The following is an essay/critique proposing an expansion of the understanding of human identity to include an individual’s character structure as described in the viacharacter.org system. I developed this essay with the help of chatGPT.
Remembering the Good: Reframing Human Identity through Character Strengths and Shared Virtues
Abstract
The study of human identity traditionally emphasizes categories such as race, nation, gender, politics, and culture—categories that both anchor belonging and exacerbate division. Psychological, sociological, and philosophical theories alike demonstrate the paradoxical nature of identity as simultaneously voluntary and involuntary, individual and collective, universal and particular. Into this discourse, the VIA classification of twenty-four character strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) offers a provocative alternative: an identity rooted not in the surface divisions we know so well but in capacities for courage, justice, kindness, and wisdom that appear across human history and culture. This paper critically evaluates the promise and limitations of grounding identity in character strengths. While the approach offers the potential to reduce “othering” and affirm a universal moral core, it faces challenges of cultural bias, structural inequities, and the persistence of social hierarchies.
Nevertheless, when positioned as a bridging paradigm—a supplementary layer beneath conventional identities rather than a replacement—the VIA framework enriches identity discourse by affirming both common humanity and individual uniqueness. In doing so, it points toward Martin Luther King Jr.’s still unrealized challenge to us all that individuals be judged by “the content of their character” rather than outward characteristics. Strengths-based identity cannot dissolve the realities of race, class, and power but it can reorient identity toward virtues that bind rather than divide, offering a vital contribution to the pursuit of human dignity in a fractured world.
Introduction
The question of human identity—“Who am I?”—is at once personal, cultural, philosophical and spiritual. Traditional frameworks of identity include categories such as race, gender, nationality, religion, political affiliation, and social class. These identities provide belonging and orientation, yet they also frequently demarcate boundaries of exclusion, leading to prejudice, stereotyping, and intergroup conflict (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Jenkins, 2014).
While many aspects of identity are involuntary (e.g., race, ethnicity, place of birth), others are chosen (e.g., political orientation, group affiliations). Both voluntary and involuntary identities play crucial roles in structuring human experience, but both can also contribute to the phenomenon of “othering,” in which groups define themselves in opposition to outsiders (Appiah, 2005; Sen, 2006). This dynamic is evident in global struggles around nationalism, religious fundamentalism, and cultural polarization.
Recent advances in positive psychology offer a novel rethinking of identity. Peterson and Seligman (2004), in their landmark Character Strengths and Virtues, articulated a classification of 24 universal character strengths—including creativity, kindness, perseverance, and humor—derived from cross-cultural study of philosophy, religion, psychology and fiction through the ages. These strengths appear to represent a universal moral grammar of human flourishing. Each individual expresses them in a distinctive profile, with certain “signature strengths” more salient to their selfhood (Niemiec, 2018).
This paper explores whether identity based on inner character strengths might serve as a more integrative and less divisive paradigm than traditional surface categories. By foregrounding universal capacities while honoring unique individual expression, a strengths-based approach could offer both common ground across humanity and deeper self-understanding.
The paper proceeds in five sections. First, it examines the VIA framework and research on character strengths. Second, it considers the advantages of a strengths-based identity paradigm, including universality, flourishing, and cross-cultural dialogue. Third, it reviews theoretical approaches to identity across sociology, psychology, and philosophy. Fourth, it engages with critiques, including concerns about structural inequities, cultural variability, and philosophical adequacy. Finally, it suggests practical applications and directions for future research.
VIA Character Strengths as a Framework for Identity
Origins of the VIA Classification
The VIA (Values in Action) classification was first introduced by Peterson and Seligman (2004) as part of the emerging field of positive psychology. Whereas much of 20th-century psychology emphasized pathology and deficits, positive psychology sought to identify the qualities that enable individuals and communities to thrive (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). To this end, Peterson and Seligman undertook a cross-cultural and historical survey of moral traditions, including Confucian, Buddhist, Aristotelian, Judeo-Christian, Islamic, and Indigenous frameworks. Their aim was to distill the recurring virtues and strengths that humans have celebrated across civilizations.
From this analysis, they identified 24 character strengths that exemplify universal human virtues. This classification has since become the foundation of a large empirical literature (McGrath, 2015).
Universality and Empirical Support
Several studies have supported the cross-cultural validity of the VIA strengths. Research across more than 50 nations has found consistent presence of the 24 strengths, although with some cultural variation in salience (Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2006; McGrath, 2015). Importantly, no culture has been found to lack these strengths, suggesting they represent a shared moral grammar of humanity. Moreover, endorsement of particular strengths correlates with positive outcomes. Higher endorsement and practice of signature strengths are associated with well-being, resilience, and meaning in life (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Niemiec, 2018). This suggests that grounding identity in strengths not only provides a descriptive framework but also aligns with human flourishing.
Individual Uniqueness: Signature Strengths
Although the VIA framework is universal, each person expresses the strengths in a distinctive profile. The VIA Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS), a widely used self-report instrument, provides individuals with a ranked list of their 24 strengths. “Signature strengths”—those at the top of one’s profile—are particularly central to one’s identity, proving to be spontaneously energizing and fully authentic when expressed (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Harzer & Ruch, 2013).
For example, one individual might find creativity, love of learning, and perseverance as core to their sense of self, while another might be defined by kindness, fairness, and spirituality. This allows for individual differentiation without abandoning universality—a rare balance in identity frameworks.
Strengths as Identity Anchors
The VIA framework thus offers a novel possibility: to ground human identity not in surface markers like race or nationality, but in enduring character strengths that all humans share yet uniquely configure. In this paradigm, identity is understood as “the constellation of one’s most salient character strengths,” which not only describe how one navigates the world but also represent the best of human capacities across cultures.
In contrast to traditional identity markers, which often create boundaries between groups, strengths-based identity would highlight what is most human and virtuous in each individual. This offers a powerful reorientation: selfhood defined by capacity for excellence and virtue, rather than by inherited or adversarial categories.
VIA Identity in Practice
Applications of the VIA framework already hint at its identity-shaping potential. In organizational contexts, strengths-based leadership has been shown to increase engagement and satisfaction (Miglianico et al., 2020). In education, cultivating student strengths promotes motivation and resilience (Quinlan et al., 2012). In clinical contexts, strengths-based therapy encourages clients to anchor their narratives not only in trauma but also in capacities for growth (Niemiec, 2018).
Although these applications generally treat strengths as resources rather than as primary identity markers, they point to the possibility of a more radical reorientation: that individuals might say not “I am American” or “I am Buddhist” or “I am left-wing,” but rather “I am characterized by curiosity, humor, and kindness.”
Advantages of a Strengths-Based Identity
1. Universality with Individual Differentiation
A defining advantage of grounding identity in VIA character strengths is the unique combination of universality and individuality. Unlike race or nationality—which apply only to certain groups—character strengths are shared across all cultures (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; McGrath, 2015). This universality provides a common foundation: everyone possesses all 24 strengths, though in varying degrees.
At the same time, the ranking of these strengths is individualized. Each person’s unique profile offers a distinctive self-understanding, much as fingerprints do in the biological realm. This dual quality could reduce the divisiveness inherent in identity categories that separate people into “in-groups” and “out-groups” (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Instead, individuals could see themselves as part of a shared human family, while still honoring their individuality.
2. Alignment with Human Flourishing
Research consistently shows that expressing signature strengths contributes to psychological well-being. In a longitudinal study, Seligman et al. (2005) found that interventions encouraging the daily use of one’s top strengths increased happiness and reduced depressive symptoms for up to six months. Similarly, Harzer and Ruch (2013) found that alignment between work tasks and personal strengths predicted greater job satisfaction and engagement.
By anchoring identity in character strengths, individuals are more likely to orient themselves toward fulfillment and meaning rather than toward defensive or adversarial postures. This represents a shift from identity as a potential source of conflict to identity as a pathway to thriving.
3. A Common Language Across Cultures
One of the greatest challenges in multicultural societies is developing a shared framework for dialogue. Strengths may provide such a language. For instance, an individual from Japan who values humility and teamwork may find resonance with someone from the United States who emphasizes fairness and perseverance; both are articulating elements of the same VIA taxonomy.
This potential for cross-cultural dialogue and understanding has been demonstrated in educational settings, where strengths-based interventions foster respect for diversity by highlighting both shared values and unique personal qualities (Quinlan et al., 2012). In intergroup contexts, this shared vocabulary could serve as a bridge across cultural divides, helping individuals recognize virtue in others even when surface identities differ.
4. Reduction of “Othering” and Conflict
Traditional identity markers often function by exclusion: to be a member of one nation, religion, or political party is to be “not” a member of another. This dynamic of “othering” underlies much intergroup conflict (Sen, 2006). By contrast, strengths-based identity minimizes the potential for exclusion. Since everyone possesses all 24 strengths, no one is categorically outside the framework.
Differences exist not in kind but in degree and salience. Two individuals may differ in whether humor or prudence ranks highly in their profiles, but both share access to the same human repertoire. This could foster recognition and empathy across divides.
5. Developmental and Flexible
Identity categories such as race, nationality, or gender are often experienced as fixed. While they can be reinterpreted, they remain largely stable across life. Character strengths, by contrast, are developmental. They can be cultivated through practice, mindfulness, and intentional effort (Niemiec, 2018).
This flexibility allows individuals to see their identities not as static but as evolving. For instance, a young adult may primarily identify with zest, creativity, and curiosity, while later in life spirituality and perspective may become more central. Such a dynamic conception of identity better reflects the fluidity of human growth.
6. Positive Social Implications
Beyond individual flourishing, strengths-based identity has potential social benefits. In organizations, recognizing team members’ strengths can promote collaboration and reduce competition (Miglianico et al., 2020). In communities, shared recognition of strengths may encourage inclusivity and mutual support.
At a societal level, reorienting identity discourse toward character could mitigate polarization. Political identities, for instance, often create adversarial camps. But if political dialogue were reframed around shared strengths—fairness, perspective, leadership—the focus could shift from ideological conflict to common human virtues.
Strengths and Identity Discourse
The advantages of grounding identity in VIA character strengths point to more than just individual psychological benefits. They suggest the possibility of reframing the very way humans talk about identity. Traditional identity discourse—whether in academic, political, or everyday contexts—has often revolved around categories of belonging and exclusion: race, gender, class, nation, religion, and ideology. These categories carry weight because they organize social life, but they also entrench boundaries and hierarchies.
A strengths-based paradigm offers an alternative discourse with several key implications:
1. Identity as capacity rather than category.
Instead of defining who one is by membership (e.g., “I am American,” “I am Muslim,” “I am a Democrat”), strengths-based identity foregrounds qualities of being (e.g., “I am characterized by curiosity and perseverance”). This shift emphasizes human potential rather than group boundary.
2. Identity as shared ground.
Because all humans possess the same repertoire of strengths, identity discourse shifts from dividing groups into insiders and outsiders to highlighting a shared moral language. This could serve as a foundation for intergroup dialogue, where differences are not erased but recognized as variations on a common human theme.
3. Identity as dynamic practice.
Traditional categories often lock individuals into static roles. A strengths-based view encourages people to see identity as something that can grow and evolve through the cultivation of virtues. This resonates with psychological theories of self as process rather than essence (Gergen, 1991).
4. Identity as integrative.
Strengths do not need to replace other forms of identity but can provide a deeper substratum. For example, national or religious identities might be understood as particular expressions of universally valued strengths (e.g., teamwork and fairness in civic traditions, compassion and love in spiritual traditions).
In this way, the VIA framework does not merely add another tool to the psychology of well-being. It potentially reshapes the conceptual terrain of identity, offering a new language to bridge divides.
Situating Strengths-Based Identity within Broader Identity Theories
The proposal to ground identity in character strengths emerges against a rich backdrop of scholarship on identity in psychology, sociology, and philosophy. To evaluate its promise and limitations, it is helpful to see how it resonates with—and diverges from—major theoretical perspectives.
Social Identity and the Problem of “Othering”
In psychology, social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) holds that much of self-concept arises from group memberships. This explains why people derive pride from belonging to a nation, political party, or religious community. Yet the same processes generate “in-group favoritism” and “out-group derogation,” producing conflict and stereotyping. Traditional identity categories, whether voluntary or involuntary, almost inevitably create lines of division.
The VIA framework directly challenges this dynamic by shifting the basis of identity away from membership in exclusive groups toward capacities available to all humans. While group identities divide, strengths-based identity provides a shared foundation. The question becomes not “Which group do you belong to?” but “Which of the shared human strengths most characterize you?”
Intersectionality and Structural Realities
Sociological theories, especially intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991), remind us that identities are shaped by overlapping systems of power—race, gender, class—that structure lived experience. This perspective emphasizes that identity is not just psychological self-concept but also the social positioning that determines access to resources and vulnerability to discrimination.
A strengths-based identity approach does not erase these realities; structural inequities remain powerful forces in people’s lives. However, it offers a complementary layer: while social structures constrain opportunities, individuals can still claim an inner identity grounded in strengths. Ideally, this could provide resilience against oppression, while also motivating collective action framed not only in terms of grievance but also in terms of shared human virtues (e.g., justice, fairness, courage).
Constructivist and Essentialist Views of Self
Philosophically, debates about identity often contrast essentialist views (identity as something fixed, intrinsic, and given) with constructivist views (identity as fluid, relational, and socially constructed). Both have merit: race and gender, for instance, are socially constructed categories, yet they are experienced as deeply real in everyday life (Hall, 1996; Jenkins, 2014).
The VIA framework navigates a middle path. On one hand, strengths are inherent in that they represent enduring human potentials present in everyone. On the other hand, they are creative in their expression: individuals interpret, prioritize, and enact them differently across cultures and life contexts. In this sense, strengths-based identity honors both stability and fluidity.
Identity as Narrative
Another influential approach views identity as narrative (McAdams, 1993): people construct a sense of self by weaving experiences into stories of continuity and meaning. Here, strengths could serve as narrative “plot points.” For example, a person might tell their life story in terms of perseverance through hardship or kindness expressed in relationships. This narrative anchoring could provide a deeper coherence than surface categories alone.
A Universal Yet Situated Self
Taken together, existing theories highlight both the need for belonging and the dangers of division; the reality of structural constraints and the fluidity of self-construction; the importance of continuity and the possibility of change. A strengths-based paradigm of identity does not replace these insights but reframes them through a more universal lens. It invites us to imagine an identity discourse that is simultaneously universal, individual, and developmental—a synthesis not easily achieved within existing models.
Critical Challenges to Strengths-Based Identity
While the VIA framework offers an attractive alternative to identity categories that divide, a number of challenges arise when it is proposed as a new paradigm of human identity. These critiques are not reasons to dismiss the idea outright, but they highlight the limits of universality claims, the structural realities of social life, and the potential pitfalls of individualist framing.
1. The Problem of Universality
The VIA classification of 24 character strengths is presented as a cross-cultural discovery of human virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Yet claims of universality in psychology have often been challenged. Critics note that much of the empirical basis for the VIA derives from surveys and texts within Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic contexts (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010).
Other cultures may prioritize different virtues or interpret the same ones differently. For example, “individual creativity” is celebrated in Western contexts but may be downplayed in collectivist cultures where conformity and harmony are valued. Thus, while the VIA may indeed reflect broad human tendencies, its specific structure may encode cultural biases that limit its global applicability. A strengths-based identity risks being another Western export framed as universal.
2. Structural Inequities and Social Positioning
Identities such as race, gender, class, and nationality are not merely psychological labels but axes of social power. Intersectionality research (Crenshaw, 1991; Collins, 2000) has shown that these categories deeply shape access to education, healthcare, political voice, and safety.
Shifting to a strengths-based identity, while psychologically empowering, does not eliminate systemic inequities. A person of color navigating structural racism cannot simply replace their racial identity with a “signature strength” identity, because society continues to treat them through racialized lenses. To suggest otherwise risks psychological bypassing—focusing on inner positivity while ignoring systemic injustice.
In this light, a strengths-based paradigm could be criticized for being aspirational but socially naïve. Unless it is explicitly integrated with structural analysis and collective action, it risks serving more as a coping strategy for individuals than a framework for justice.
3. The Persistence of “Othering”
One of the chief appeals of the VIA approach is its promise to reduce “othering.” If everyone shares the same 24 strengths, conflict should diminish. Yet identity dynamics are not so easily dissolved. Even if individuals adopted strengths-based profiles, comparisons and hierarchies could reappear in new forms.
For instance, societies might valorize certain strengths (e.g., leadership, bravery) over others (e.g., humility, prudence), leading to new axes of prestige and exclusion. People could be stereotyped or discriminated against based on their ranked strengths just as they are on race or gender today. In other words, the human impulse to rank and divide may simply reattach to new categories.
4. Individualism and Marketability
The VIA identity model emphasizes personal uniqueness—the individual ranking of strengths—as a defining feature. This resonates strongly with modern Western values of individualism and self-expression. Yet this may limit its appeal in cultures where identity is defined relationally, through family, community, or tradition.
Moreover, there is a danger that strengths-based identity could be co-opted into the logic of self-help consumerism. Already the VIA test is offered as an individual assessment, and strengths-based coaching is a growing market. Without safeguards, the framework could become less a tool for collective human flourishing and more a marketable product of neoliberal individualism.
5. Narrative Reductionism
Finally, grounding identity in strengths risks a form of reductionism. While the narrative identity model (McAdams, 1993) suggests that virtues can anchor personal stories, human life is far more than the expression of positive traits. People also define themselves through struggles, failures, contradictions, and even moral shortcomings. A strengths-only framework risks flattening the complexity of human selfhood into a one-dimensional positivity.
Skeptical Synthesis
Taken together, these critiques suggest that while a strengths-based paradigm offers genuine promise, it cannot replace existing identity frameworks. It is best understood as a supplementary lens—one that highlights common human capacities and offers individuals resilience and meaning, but which must remain grounded in awareness of structural inequities, cultural pluralism, and the enduring complexity of identity.
Reconciling Strengths-Based Identity with Broader Theories
Philosophical Synthesis: Universals and Particulars
Identity scholarship highlights a tension between the universal (shared human nature) and the particular (the lived realities of culture, history, and power). The VIA framework can be seen as a mediating concept between these poles. On the one hand, it asserts that all people share access to the same set of character strengths, thus appealing to a universalist vision of human dignity. On the other hand, it allows for individual variation through the ranked expression of those strengths, and for cultural shaping in how strengths are defined and valued.
This positions the VIA not as a replacement for social categories like race, nationality, or gender, but as a deeper substratum of identity. It offers a philosophical reminder that beneath the socially constructed divisions that so often dominate human life, there are shared moral and psychological capacities that point toward common ground. Yet this reminder must remain tethered to the recognition that surface identities still structure lived experience. A strengths-based identity is most powerful not when it denies difference, but when it reframes difference in light of an underlying shared humanity.
Prescriptive Integration: Applications and Safeguards
From a practical standpoint, adopting strengths-based identity in research, education, and therapy requires both enthusiasm and caution. Several guidelines may help integrate this framework responsibly:
1. Contextualization with Social Identities
◦ Encourage individuals to explore their character strengths while also acknowledging the ongoing salience of race, gender, class, and culture. Strengths-based identity should supplement, not erase, other identity dimensions.
2. Cross-Cultural Validation
◦ Researchers should continue to test and refine the VIA framework across diverse cultural contexts, ensuring that its language and categories are not unduly biased toward Western individualism. Adaptations may be needed for collectivist or Indigenous worldviews.
3. Collective Strengths, Not Only Individual
◦ Educational and community programs can frame strengths not just as individual traits but as relational resources. For example, a community might celebrate its collective capacity for kindness or resilience, helping to foster solidarity without erasing differences.
4. Guarding Against Commodification
◦ Practitioners should remain alert to the risk of reducing strengths to marketable self-help products. Strengths-based identity is most valuable when it is humanizing rather than commodifying, oriented toward flourishing rather than consumption.
5. Integrating Struggles and Shortcomings
◦ Finally, identity work must acknowledge that human beings are not only defined by strengths but also by weaknesses, contradictions, and moral complexity. A mature application of VIA would allow for a dialectical view of self: strengths revealed not in isolation, but in the ongoing struggle with limitations.
Reconciliation in Summary
Philosophically, the VIA framework offers a vision of identity that links the universal and the particular, pointing toward a shared humanity beneath surface divisions. Practically, it can enrich psychological practice, education, and intercultural dialogue if it is implemented with cultural sensitivity, structural awareness, and humility about its scope.
Rather than being a new “master category” of identity, strengths-based identity is best understood as a bridging paradigm—a way to remind us that however fragmented our identities may appear, we are united by the capacity for virtues that have guided human flourishing across time and culture.
Conclusion: Identity, Strengths, and the Search for Common Ground
The study of human identity has long been defined by tension: between the individual and the collective, the voluntary and the involuntary, the universal and the particular. Traditional frameworks—racial, national, political, cultural, and spiritual—reveal how identity grounds belonging but also fuels division. Psychological, sociological and philosophical inquiry testifies to the complexity of the self as both given and chosen, both personal and social, both stable and fluid.
Into this well-established field, the VIA classification of twenty-four character strengths offers a fresh intervention. By emphasizing moral and psychological capacities found across cultures, it proposes a shared human substrate of identity that is less prone to the polarizing “othering” that plagues surface categories. The appeal is clear: in a fragmented world, to emphasize what is common and life-giving across humanity rather than what divides. Moreover, the unique ranking of strengths in each individual provides for individuality without dissolving universality, offering a balance often missing in identity theory.
Yet the VIA framework cannot be uncritically adopted as a new paradigm of identity. Skeptical inquiry reveals challenges. The claim of universality may be undermined by Western cultural bias in the construction and validation of the strengths. Structural inequities mean that social categories like race, gender, and class remain materially decisive, regardless of how individuals might wish to identify. The human tendency to construct hierarchies suggests that even strengths could become grounds for exclusion or stereotyping. Finally, an overemphasis on positivity risks flattening the complexity of human life, neglecting the role of weakness, conflict, and contradiction in shaping authentic selfhood.
Nonetheless, these critiques need not diminish the value of a strengths-based approach. Instead, they point toward the conditions under which it can contribute responsibly to the discourse on identity. Philosophically, VIA can be understood as a mediating concept between universals and particulars: it affirms a shared human dignity without denying the social realities of difference. Practically, it can enrich education, therapy, and intercultural dialogue if applied with safeguards: contextualizing strengths alongside social identities, validating them across cultures, framing them collectively as well as individually, resisting commodification, and embracing the dialectic of character strengths and human weakness or incapacity.
In the end, the promise of the VIA framework is not to offer a final answer to the riddle of human identity, but to widen the conversation. By situating strengths alongside, rather than above, the diverse dimensions of identity, scholars and practitioners can understand it as a bridging paradigm: one that honors difference while grounding it in common humanity. Such an approach is urgently needed in an era where identities too often harden into boundaries. If pursued with philosophical humility and practical sensitivity, strengths-based identity may be a catalyst for re-recognizing our capacities — for courage, kindness, forgiveness, appreciation of beauty — that have enriched cultures across time and geography.
References
Hall, S. (1996). Introduction: Who needs ‘identity’? In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1–17). SAGE.
McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. William Morrow.
Jenkins, R. (2014). Social identity (4th ed.). Routledge.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press/American Psychological Association.
Niemiec, R. M. (2018). Character strengths interventions: A field guide for practitioners. Hogrefe Publishing.
King, M. L., Jr. (1963, August 28). I have a dream [Speech transcript]. National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/files/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
Further Reading
MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory (3rd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press.
Sen, A. (2006). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. W. W. Norton.
Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another (K. Blamey, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
Miracle Soup 