The assumed dichotomy that categorizes Otherness is an exercise of control. Boundaries are a way to reinforce current power structures by making sure people, places, and ideas are contained by a definition. The fear of the unknown/undefined is assuaged by either the normalization or exoticification of the Other. In each case, the interloper is contained--becoming one of 'us' or becoming 'not one of us'. The undefined (in this case, the Other) holds the power to disturb and to resist dominant categories, but eventually the Other must be siphoned back into the system it opposes if power is to be upheld. It is the spaces where people don't know quite what to think, where a single category cannot contain you, that the power of resistance and opposition cannot be tamed.

And thus, it is these spaces of being undefined (where one can experience a power of being a member in multiple worlds, yet not fully defined by any) that is so dangerous to the existing power hierarchies. Power is diffused when no one can quite put a structure around one's being or enforce social codes of how one should act. Media eventually puts these boundaries around all those who challenge the categories by attempting to redefining the Other as exotic or as one of us.

Those that do oppose mass culture, such as subcultures, are eventually brought back into line by being incorporated within the system. Although, at first perhaps, the subculture may be revolutionary, differentiating itself from mass culture, eventually it will be assimilated back into the system. The subculture will be turned into a commodity, a style which people can buy (Hebdige 1988). Reducing the images of the Other in ads to either one of normalcy or exoticism leaves the existing power structures unthreatened, unquestioned. Creating, maintaining and dividing people up within boundaries is how power over those within the boundaries is reconstituted and upheld. This is partly why this assumed dichotomy of exotic vs. normal exists and, in addition, why it should be questioned.