Who and What We Are

04-14-2024

Roger Berkowitz

Samantha Fazekas writes that Hannah Arendt’s distinction between who we are and what we are can help us learn to better take criticism of our performance at work. In the Human Condition, Arendt writes: 

“In acting and speaking, men show who they are, reveal actively their unique personal identities and thus make their appearance in the human world … This disclosure of ‘who’ in contradistinction to ‘what’ somebody is – his qualities, gifts, talents, and shortcomings, which he may display or hide – is implicit in everything somebody says and does.”

While we disclose who we are in our public actions, what people see and think about us can never fully capture who we really are.  When people evaluate what we do—how well we write or how successful we are—they do not penetrate into the core of who we are. They can assess what of our actions are visible to them, and they can form opinions about who we are. But these opinions are always mere opinions and cannot reach our true selves. For Fazekas, this can help us to better listen to others without becoming defensive. She writes:  

Arendt writes that people disclose who they are when they speak and interact with others, concluding that this can only take place in public. What she means is that someone’s personality shines through their words and actions. For example, what makes a teacher unique is how they show kindness and understanding to their students in their own way – which no one else can replicate.

If our personalities only shine through in public, then it can lead us to believe that our sense of self-worth is largely in the hands of others. Who we are seems inextricably linked to how others perceive us and their evaluation of what we do. The teacher’s uniqueness appears to be entirely dependent on how their students perceive their interactions.

However, Arendt’s reflections on the public nature of our personalities can actually help us avoid taking criticism personally. Even though who we are is perceived by others, we are not fully determined by their opinions of us. This is because descriptions and evaluations of what we do can never capture who we are.

More often than not, criticism merely offers an assessment of what we are. Arendt’s distinction between who and what we are reminds us to uncouple our sense of self-worth from the opinions of others. It can help us realise that we are infinitely more than someone else’s assessment of our work.

If your boss tells you that your writing could be clearer, that you should come more prepared for the next meeting or that you need to be a better team player, they are not saying anything about who you are as a person.

When Arendt claims that our personalities are in the hands of others, she means that we cannot control what others think of us. We can try our best to show that we are kind, easygoing and good at what we do. We can even try to appear in a certain way or to persuade others to change their opinions of us. But we simply cannot force others to perceive us how we would like them to.
So, if revealing who we are is outside of our control, then why even try to prove ourselves to others? Why take someone’s criticism to heart when we can’t necessarily change their opinion of us?

Arendt is convinced that revealing our unique personalities is still worthwhile. She maintains: “although nobody knows whom he reveals when he discloses himself in deed and word, he must be willing to risk the disclosure.”