Finding Ourselves
Who Am I?
We live in the tension between who we are and who we hope to be. At times, our imagined selves soar above reality, elevated with grandeur. At other times, we shrink ourselves into grotesque caricatures. The truth lies somewhere in between. We are not wholly what we imagine, either the better or the worse. The same can be said of our communities. We espouse ideals and assume we surpass them or offer critiques to name where we have fallen short. Again, the truth is found between these extremes. Yet, who we are waits to be fully discovered.
In philosophy, there is an idea called the systematic elusiveness of the “I.” It is a concept that proposes that who we are, who we really are, is always just out of our grasp of comprehension. The I or self of myself that I seek to know is always myself reflecting on the echo of myself that just acted, thought, or suggested that I try to know the one doing the thinking. (Slow down and read that statement again.)
Our true selves are seen but in our perpetual periphery—recognized but not gazed upon directly, sensed but not fully seen. Who we are, as the essence of who we are, remains a tantalizing mystery even to ourselves, because what we know of ourselves in our internal ponderings is always a reflection of what/who just was, not what/who currently is.
This sounds, in no small measure, like a dizzying maze of thought—some intellectual circular logic out of which no one can escape. In some sense, we are trapped in it. In another sense, there is a way out.
In philosophy, there is a persistent debate between the individual and the person. Individuals are readily recognized in our modern intellectual discourse. In fact, many assume the idea of the individual is undeniable and irrefutable. Certainly, since the 18th century, Western philosophy has presumed the existence of the individual, treating it as the foundational intellectual basis for many philosophical arguments and political theories. The individual is an isolated entity, living independent of others as a cohesive and intelligible whole. The individual is, ultimately, neither added to nor reduced by virtue of another’s existence. The individual is necessarily constant with a degree of fixedness to who they are that is almost sacrosanct. Entire religious, political, and economic systems have been predicated on the assumption that the individual exists, must exist, and we must design social systems to honor, respect, and support individuals.
At first glance, who would dare disagree with the idea of systems meant to honor, respect, and support individuals? I certainly wouldn’t. Yet the very existence of the individual gives rise to systems and assumptions about ourselves that are incapable of resolving the problem noted above: that who we truly are is always elusive, just beyond our grasp. Vitally, if we cannot identify who we really are in substantive ways, then what needs to change in who we are and who we hope to be cannot be identified, nevertheless achieved. Philosopher Charles Taylor rightly characterizes the kind of individuals described above in this Western tradition as extensionless selves with impermeable boundaries. In a world defined by the kind of isolated individuals Taylor describes, who we truly are remains defined yet paradoxically always elusive. The self we are and might need to become is lost.
But hope is not lost. What if individuality is an illusion? What if we are not so extensionless and not so impermeable? What if we are, in actuality, not individuals at all but persons? In philosophical terms, persons exist as discrete and defined selves, recognizable from others yet not independent of them. In fact, personhood assumes the existence of another. For without the presence of another, the first person does not know themselves to be themselves at all. The presence of another being demands we acknowledge we are not that other and, in so doing, begin to know that we even are. (Again, slow down and reread this claim.) Being a person requires others and knowing that they are engaging with us. Personhood, also, is less concerned about the absolute fixedness of boundaries. Rather, boundaries are only useful to the degree to which they help us know who we are, differentiating us from others. Those boundaries are permeable, as we extend into each other’s spaces, noting what is us and what is not, changing who we fundamentally are in the process.
This interweaving of lives offers a way forward to the problem posed above. If the self now, by necessity, exists with others to know it is a discrete self, then those others have a glimpse at who we are. They don’t have a full picture, but they do see, especially those who become intimately aware of us, who we are in the moment of our acting and relating. They see us, if fleetingly, in the present—not an echo but the actual self. They, those other persons with whom we are living and moving and engaging, come to know a part of us in real time. Who we are takes shape as we interact with more people and reflect on our actions. In this way, a more comprehensive picture of our whole selves emerges. It is a mosaic, a constellation of points that outlines and defines who we are, providing the information needed to establish a baseline from which we can know ourselves and identify the changes required to become who we hope to be. To truly become and know ourselves, we need the mirror of community.
These two distinct yet foundational assertions about what it means to be human inevitably lead to divergent ways of engaging with the world and the people we share it with. The ripple effects on faith, politics, economics, and culture are staggering. This essay explores these differences to explain how this foundational presumption about what it means to be human provides a lens that radically alters how we see the world and our lives in it.
Profound Implications: Two Starting Points, Two Worlds
Divergent Vantages
A world predicated on the idea that, fundamentally, we are individuals offers a particular lens through which to understand ourselves, all that is around us, and how we act and prioritize within that vision. In admittedly broad brush strokes, a world viewed through this particular lens prioritizes autonomy, privacy, and self-sufficiency. Social systems built on this lens tend to emphasize rights, personal freedom, and protection from interference. Practically, the lens advances liberal democracies and market economies that assume the operative presence of individuals as isolated decision-makers.
Conversely, a world that assumes we are meant to be persons rather than individuals focuses its gaze on relationality, reciprocity, and mutual formation. Systems built on this lens elevate responsibility, interdependence, self-flourishing, and self-actualization. This focus, almost inevitably, leads to arguments for a communitarian ethic, covenantal religious traditions, and collaborative economies.
Functionally, viewing the world as a place intended for individuals or persons results in a noticeably different set of priorities and assumptions about what should be pursued and how we might engage those pursuits accurately and appropriately. Vitally, communities or people who advocate for individuals or persons do not just describe what it means to be a good human in the world. On the contrary, they are describing and subsequently constructing almost incompatible worlds. It is not surprising, then, that those two worlds tend to clash, profoundly impacting social, political, personal, and cultural realities. That clash might manifest as an occasional irritation. More likely, the clash will result in a much graver abrasion than that. To calibrate these differences and note the potential severity of collision points, a short series of diversions is helpful.
Impact on Faith
When faith is construed as an individual model, religion frequently becomes a private affair centered on personal belief and personal salvation. Similarly, worship manifests principally as an individual expression rather than a fundamentally communal practice. When faith is founded upon a person model, it exhibits an inherent communality. Persons’ identities are shaped by shared rituals, mutual accountability, and collective discernment. Covenantal collectivity and relationality are elevated above individual understandings and solitary convictions.
Impact on Politics
In politics, a world of individuals yields political systems as the aggregation of isolated preferences. Policies are crafted and implemented to prioritize personal rights and freedoms over communal obligations. “My rights” rhetoric dominates public discourse. The world of the person needs a politic that functions as a synonym for the negotiated shared life. Such a political system ensures and improves the common good, civic responsibility, and participatory governance. This form of governance champions deliberative democracy, where dialogue and mutual understanding shape decisions.
Impact on Economics
When considering the impact on our perceptions of the world, assuming humanity's primary existence as individuals, economics posits a market logic that relies on rational, self-interested actors. In this system, the driving measure of success is personal wealth and the regular production and consumption of more products. Alternatively, in a world assumed to be populated by persons and not individuals, economics may be characterized by networked interdependence. Here, value is measured by how well systems promote that interdependence, inevitably advancing sustainability, equity, and communal well-being as defining characteristics. In this person-centric world, economies are developing and valuing cooperative enterprises, social entrepreneurship, and circular economies.
Impact on Education
Individuals approach education as a personal achievement, heavily predicated on earning certain grades, obtaining credentials, and advancing in their careers. Learning is framed as primarily competitive and solitary. Persons, conversely, understand education as a kind of formation within a community, reliant upon dialogue, collaboration, and shared inquiry. Core to this kind of learning is the promotion of the liberal arts traditions, emphasizing conversation and civic engagement.
Here, through a short diversion through faith, politics, economics, and education, the contours of the distinct worlds occupied by individuals and persons begin to emerge. The delineation is clear and consistent, with recurring themes and habits across iterations. To grasp the implications of these dichotomous construals, a more concrete turn toward the cultural impacts of a world filled with individuals or persons proves instructive.
Social Justice Consequences
Understanding humanity’s existence in the world, whether construed as individuals or persons, significantly influences our perspectives on faith, politics, economics, and education. These different assumptions about what it means to be human compel us to construct systems that ensure these realms continue to function as we envision them. The systems we create, and their impact on our lives, are most vividly observed in the cultural consequences arising from worlds populated by individuals or persons.
The profoundly different emphases required to ensure that an individual thrives versus a person thrives—and the corresponding priorities that emerge—highlight the inherent incompatibility between a world of individuals and a world of persons coexisting. The individual's defining characteristics include a focus on independence, self-expression, and personal branding, which often leads to social conditions marked by isolation and fragmentation. In contrast, a world that defines humanity as persons elevates values such as belonging, shared meaning, and mutual care. Flourishing is understood as collective rather than merely personal.
Of course, these characteristics are not exclusive to either world; there is certainly some overlap. What matters is the ranking or prioritization of these different characteristics in each context. The divergence between these alternative worldviews is most evident when examining cultural issues often framed in terms of social justice, particularly regarding immigration, LGBTQAI+ rights, and diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Broader Implications for Social Justice: Immigration
In a world constructed of individuals, immigration is framed as a matter of personal choice and legal compliance. Consequently, policies prioritize border security and individual responsibility. In the alternative world intended for persons, immigration is understood as a relational reality, emerging from concern for the circumstances that might drive it, while its impact on families, communities, and cultural exchange is considered. Justice requires systems that honor interdependence and shared humanity with policies designed that emphasize family reunification and community integration.
Broader Implications for Social Justice: LGBTQIA+ Rights
For individuals, rights discourse focuses on personal freedom and privacy. “Leave me alone” logic dominates with non-interference defining justice. For persons, concerns about LGBTQIA+ rights center on affirming identity and its relational importance. In this world, visibility, belonging, and mutual recognition matter. Justice includes creating spaces where diverse identities flourish in the community.
Broader Implications for Social Justice: Environmental Justice
When viewing the world as inhabited by individuals, environmental responsibility is reduced to personal choices, in particular, as to whether to recycle or regulate one’s consumption. Climate action is framed as voluntary lifestyle changes. When viewed as inhabited by persons, societies are meant to recognize our ecological interdependence, understanding that our lives are woven into ecosystems. Justice occurs as demands for collective action and systemic change for shared survival, often manifesting in community-driven sustainability projects and global climate agreements.
Broader Implications for Social Justice: Diversity and Inclusion
When accounting for diversity and inclusion, a world of individuals tends to couch diversity in terms of demographic representation, concentrating on numbers and managing quotas. In this world, inclusion is framed as tolerance: “You do you; I do me.” For a world of persons, diversity is understood as mutual enrichment, as identities shape and reshape one another. Inclusion is expressed through active engagement, dialogue, empathy, and shared transformation.
Why This Matters
The divide between worlds built for individuals and those built for persons shapes everything—our institutions, our freedoms, and our sense of justice. Individual-focused systems reduce justice to private rights: autonomy and protection from interference. Person-focused systems expand justice to shared responsibility and communal flourishing. These competing visions pull social justice in opposite directions—between safeguarding independence and cultivating belonging.
Our starting point determines how we design systems, imagine freedom, and pursue growth. Individuals thrive in isolation; persons thrive in exchange. Naming this tension explains why debates feel like collisions: we are not just arguing policies—we are living in different worlds. Yet these worlds share the same space, and reconciliation is essential. If we are to know who we are and who we hope to become, we must resolve this divide. Only then can we define who we should be—and chart a path toward becoming.
I favor the advancement of persons over individuals—not because autonomy is unimportant, but because flourishing requires connection. Belonging over isolation. Responsibility over indifference. Growth we build together.
Systems built for individuals narrow justice to private rights—autonomy and protection from interference. Systems built for persons expand justice to shared responsibility and communal flourishing. If we remain divided, we inhabit overlapping but incompatible worlds. Yet these worlds share the same space, and reconciliation is essential. Without reconciliation, policies fracture, communities polarize, and justice becomes a zero-sum game.
What should we do? Here are practices that embody personhood—choose those that fit your context.
Start where you are. Make decisions that assume identity is formed in relationships—at home, at work, in classrooms, and in civic life. Build mirrors of community that help us see ourselves clearly, change wisely, and thrive together.
Seek faith communities that emphasize shared rituals, mutual accountability, and collective discernment. Engage in a deliberative democratic model in which dialogue and consensus shape decisions, such as participatory budgeting in local governments. Promote economic systems that prize cooperative enterprises, credit unions, and social entrepreneurship initiatives that prioritize sustainability and equity over profit maximization. Participate in educational institutions that focus on the liberal arts and project-based learning environments that foster collaboration, civic engagement, and dialogue. Pursue social justice in community-driven climate action networks, restorative justice programs, and diversity initiatives that emphasize empathy and shared transformation.
Choose relational thinking. Make decisions that assume identity is formed in relationships—at home, at work, in classrooms, and in civic life. Build mirrors of community. Create spaces where we see ourselves clearly, change wisely, and thrive together.
To know who we are and become who we hope to be, we must resolve this divide and choose practices that honor personhood: belonging over isolation, responsibility over indifference, and flourishing we build together. Every choice for connection strengthens the fabric of a world where persons—not isolated individuals—can thrive, woven into that single garment of human destiny.
That is who I am, or at least the person I hope to be.