The Formation of Authentic Identity: Uniting Self-Determination with Cultural Connections

The formation of one’s own identity is an amazing process during which we are accompanied by both inner searches and a rich experience of relationships with the surrounding world. At the very beginning of the journey, we face the fundamental question: Who are we? This process begins with a deep act of self-determination, when each of us selects a unique position, striving to establish our existence as something inimitable. It is precisely through this inner dialogue, by asking ourselves who we are, that our authenticity is formed, making us aware of our uniqueness and inseparability from the world.

However, our self-consciousness does not exist in a vacuum. It is closely intertwined with interpersonal relationships and elements of cultural heritage that have been instilled in us from childhood. Through close relationships—friendship, love, and even spiritual upbringing—we begin to feel how external factors influence our inner self, filling it with new meanings and colors. Our self-perception always arises against the backdrop of the surrounding reality, where the boundaries between our private sphere and external influences acquire special significance. The sense of individuality is revealed both through the awareness of our own autonomy and through the understanding that we are inextricably connected with the world of others, with cultures and traditions that define our place in society.

In summary, the awareness of one’s own identity is a dynamic process combining the inner strength of self-determination with the significance of interpersonal bonds. In the dialogue between the “I” and the external world, the foundations of our distinctiveness are laid, making us not only unique but also deeply responsive to cultural and traditional currents. This approach helps us not only understand who we are but also realize our place within the intricate structure of modern society, where each of us leaves an irreplaceable mark.

How is our understanding of our own identity and place in the world formed?
Our understanding of our own identity and our place in the world emerges from a complex, multifaceted process, in which both internal self-verification and our relationships with other people and cultural conditions play central roles.

On one hand, identity arises from the act of inner self-determination. As noted in one of the sources, “Two identical objects are possible, but not two identical people, and the idea of cloning—if applied to us personally—evokes in us a profound bewilderment, repulsion, even horror. […] For a person, identity can only be identity to oneself, self-identity. […] Only the person themselves is capable of verifying their own (self)identity. Such an act of self-verification means that one engages in self-relation in which one strives to discover, establish, and identify oneself—exactly who one is—thus confirming one’s own enduring, self-identical authenticity. But is it possible to achieve this? What is needed for it, what conditions? These are the questions that constitute the ‘problem of self-identity’.” (source: link )

This internal process begins with choosing oneself as the basis of any standpoint, as highlighted in another cited passage: “Before choosing any position or standpoint, one must first choose oneself, an act of self-awareness, an answer—even if only intuitive—to Tolstoy’s question (in Bunin’s words): WHO ARE YOU – WHAT ARE YOU? This is a question about my identity. […]” (source: link ). Thus, self-consciousness and self-determination are primary and fundamental in the formation of our identity.

On the other hand, our self-perception is inextricably linked with the external world—people, cultural elements, and upbringing that have been embedded in our consciousness since childhood. The importance of these aspects is evident in the description of how relationships with others and collective values impact our inner being: “Thus, other people for me are directly parts of an external objective reality that I clearly distinguish from my 'I'. But when I enter into an intimate relationship of love or friendship with them, I ‘have’ them in a different way than I ‘have’, for example, money, a dress, or furniture. For the very relationship of love or friendship enriches me from within, permeates the inner essence of my 'I', and lives within me. […] Nationality is a defining element of my own being. A similar relationship is revealed in the inner, spiritual development of the personality through education…” (source: link ). This passage emphasizes that the experience of intimate relationships, the connection with one’s homeland, national culture, or the process of education not only complements but directly forms our sense of self and identity.

Moreover, in the process of self-determination, our relationships with the external world play an important role by allowing us to be aware of our separateness and, at the same time, of our connection with others. As stated, “That instance of being which we experience as ‘I’ and call by that name is, in a sense, something sovereign, self-sufficient, independent of anything external […] But this very separateness, distinctiveness, and independence is a negative relation to that from which I perceive myself as separate […]” (source: link ). Here, it is clear that understanding oneself is formed not only through positive self-assertion but also through contrast with the external “you,” by recognizing the boundaries between “I” and others.

Thus, our understanding of our own identity and our place in the world arises from the dialectic of inner self-establishment and external relationships, in which personal self-determination is closely intertwined with the awareness of both our connection to and our distinction from other people, cultures, traditions, and communities.

Supporting citations:

“Two identical objects are possible, but not two identical people, and the idea of cloning—if applied to us personally—evokes in us a profound bewilderment, repulsion, even horror. Therefore, in the realm of objects, identity is generally not the same as self-identity. It can denote the identity of an object to itself as well as to another object; whereas, for a person, identity can only be the identity to oneself, self-identity. Moreover, with regard to a person, self-identity acquires an important additional meaning by intertwining with self-consciousness: the identity of a self-conscious being is a self-identity established not by an external instance but solely by the person themselves; only the person is capable of verifying their own (self)identity. Such an act of self-verification means that one engages in self-relation in which one strives to discover, establish, and identify oneself—exactly who one is—thus confirming oneself as possessing a persistent, self-identical authenticity. But is it possible to achieve this? What is required for it, what conditions? These are the questions that constitute the 'problem of self-identity'.” (source: link )

“Thus, other people for me are directly parts of an external objective reality that I clearly distinguish from my 'I'. But when I enter into an intimate relationship of love or friendship with them, I ‘have’ them in a different way than I ‘have’, for example, money, a dress, or furniture. For the relationship of love or friendship enriches me from within, permeates the inner essence of my 'I', and lives within me. The concrete reality of my own being is inseparable from this relationship; when a bond is broken or a loved one dies, we experience a radical change in our inner being. The same applies, for example, to one’s relationship with one’s homeland. I not only have my homeland as my natural external environment and the setting for my activities; in the form of my native language—through which I speak and think—moral concepts, familiar customs, and the characteristically national spiritual essence, the homeland lives within me; nationality is a defining element of my own being. A similar relationship is revealed in the inner, spiritual development of the personality through education, i.e., by absorbing new knowledge, impressions, and the influence of artists and thinkers.” (source: link )

“That instance of being which we experience as ‘I’ and call by that name is, in a sense, something sovereign, self-sufficient, independent of anything external – and that in itself is entirely correct. Yet, from the stance of transcendental thinking, from which we must view the reality here, we are not allowed to remain at merely affirming this 'sovereignty' or 'independence'; we must grasp the very meaning of these attributes, i.e., the categorical-constitutive moment that forms them. We must first recall that the 'sovereignty of being' in the sense of absolute being from itself (aseitas) does not belong to any particular entity, but only to an absolute, all-encompassing unity or its fundamental basis (later we will see that even this position has only relative significance). I, as the bearer of singular, particular immediate self-being, exist—not as an absolutely self-sufficient deity, but merely as a moment within the whole of an all-encompassing being. The 'sovereignty' of my being is, in any case, a relative sovereignty: it consists of the fact that I stand in relation of independence to other beings like me, that I possess a unique, isolated mode of being. Yet this very separateness, distinctiveness, and independence is a negative relation to that from which I recognize my separateness (similarly to how the 'sovereignty' or 'independence' of a state is expressed by its position and significance within the 'concert of powers', i.e., constituted by its standing in international law).” (source: link )