I am not trying to say that the above-mentioned mechanism for developing the self does not work in reality.

Rather, we see movements all over the world seeking a ground for the formation of autonomous groups through the ownership of cultural essence, such as religion, spirit, ethos and lifestyles, which make oneself as oneself. The groups thus formed engage in conflicts, confrontations and self-assertion, in which, naturally, the word “identity” is frequently used.

As such, “identity” is indispensable for describing these phenomena. Furthermore, in the background of the identity-politics that are implemented by people, we find circumstances that make it unavoidable. We must understand the other, including those background circumstances (Sugishima 1999).

However, by respecting the aforementioned uncomfortable feeling toward the word “identity” and starting from that sense, the possibility emerges to throw light upon various aspects of the real world that could not readily be visualized in the language-game using the word “identity.”

We sometimes talk about ourselves using “identity.” But this does not mean that we image ourselves as totally non-dependent, self-contained, and consistent selves. The same thing can be said about the other.

If this is the case, even when it appears that one is practicing identity-politics and is the subject of the practice, this does not necessarily define the other in a monolithic way. In other words, the life of human beings may contain aspects that protrude from the the moder concept of individual.

We should take this seriously, and by focusing on this, we can aptly position the identity-politics practiced by the other within their social life. This will certainly take us a step forward in understanding identity politics.