The moral question of the play is whether Shylock and Antonio -- and by extension those who close ranks around Antonio -- are truly different. Antonio and his friends are just as capable of the same "evil" which Shylock attempts to perpetrate -- just as Christians were the original antagonists of the story, before the roles were reversed -- yet the protagonists are greater in having a solidified group identity. The solidification of that identity, however, would not have been possible without the "evil other." So, is the process of othering moral? Certainly not, answers Shakespeare, but highly useful.

Who is The Merchant of Venice? Ostensibly, the title refers...

Yet, could not Shylock also be considered a type of merchant? Are not, as shown by their actions, Shylock and Antonio proven to be the same? The process of othering must then be a construct, an ideological frame existent only in popular conception and devoid of truth, for, apparently, there are no true aliens. Americans can recall the othering of the Japanese, which resulted in the solidification of a national identity through the crucible of World War II. All truth aside, it was a useful process.
Bibliography

1. Shakespeare, William, edited by Leah S. Marcus The Merchant of Venice New York: Norton. 2004. Print

2. Shapiro, James Shakespeare and the Jews New York: Columbia University Press. 1996. Print