Georgetown Journal of International Affairs

In today's world, "us" and "them" is circumvented by identity. "Identity" is an interdisciplinary concept that describes the "self," or more precisely, the "self" as it is interpreted in the present. In international relations (IR), the "self" can be understood in individual and collective terms, yet it usually means the "state" or a specific community of states. Notably, any such selfhood necessarily requires an "other." Identity always means a specific self, an in-group, and as such, draws boundaries demarcating an out-group. Whether personal or collective, national or transnational, ethnic, race, class, age, gender, or sexuality-based, identities dictate who belongs and who does not belong to a specific group. In other words, there cannot be an "us" without a "them."

In IR, the "us" usually refers to a state or group of states, often a regional rather than an international community. The "other" may be defined by geography or territorial boundaries but also by a diverse value system, mindset, or culture. Take the example of Europe—Europe is geographically defined by "others" that exist outside of its territorial boundaries: America, Russia, the Middle East, or Asia. Europe, however, is not a mere geographical entity. It is also a normative community. When it comes to its normative "self," the EU locates itself against "illiberal, authoritarian regimes" or, in some interpretations, against "Islam." "Others" can even stem from "the self" in another historical time. Europe's "temporal other" is its own war-torn past: its periods of totalitarianism, the Holocaust and the Stalinist gulags, and its colonial Empire. These "historical others" are essential in situating the current European "self" and, as such, defining, developing, and shaping Europe's "identity" in the present.

"Identity," defined as "the current interpretation of the collective 'self' vis-à-vis 'others,'" therefore offers IR scholars a dynamic concept for their analyses. It helps to describe national interests, state behavior, and the formation of international norms and communities, and it can also explain episodes of conflict and reconciliation or war and peace between states. While identity is situated at the core of IR's constructivist scholarship, realists and liberals cannot afford to overlook it. In fact, a burgeoning body of IR works relies on identity as a concept to show how it shapes interests and state behavior in global politics. The nexus between state identity and state behavior is explored specifically by ontological security scholars. In their view, states strive not only for the physical security of their "body" but also for the "ontological" security of their "mind." In other words, they act in accordance with their established and perceived identities. When explaining the behavior between states and their interrelationships today, IR scholars thus cannot do so without recourse to identity.

Yet, while the nexus between identity and state behavior has an intuitive logic to it, its influence is all the harder to prove. Ever since the concept of identity has reached the attention of scholars, attempts have proliferated—albeit often to no avail—to establish causality between this vague and intangible thing that is "state identity" and a specific outcome or state behavior in IR. Moreover, identities and their role in global politics consist of both an active and a passive [End Page 2] component; on the one hand, identities can be actively shaped and manipulated by politicians, but on the other hand, identities passively, often subconsciously, dictate what politicians think, believe, and do in IR. This level of versatility shapes "identity" into the useful, dynamic, and socially constructed concept that it is while also complicating IR scholars' attempts to employ it as a variable in their social scientific research designs (be it when using quantitative or qualitative methods).

In IR, "identity" is not singular but plural. Identities are multiple, overlapping, and permanently changing. It follows that they are not static entities with which to explain international relations, but rather they are constitutive to international relations themselves. Take the current example of Germany and its deliberations with its historical identity in the face of the new threats posed to European security by the Ukraine war. IR scholars traditionally used the German national identity as the starkest illustration to highlight the power of identity over international state behavior. Indeed, in the post-war decades, the legacy of World War Two and National Socialism made West German politicians practice constraint and neutrality in their foreign and security policies. Yet, today, in the face of a new threat scenario emanating from Russia, this same national identity is reinterpreted to call for intervention rather than constraint. While it remains to be seen how Germany acts with regard to Ukraine, the link between state identity and state behavior is, in any case, never static but unfolds as "the self" is reinterpreted in the light of current contexts.

Identity, being dynamic, malleable, and multiple, is, of course, always political and omnipresent in global politics. What used to be called "ideology" during the Cold War and "culture" or "ethnicity" thereafter is now subsumed under this all-encompassing term "identity." It is useful because it can come from any source, ranging from cultural to political ideas, lifestyle, ethnicity, race, class, sexuality, gender, or history. Any shared experience may be relevant for identity and, as a result, salient for politics. While traditionally, in IR, the concept of identity has been limited to its national form, identities today frequently transgress national boundaries, organizing not only national societies but also the "international society." As a result, identity politics are no longer an isolated domestic phenomenon but an increasingly global force.

With "identity politics" turning "global" in the 21^st century, IR scholars no longer describe international relations by only looking to states but have come to include new actors, groups, communities, people, and their ideas. Take the examples of transnational "identity movements," such as Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, the LGBT+ movement, or the shared bonds between victims of war and trauma—these groups all form transnational commonalities based on specific identity markers, forging commonalities between them and seeking recognition for their causes. Yet, recognition, like anything else in politics, is a scarce good. As such, asserting one's identity not only creates commonalities and bonds but also divides, thereby shaping more "outgroups." The resulting competition between diverse "identity groups" for recognition can have the adverse side-effect of endangering peace by opening up new divides. Furthermore, it threatens a liberal world order based on the dignity and equality of individuals rather than the recognition and hierarchy of groups. Responding to the emerging phenomenon of global identity politics is thus a crucial task of IR scholars in the twenty-first century.

This volume attempts such a response. Exploring "identity" conceptually, analytically, and empirically, the authors delve into the many different facets of identity within IR today. Moreover, they link identity in its various forms to the pressing issues of our time: peace and reconciliation, climate policies, the emergence of international norms, questions of alignment, neutrality, and military intervention, but also employment, democratization, and digitalization. Without a doubt, identities play a part in all of these phenomena, and understanding their role and consequences is crucial to understand global politics today. [End Page 3]