A Critical Reflection on "Others"

Yung-Suk Kim

"Others" enter our postmodern intellectual discourse, re-shaping the sense of modernity and the past habit of individual, autonomous ideal embedded in our thinking and acting. Paul Ricoeur's narrative identity emphasizes inter-subjectivity in which the story of others constitutes one's own identity. Ricoeur's concept of identity is twofold: idem and ipse. Idem approximiates the concept of character and ipse is close to selfhood, self-determination that involves others' stories. Similarly, Emmanuel Levinas' "heteronomous autonomy" emphasizes others as subjects, complementing Enlightenment ideal of autonomy, which is impossible without involving "others." Levinas also emphasizes "faces of others" in our thinking and in any discourse, because without it our discourse is incomplete. Derrida also presents the importance of "others" as expressed in "relationless relation." For him, relation is only possible through "relationless" which means there should be fundamental distance (or difference) between me and others. Only with that respectful difference or distance, we can relate to each other. Derrida's neologism différance also can be understood with focus on "others" because others are fundamentally different from each other and its meaning should be deferred due to ongoing dyanmics of participation of others. Still, similarly and interestingly, I can use a term "eye-Buddha" referred to as one's image reflected on others' eyes. The idea of this term suggests great insights of mutual connection and reflection. That is, I am reflected on other's eye; the vice versa. My interpretation of this is, "I see 'me' in you; you see 'you' in me; the fact that I see you is because you are reflected in me; the fact that you see me is because I am reflected in you. This is true only when two face together, looking into not only other's eye but deep into other's soul with attentiveness. Then there is mutual connection and reflection. In that regard, "I" cannot exist ontologically without others because "I" have to find "me" in others; and the vice versa. Often "others" are nonexistent in our life or discourse. Or "others" are objects of teaching or assimilation.

On the other hand, what is reflected is the image that contains sort of information, visual or experiential, which needs to be processed or interpreted through an individual brain system (coupled with experience and other systems of human body). Unlike the computer science or data management, this processing can be different depending on persons. That is why there should be individual honor and respect about the process. No one system can control all people's processing systems. This means we cannot share exactly the same reality or experience or anything like that with others. I can be reflected on others and how to be interpreted by others is another thing. That is why there should be a critical interpretation at work. But the point is that we are to face each other and that we share our information (in the form of eye-Buddha) with others; otherwise, we cannot relate to others. Then, there is no knowing because knowing is only possible through mutual sharing of information and engagement. So the ultimate question is as to whether I can see "others" in me and whether I can have critical dialogue with them.