“Who am I”? Beverly Daniel Tatum

The Complexity of Identity

Identity is a multifaceted construct shaped by personal traits, family dynamics, historical factors, and social-political contexts. Who I am is largely defined by how the world around me reflects me back to myself—parents, peers, teachers, neighbors, and the media—all influencing self-definition through the “looking glass self” idea. Identity is not flat; it is multidimensional and mediated by other aspects of the self (e.g., male/female, young/old, class, sexuality, ability, religion). The social and historical context in which one grows up sets the ground for identity formation, with adolescence acting as a pivotal period when self-reflection intensifies and questions like “Who am I now? Who will I become?” begin to guide life choices that ripple across the lifespan. The social world we inhabit, therefore, helps determine both the content and the salience of our identities.

The Looking-Glass Self and Multidimensional Identity

Following Charles Cooley’s “looking glass self,” our sense of self is formed by how others judge us and how we imagine they judge us. This reflection is multidimensional, because identity is never experienced in isolation from other facets of the self—gender, age, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, ability, and more. The world around us can normalize some identities (often those of the dominant group) while foregrounding others as salient or 'exotic' or 'other.' Experiences of identity are therefore shaped by both internal perceptions and external feedback, creating a dynamic self-image that evolves over time.

Adolescence and Self-Reflection

Adolescence triggers puberty, cognitive maturation, and shifting social expectations, all of which fuel self-reflection and self-consciousness. The adolescent task is to answer “Who am I now?” “Who was I before?” and “Who will I become?” Those answers influence choices about partners, work, residence, and beliefs, with early choices echoing throughout life. Although childhood lays the groundwork, adolescence is the period when identity becomes more explicitly constructed and navigated in social contexts.

Multiple Identities and What Captures Attention

Integrating past, present, and future into a coherent self is a lifelong, variable process. People tend to notice and comment on the aspects of identity that are socially salient or stigmatized. In a classroom exercise, students often name race/ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality as salient parts of themselves, while dominant-group traits (like being White or male) are less likely to be named. The dimensions that are most visible to others—often those where one is considered “other”—tend to shape self-definition and social perception, while the dominant identities often go unexamined.

The Seven Categories of Otherness and Oppression

There are seven commonly experienced bases for “othering” in U.S. society: race or ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, and physical or mental ability. Each category carries its own form of oppression (racism, sexism, religious oppression/anti-Semitism, heterosexism, classism, ageism, ableism). Within any given person, some identities are dominant (advantaged) and others are subordinate (targeted); the targeted parts of identity often demand more attention because they are linked to discrimination and inequality.

Dominance, Subordination, and the Mythical Norm

Audre Lorde’s critique highlights a central tension: the “mythical norm” in American society is white, thin, male, young, heterosexual, Christian, and financially secure. This norm positions dominance as the default human experience, shaping who gets power and whose identities are normalized. Because the dominant worldview saturates culture, subordinates are more aware of dominant perspectives than dominants are of subordinate experiences, which can distort assumptions about equality and fairness. Dominant groups often resist reminders of inequality, while subordinates develop strategies to survive within or resist oppressive structures.

Surviving, Not-Learning, and Resistance

Subordinates use covert resistance (not learning) or deliberate attention to dominants to survive oppressive dynamics. Not-learning preserves personal integrity in the face of conflicting expectations, while closely attending to dominants can erode selfhood. Both strategies carry costs: self-doubt, internalized oppression, or the pressure to conform to the dominant image. When those who are targeted push societal boundaries and assert their rights, they challenge the status quo and bear the risks of labeled “troublemakers.” Yet such actions are essential for exposing inequality and expanding possibilities for all.

Toward Alliances and Responsibility

Many of us inhabit both dominant and subordinate positions, and as Audre Lorde argues, there is no hierarchy of oppressions. Acknowledging each group’s pain while attending to our own is crucial for building solidarity. Readers who are part of dominant groups can benefit from learning about subordinate perspectives, while those who are targeted can reflect on their experiences of dominance in other identities. The ongoing examination of all identities enables empathy, accountability, and the formation of alliances that may ultimately free everyone from oppressive structures.