The paper probes the relationship between IR-theories and the way the transatlantic Self has been discursively constructed over time. A major bulk of theories has clearly sided with discourses premised on statist relations and with security-as-violence as a core constitutive argument. There has been a distinct Self and Other with similarity then positioned inside and difference outside the relationship. With Self and Other seen as mutually exclusive categories, there has been little reason to pursue questions pertaining to ontological security as the introduction of the division already tends to settle that question and assumedly brings about durable and stable self-certainty. However, rather than equating difference with threat and viewing it as something external to the relationship, there is also the option of of regarding difference as something internal as well as complementary and positive in nature. Such an internal difference, allowing then also for constiutive categories that are simultanoeously other and like to come into view, could actually underpin the relationship rather than rupture the transatlantic order as assumed by mainstreem theorizations. It would also place ontological security at the core of the constellation instead of directing attention almost exclusively towards issues related to material and physical security. Making explicit the latter type of theorization would arguably provide further credence to discourses pertaining to transatlantic bonds that have usually been marginalized with the help of mainstream IR-theory, and such a move will also shed light on why mainstream theory has increasingly been compelled to approach the transatlantic configuration as a ''puzzle'' with dynamics difficult to account for.
