This introductory article describes who ‘the other’ is and what the place of ‘the other’ is in social scientific studies. The concept of ‘the other’ became the central object of study with the emergence of anthropology. In sociology and criminology the focus of study has been on ‘the other’ in ‘our’ midst. Although there are ‘positive others’, such as significant others, the other is more often perceived as unwanted, dangerous, threatening and even as an enemy. The other is socially constructed, usually on the basis of cultural and socio-economic differ­ences that set ‘the other’ apart from the powerful. Critical and cultural criminologists have therefore since the 1960s focused on ‘the other’ and how they are created in processes of marginalization and how they are subjected to criminalization.

The article examines mechanisms of othering the refugees illustrated on one refugee camp in Germany. Based on the theoretical strand of the foreigner dispositif, I analyze spatial and architectural compositions of the camp to outline the differentiation of ‘we’ (nation state) and ‘others’ (refugees). In the process of othering space excludes, controls and identifies refugees as ‘others’. However, being identified as the other, space can also be conceived as a specific space of hope. The findings shed some light on the link between othering, space and identity.

While in the sixties hackers were the heroes of cyberspace, they are nowadays often perceived as the archetype cybercriminal. From the perspective of labelling theory, this empirical study examines how hackers feel perceived by society at large, how they perceive themselves as ‘others’ and how they view themselves in relation to ‘others’. Our research shows that hackers – despite of an experienced negative labelling – view themselves as positive ‘others’. We conclude that the features of the hacking phenomenon itself (skillset, mindset, own morality) in combination with the digital context in which they operate, enable hackers to avoid a ‘spoiled identity’.

This article is based on ethnographic research over recent years in eight Dutch police teams. It focuses on the othering process in which police officers define ‘crooks’ as the Other and chase, catch and arrest them. Catching crooks is perceived as an assignment as well as a game. Street cops construct detailed subcategories of the crook which influence their daily practices. They select crooks by recognition (the permanent suspects), by abnormalization (out of placeness) and by profiling (regardless of place). In addition to the discussion on ethnic profiling, we argue that profiling is a contextual practice. The contents of the profiles depend on the demographic characteristics of the district in which a police team operates. Interacting mediaframes of both the crook and the police reinforce the mutual caricatures and tense relationships.

Newark Penn Station is the most frequented train station in New Jersey, United States. Two distinct groups occupy this public space. First are the commuters who travel by the trains to reach destinations for work or pleasure. Second are the transient who do not use the trains but instead remain in and around the station for various reasons, otherwise known as the ‘other.’ The latter population is closely monitored and controlled by law enforcement through a variety of written and unwritten laws and codes of conduct, which are based on broken windows theory and crime prevention through environment design (CPTED). The primary focus is how the ‘other’ seemingly navigates and occupies public space. Through ethnographic research, this paper reflects and reveals the ways in which the station is a living social organism that simultaneously marginalizes and incorporates those defined as the ‘other’ into this space. This complex and contradictory dynamic illustrates the interactions between public spaces and its occupiers and regulators.

Since the nineties, the ‘Moroccan community’ experiences a negative group-image based on a small group of male youths who ‘stand out’ in social problems such as nuisance, crime and Islamic radicalisation. This negative group image is largely constructed through negative societal reactions in the media on incidents in which Moroccan Dutch youngsters play a prominent role. This article examines such negative societal reactions in the media on three recent incidents: the 2007 Slotervaart riots, the 2008 Gouda ‘bus incident’ and the 2010 Culemborg riots. It concludes that the societal reactions to these incidents in the media, are exaggerated, symbolise ‘the Moroccans’ as folk devils and construct them as moral and cultural Others. Finally, it concludes that these negative societal reactions to ‘Moroccans’ in Dutch media can be seen as a disproportional and misplaced, but natural reaction of a dominant cultural majority to a threat to their cultural and moral hegemony, by ‘the Moroccans’ as a social deviant minor­ity.

This paper uses the UK as a vehicle through which to argue that a dominant reductionist drugs discourse exists which simplifies understandings of drug use and drug users leading to socio-cultural misrepresentations of harm, risk and dangerousness. It contends that at the centre of this discourse lies the process of othering – the identification of specific substances and substance users as a threat to UK society. Interestingly, within the wider context of global drug policy reform this othering process appears to be expanding to target a wider variety of factors and actors – those policies, research findings and individuals which contest normative notions, resulting in the marginalisation of ‘alternative voices’ which question the entrenched assumptions associated with drug prohibition. The paper concludes that there is a need for collective action by critical scholars to move beyond the other, calling for academics to be innovative in their research agendas, creative in their dissemination of knowledge and resolute despite the threat of being othered themselves.

Herman Bianchi, who passed away on the 30th of December 2015, has been a true ‘significant other’ for cultural criminologists. This article is a ‘criminological Verstehen’ of Bianchi’s work. His general attitude towards criminology is characterised by a mix of academic analysis, emotional outrage and incongruities. In order to understand this, his contributions to criminology are linked to biographical notes and to the mixed reactions he got on his work. Bianchi played an important role in the establishment of criminology as an autonomous academic discipline, yet he was very critical of this ‘discipline of shame’ because it has always served the exclusion of the most vulnerable members of society. He has been one of the frontmen of critical criminology, but he was not a Marxist. His concern for the despised other is related to his eternal fear, as a gay man in a ‘closet with a revolving door’, of new waves of discrimination against gays, and his rigorous abolitionism to his experience as a prisoner in a Nazi-concentration camp in 1944. Bianchi’s historical interest led him at the end of his career in the 1980s to support the emergence of strong historical criminol­ogy, but his utilitarian use of historical studies, also resulted in some clashes with professional historians.