004, 9-16.
(23.) Shapcott, Justice, Community, and Dialogue in International Relations, note 3, 13.
(24.) Ibid., 14-26.
(25.) Campbell, Writing Security, note 4, chapter 5; Connolly, note 4, 1989; 1991, chapter 2; Shapcott, Justice, Community, and Dialogue in International Relations, note 3, chapter 1.
(26.) Inayatullah and Blaney, International Relations and the Problem of Difference, note 3, 2004.
(27.) I come back to this notion when I discuss Herodotus' writings.
(28.) James Der Derian, "Post-Theory: The Eternal Return of Ethics in International Relations," in New Thinking in International Relations Theory, ed. Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), 58.
(29.) David Damroseh, "The Semiotics of Conquest," American Literary History 8, no. X (1996): 516-32; Gesa Mackenthun, Metaphors of Dispossession, American Beginnings and the Translation of Empire, 1492-1637 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997), 89-100; Jose Piedra, "The Game of Critical Arrival," Diacritics 19, no. 1 (1989): 34--61; Deborah Root, "The Imperial Signifier: Todorov and the Conquest of Mexico," Cultural Critique 9 (1988): 197 219.
(30.) Root, note 30, 215.
(31.) Mackenthun, Metaphors of Dispossession, note 29, 90; Root, "The Imperial Signifier," note 29, 206-7.
(32.) See, for instance, Campbell, Writing Security, note 3; Inayatullah and Blaney, International Relations and the Problem of Difference, note 3; Shapcott, Justice, Community, and Dialogue in International Relations, note 3; Neumann, Uses of the Other, note 3. Cf., however, Xavier Guillaume, "From Process to Politics," International Political Sociology 3, no. 1 (2009): 71-86.
(33.) Inayatullah and Blaney, International Relations and the Problem of Difference, note 4, 262.
(34.) Mackenthun, Metaphors of Dispossession, note 29, 90. See also Ivo Kamps and Jyotsna G. Singh, "Introduction," in Travel Knowledge: European "Discoveries" In the Early Modern Period, ed. Ivo Kamps and Jyotsna G. Singh (New York, NY: Palgrave, 2001), 4.
(35.) Pratt, Imperial Eyes, note 2. See Inayatullah and Blaney, International Relations and the Problem of Difference, note 3, 9-11.
(36.) Kamps and Singh, Travel Knowledge, note 34, 2.
(38.) Ibid., 3, emphasis added.
(39.) Mackenthun, Metaphors of Dispossession, note 29, 16.
(40.) Kamps and Singh, Travel Knowledge, note 34, 6.
(41.) Mary B. Campbell, The Witness and the Other World. Exotic European Travel Writing, 400-1600 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 6.
(43.) Francois Hartog, Le miroir d'Herodote: e'ssai sur la representation de Vautre. Paris: Gallimard, 1991 , 249. Translated by Janet Lloyd as The Mirror of Herodotus: The Representation of the Other in the Writing of History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).
(44.) Friedrich Wolfzettel, Le discours du voyageur: pour une histoire litte'raire du re'cit de voyage en France, du Moyen Age au XVIIIe siecle (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1996), 5.
(45.) Campbell, The Witness and the Other World, note 41, 249-53; Alexandre Cioranescu, "La decouverte de FAmerique et Fart de la description," Revue des sciences humaines 106 (1962): 161-8.
(46.) See Greenblatt, Marvellous Possessions, note 2; Todorov, La conquete de l'Amerique, note 2.
(47.) See, for instance, Xavier Guillaume, "Foreign Policy and the Politics of Alterity: A Dialogical Understanding of International Relations," Millennium; Journal of International Studies 31, no. 1 (2002): 1-26; and Guillaume, "Unveiling The 'International': Process, Identity, Alterity," Millennium: Journal of International Studies 35, no. 3 (2007): 741-59.
(48.) Hartog, Le miroir d'Herodote, note 43, 227.
(49.) Ibid., 225-37.
(50.) See Guillaume, note 1, chapter 2.
(51.) See Greenblatt, Marvellous Possessions, note 2; Pagden, European Encounters with the New World, note 2; Todorov, La conquete de l'Amerique, note 2.
(52.) See, for instance, the contributions in Travel Knowledge, ed. Kamps and Singh.
(53.) Wolfzettel, Le discours du voyageur, note 44, 36-7, see also 231.
(54.) Campbell, The Witness and the Other World, note 41, 220; Wolfzettel, Le discours du voyageur, note 44.
(55.) Neumann, Uses of the Other, note 3, chapter 2; see also Mustapha Kamal Pasha, "Fractured Worlds: Islam, Identity, and International Relations," Global Society 17, no. 2 (2003): 111-20.
(56.) Barbara Fuchs, Mimesis and Empire. The New World, Islam, and European Empires (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Albert H. Hourani, Islam in European Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
(57.) See, for instance, Henry Kamen, "The Mediterranean and the Expulsion of Spanish Jews in 1492," Past and Present 119, no. 1 (1988): 30-55; "Toleration and Dissent in Sixteenth-Century Spain: The Alternative Tradition," The Sixteenth Century Journal 19, no. 1 (1988): 3-23; Deborah Root, "Speaking Christian: Orthodoxy and Difference in Sixteenth-Century Spain," Representations 23 (1988): 118-34.
(58.) Israel Burshatin, "The Moor in the Text: Metaphor, Emblem, and Silence," Critical Inquiry 12, no. 1 (1985): 98-118; Isabel de Sena, "Moors or Indians? Stereotype and the Crisis of (National) Identity in Ignacio Altamirano and Manuel de Jesus Galvan," in National Identities and Sociopolitical Changes in Latin America, ed. Mercedes F. Duran-Cogan and Antonion Gomez-Moriana (London: Routlege, 2001), 202-3.
(59.) Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1979).
(60.) Burshatin, "The Moor in the Text," note 58.
(61.) JoseRabasa, "Dialogue as Conquest: Mapping Spaces for Counter-Discourse," Cultural Critique 6 (1987): 131-59.
(62.) de Sena, "Moors or Indians?" note 58, 202.
(63.) See Campbell, The Witness and the Other World, note 41; Wolfzettel, Le discours du voyageur, note 44.
(64.) See, for instance, Robert O. Keohane, "Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World Politics," in Neore-alism and Its Critics, ed. Robert O. Keohane (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1986), 1 26.
(65.) See Brian C. Schmidt, "On the History and Historiography of International Relations," in Handbook of International Relations, ed.Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons (London: Sage, 2002), 3-22.
(66.) If these categories actually make sense for ancient thinkers, see Laurie M. Johnson Bagby, "The Use and Abuse of Thucydides in International Relations," International Organization 48, no. 1 (1994): 131-53; Hayward H. Alker, Rediscoveries and Reformidations: Humanistic Methodologies for International Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 23-63; Richard Ned Lebow, "Thucydides the Constructivist," American Political Science Review 95, no. 3 (2001): 547-60.
(67.) Richard Ned Lebow, "Play It Again Pericles: Agents, Structures and the Peloponnesian War," European Journal of International Relations 2, no. 2 (1996): 231 58; note 67.
(68.) Thucydides, Histoire de la guerre du Peloponnese, trans. Jean Voilquin (Paris: Gallimard, 1966): 5.84--96.
(69) See, for instance, ibid., 2.62-65, 3.82-85, 6.9, 8.2.
(70.) Xavier Guillaume, "Reflexivity and Subjectivity: A Dialogical Perspective for and on International Relations Theory," Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 3, no. 3 (2002): 41 paragraphs; http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0203133.
(71.) Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, Polities: Authority, Identities, and Change (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996).
(72.) Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, War and State Formation in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
(73.) Bruce Routledge, "The Antiquity of the Nation? Critical Reflections from the Ancient near East," Nations and Nationalism 9, no. 2 (2003): 213-33.
(74.) Qing Cao, "Selling Culture: Ancient Chinese Conceptions of 'the Other' in Legends," in The Zen of International Relations. IR Theory from East to West, ed. Stephen Chan, Peter G. Mandaville, and Roland Bleiker (London: Palgrave, 2001), 202-21.
(75.) Richard Ned Lebow, "Power, Persuasion and Justice," Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33, no. 3(2005): 551-81.
(76.) Irad Malkin, "Postcolonial Concepts and Ancient Greek Colonization," Modern Language Quarterly 65, no. 3 (2004): 341-64; Donald J. Puchala, "Colonisation and Cultural Resistance: Egypt and Iran after Alexander," Global Society 16, no. 1 (2002): 7-30.
(77.) Stephen Chan, "A Story Beyond Teios: Redeeming the Shield of Achilles for a Realism of Rights in IR," in The Zen of International Relations. IR Theory from East to West, ed. Stephen Chan, Peter G. Mandaville, and Roland Bleiker (London: Palgrave, 2001), 79-98; Costas M. Constantinou, "Hippopolis/Cynopolis," Millennium: Journal of International Studies 30, no. 3 (2001): 785-804.
(78.) Andreas Osiander, "Religion and Politics in Western Civilisation: The Ancient World as Matrix and Mirror of the Modern," Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29, no. 3 (2000): 761-90.
(79.) Claude Calame, Le recit en Greve ancienne (Paris: Berlin, 2000), 124-5.
(80.) Hartog, Le miroir d'Herodote, note 43, 19, 249, 363-372.
(81.) Irad Malkin, The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998), 16-20.
(82.) Ibid., 16-17.
(83.) Jean-Pierre Vernant, La mort dans I es yeux: figures de Ifautre en Grece ancienne Artemis, Gorgo\ revised and augmented edition (Paris: Hachette litteratures, 1998), 84 86.
(84.) Malkin, The Returns of Odysseus, note 81, 17.
(85.) Irad Malkin, "Introduction," in Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, ed. Irad Malkin (Cambridge, MA: Center for Hellenic Studies Trustees for Harvard University; Distributed by Harvard University Press, 2001), 3; see also Jonathan M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) and the contributions in Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, ed. Irad Malkin, (Cambridge, MA: Center for Hellenic Studies Trustees for Harvard University; Distributed by Harvard University Press, 2001).
(86.) Malkin, The Returns of Odysseus, note 81, 19.
(87.) Hartog, Le miroir d'Herodote, note 43, 236.
(88.) Marco Dorati, Le Storie di Erodoto: Etnograjia e Racconto (Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazio-nali, 2000), 120.
(89.) Ibid., 124, emphasis added.
(90.) Aldo Corcella, Erodoto e l'analogia (Palermo: Sellerio, 1984), 84-91. This actually strengthens Connolly's affirmation concerning "agonistic respect," seen as reflecting "a doctrine of contingent identity and ambiguous responsibility," which he situates in a pre-Platonic time (see Connolly, note 4, 114-22). Irad Malkin rightly notes the absence of an idea of centeredness among Hellenes during the archaic period (see Malkin, The Returns of Odysseus, note 81; note 85, 2001). In the specific case, however, while Connolly's argument might be seen as "theological," Herodotus is "historical" (see Corcella, this note).
(91.) Virginia Hunter, Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucvdides (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982), 69-75.
(92.) Ibid., 85.
(93.) Corcella, Erodoto e Vanalogia, note 90; Hartog, Le miroir d'Herodote, note 43, 42, 237.
(94.) Guillaume, International Relations and Identity, note 1.
(95.) Carolyn Dewald and John Marincola, "Introduction," in The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, ed. Carolyn Dewald and John Marincolas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 1-7.
(96.) Paul Cartledge, "Taking Herodotus Personnally," Classical World 102, no. 4 (2009): 378.
(97.) Dewald and Marincola, "Introduction," note 95, 4-6; Christopher Pelling, "East is East and West is West--Or are They? National stereotypes in Herodotus," HISTOS (1997). http://www.dur.ac.uk/ Classics/histos/1997/pelling.html.
(98.) Cartledge, "Taking Herodotus Personnally," note 96, 375.
(99.) Pelling, "East is East and West is West--Or are They?" note 97.
(100.) Hartog, Le miroir d'Herodote, note 43, 19.
(101.) Calame, Le recit en Greve ancienne, note 79, 124-5.
(102.) Frangois Hartog, Memoire d'Ulysse: re'cits sur lafrontiere en Grece ancienne (Paris: Gallimard, 1996), 87.
(103.) Ibid., 34.
(104.) Hunter, Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucydides, note 91, 11.
(105.) John Percival, "Review," Greece & Rome 37, no. 1 (1990): 98.
(106.) Carolyn Dewald, "Book reviews," Classical Philology 85, no. 3 (1990): 217-24; Pelling, "East is East and West is West--Or are They?" note 97. On the critical enquiry and Herodotus relation to facts, contrast Hartog, Le miroir d 'Herodote, note 43, and the more convincing account of Hunter, Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucydides, note 91.
(107.) See, for instance, Dorati, note 88; Rosaria Vignolo Munson, Telling Wonders. Ethnographic and Political Discourse in the Work of Herodotus (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2001); Pelling, "East is East and West is West--Or are They?" note 97.
(108.) Pelling, "East is East and West is West--Or are They?" note 97.
(109.) Munson, Telling Wonders, note 107, 133.
(110.) See Geoffrey E. R. Lloyd, Polarity and Analogy: Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought (Indianapolis, IN: Hacket Publishing Company, 1992 ).
(111.) See Paul Carledge, The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); "Historiography and ancient Greek self-definition," in Companion to Historiography, ed. Michael Bent-ley (London: Routledge, 1997), 20-37; Edith Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-definition through Tragedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989); Hartog, Le miroir d'Herodote, note 43.
(112.) Hall, note 85, 47.
(113.) Herodotus, The Histories, trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 8.144.
(114.) Phiroze Vasunia, The Gift of the Nile: Hellenizing Egypt from Aeschylus to Alexander (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001).
(115.) Herodotus, note 113,2.33.
(116.) John Gould, Myth, Ritual, Memory, and Exchange: Essays in Greek Literature and Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 359-77.
(117.) Herodotus, The Histories, note 113, 2.35, emphasis added.
(118.) Hartog, Le miroir d'Herodote, note 44, 226.
(119.) Herodotus, The Histories, note 133, 2.35-36.
(120.) Ibid., 2.4.
(121.) Ibid., 2.77.
(122.) Hunter, Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucydides, note 91, 50-92.
(123.) Herodotus, The Histories, note 113, 2.115-120.
(124.) Hunter, Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucydides, note 91, 57-61.
(125.) Thucydides, Histoire de la guerre du Peloponnese, note 69, 1.3.
(126.) Herodotus, The Histories, note 113, 2.116.
(127.) Rosalind Thomas, "Ethnicity, Genealogy, and Hellenism in Herodotus," in Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, ed. Irad Malkin (Cambridge, MA: Center for Hellenic Studies Trustees for Harvard University; Distributed by Harvard University Press, 2001), 216; see (127.) Herodotus, The Histories, ibid., 2.43-53.
(128.) Herodotus, The Histories, ibid., 2.50; see also Hunter, Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucydides, note 91, 50-115.
(129.) Herodotus, The Histories, ibid., 2.109.
(130.) Thomas, "Ethnicity, Genealogy, and Hellenism in Herodotus," note 127, 215, 218.
(131.) See Cioranescu, "L.a de'couverte de l'Amerique et l'art de la description," note 45.
(132.) Hartog, Le miroir d'Herodote, note 44, 237-42; see also the subtle development in Munson, Telling Wonders, note 107, chapter 2.
(133.) Guillaume, International Relations and Identity, note 1, chapter 3.
(134.) Lloyd, Polarity and Analogy, note 110.
(135.) Hartog, Le miroir d'Herodote, note 43.
(136.) Herodotus, The Histories, note 113, 2.64, emphasis added.
(137.) Ibid., 2.48.
(138.) Ibid., 2.59, 79-80, 144, 153.
(139.) Ibid., 2.158.
(140.) Hartog, Le miroir d'Herodote, note 44, 239.
(141.) Herodotus, The Histories, note 113, 4.99.
(142.) Hartog, Le miroir d'Herodote, note 43, 240.
(143.) Herodotus, The Histories, ibid.
(144.) Hartog, ibid.
(145.) See, for instance, Inayatullah and Blaney, International Relations and the Problem of Difference, note 3, 53, 65-73.
(146.) Herodotus, The Histories, note 113, 4.26, emphasis added.
(147.) Pelling, "East is East and West is West--Or are They?" note 97.
(148.) See, for instance, Jonathan Mercer, "Anarchy and identity," International Organization 49, no. 2 (1995): 229-52; Bahar Rumelili, "Constructing identity and relating to difference: Understanding the EU's Mode of Differentiation," Review of International Studies 30, no. 1 (2004): 27^17; Jennifer Sterling-Folker, "Realism and the Constructivist Challenge: Rejecting, Reconstructing, or Rereading," International Studies Review 4, no. 1 (2002): 73-97.
(149.) See, however, Guillaume, International Relations and Identity, note 1.
(150.) See Branwen Gruffydd Jones, ed., Decolonizing International Relations (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003).
Xavier Guillaume is Lecturer at the University of Geneva. His research interests include the social and political theory of the identity/alterity and security/citizenship nexus in IR theory, myths and politics of representations, critical approaches to security and the question of multiculturalism in Japan and Europe. He is the author of International Relations and Identity: A Dialogical Approach (Routledge 2011) and has published in journals such as FQS, International Political Sociology, Millennium or Japanstudien.
Alternatives: Global, Local, Political
[c] The Author(s) 201 I
Reprints and permission:
DOI: 10.1177/030437541 1409016
(1) University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
Xavier Guillaume, University of Geneva, Department of Political Science and International Relations, 40 bd. Pont-d'Arve, 1211 GE 4, Geneva, Switzerland. Email: Xavier.Guillaume@unige.ch
Xavier Guillaume (1)…