A question that has been present in our discussions is how to free ourselves of the limiting and often oppressive aspects of racialized identities, created to justify enslavement and colonization centuries ago, while not losing related aspects of our identities that can hold value and enrich society. Spiritual conceptions of identity, often given to humanity by religion, can help us understand the relationship between our universal human identity and our many secondary identities, including our racialized identities. Exploring the relationship between these will be the focus of our discussion today.

The body politic has been likened to the human body: Its well-being and advancement as a whole is best served by the collaborative functioning of its diverse members. In a world becoming more interdependent by the day, the importance of these social ties is clear. Yet, as a result of inherited social hierarchies and divisions, diverse social groups often conceive of their interests separately, rather than as members of one social body. What is needed is profound reassessment of the relationship between our identities and interests.

In this context, the legitimate pride members might feel about advances made by their group, or the power of collective action taken around shared concerns, could be likened to strengthening muscles or increasing lung capacity within the body. These dimensions of human existence are helpful insofar as they work in service of the whole. But to the degree that attachment to limited definitions of “we” undermine collective well-being, they are no longer productive. Without a vision of shared identity and common purpose, we fall into competing ideologies and power struggles. Interest group competition has weakened the cohesion of society itself. Rival conceptions about the primacy of a particular people are peddled to the exclusion of the truth that humanity is on a common journey in which all are protagonists. Consider how radically different such a fragmented conception of human identity is from the one that follows from a recognition of the oneness of humanity. In the latter perspective, the diversity that characterizes the human family, far from contradicting its oneness, endows it with richness. It is through love for all people, and by subordinating lesser loyalties to the best interests of humankind, that the unity of the world can be realized and the infinite expressions of human diversity find their highest fulfilment.

It has become more widely accepted today that if a person cares only about individuals who look like them, to the exclusion of others from their circle of concern, this is a problem. Yet a more subtle challenge lies at the structural level. Even when diverse people today are committed to the advancement of humanity as a whole, they can be limited by divisive social structures inherited from the past — many of which were constructed in a milieu of identity-based oppression.

From a historical perspective, the capacity to conceptualize humanity as an organically interdependent whole is both recent and quite revolutionary. Our ancestors gradually developed more expansive notions of identity as societies were organized on wider and wider scales. But, by and large, a global vision was not required for societies to advance. Today, human activity in one part of the world can have profound effects in another. If we ignore the reality of our oneness, we do so at our own peril.

Given the historic changes of the past two centuries, it is also not surprising that our social institutions are inadequate to our current needs and challenges. Most were initially established to serve relatively homogeneous populations or populations with oppressive social hierarchies. Clearly, new institutional forms are needed. In addition, social norms that place the advancement of limited constituencies in opposition to the well-being of the whole must be replaced by those that value the progress of both as indivisible and complementary. If we hope for a world that does not pit one group against another, we must practice living in it that way.

Great possibilities to cultivate fellowship and concord are open to religious leaders, communities, and individuals, but these same actors can also incite fear, hatred, and violence by using their influence to stoke the fires of fanaticism and prejudice. Fostering unity, by harmonizing disparate elements and nurturing in every heart a selfless love for humankind, is something religion can and must contribute to.