Who do you become in the systems around you?
What shapes us, what connects us, and how we can do better.
We often think of identity as something internal to each of us—a combination of our values, personality, jobs, and experiences. But that’s only part of the picture. Much of who we are is shaped by our environments, our roles, and the meanings we attach to them.
This is not to say that our individuality isn’t real. It means that our sense of self doesn’t develop in isolation. Who we are is shaped by relationships with the people, groups, and systems surrounding us. These interactions, repeated over time, help define how we see ourselves and how the world sees us. This dynamic isn’t random. This idea lies at the heart of the concept of social construction[i], which challenges the notion that our roles, labels, and even our sense of self are purely natural or innate. When we begin to understand how our identities are shaped within social environments, we can explore the more meaningful question: Who am I in systems?
What’s a system?
Systems are the structures that organize our lives. They include families, workplaces, schools, communities, and governments. Each system serves a purpose, with its own rules, norms, and relationships guiding its operation and our interactions within it.
These systems shape us in at least two key ways:
Defining Norms: Systems establish what’s considered normal or acceptable. In a family, this might mean unspoken rules about who handles emotional labor. In a workplace, it might mean expectations around productivity and success.
Assigning Roles: Systems often assign roles based on how we’re perceived. For example, a school system might label a student as “gifted,” setting them on a particular trajectory.
But here’s the important part: while systems shape us, they’re not immutable. Because they’re socially constructed, they’re also flexible. Our participation and resistance shape how systems evolve. And, in turn, how systems shape us.
Social construction, identity, and systems.
Social construction theory suggests that many aspects of our world, such as our roles, relationships, and even institutions, aren’t naturally occurring but are created through shared beliefs and interactions with others in our systems[ii]. What we take as 'just the way things are' is often the result of collective agreement and repeated reinforcement within systems. It doesn’t just shape how we see the world; it shapes how we see ourselves. Every system we’re part of creates expectations about who we are and how we should act. Over time, we internalize these expectations, which become part of our identity even as we navigate the nested systems within which we belong.
For example, a “parent” is often expected to be nurturing, self-sacrificing, and responsible. These expectations aren’t inherent. Instead, they’re constructed by cultural beliefs about what it means to be a parent. And every culture can have beliefs about parenting. Even generationally, within our own family systems, the beliefs about parenting may not be aligned.
Similarly, systems assign labels that influence how we’re perceived and how we perceive ourselves. In a school system, a student might be labeled as “gifted” or “at-risk,” and those labels can shape their trajectory. Labels like “high potential” or “underperformer” can determine opportunities and access to workplaces.
These roles and labels can be empowering, but they can also be limiting. When we feel boxed into a role that doesn’t align with our true self or when systems enforce harmful stereotypes, the social construction of our identity can become a source of anxiety and tension.
Social construction also influences what we consider “normal.” Cultural norms— the unspoken rules about behavior—vary across systems. For example:
In some families, conflict might be avoided at all costs, creating a system where open communication feels uncomfortable or even taboo.
In workplaces, productivity is often valued above well-being, leading employees to internalize the belief that their worth is tied to their output.
When we participate in these systems, we absorb these norms, often without questioning them. But what’s “normal” in one system might not make sense in another, highlighting how deeply social construction shapes our experiences.
The stories we tell about ourselves, our communities and the world are at the heart of social construction. Consider how we define the ‘American Dream’ story as a narrative prioritizing individual effort over systemic realities like privilege or access. These narratives are powerful because they influence what we believe and how we act within systems. The meaning of these stories may also shift over time in the broader culture as nested systems of the culture.
James Truslow Adams, who coined the phrase ‘American Dream’ in The Epic of America, focused its definition more on the broader dream of equality, justice, and democracy in the nation than material wealth[iii]. Each generation has since shaped the phrase through the lens of a socially constructed narrative. So, today, the ‘American Dream’ means individual success, materialism, and wealth to some in society, while to others, it means access to healthcare, a livable wage, affordable housing, and a lack of food insecurity. Both can, and perhaps should be, correct. Yet, what the ‘American Dream’ means to each of us is borne from how the nested systems we find ourselves in may socially construct its definition.
Recognizing the socially constructed nature of systems opens the door to reimagining what’s possible:
We can question norms: Why do we value certain traits or behaviors in specific systems? Are these values serving us, or do they need to evolve?
We can challenge labels: What labels have been assigned to us, and do they reflect who we truly are? What labels have we assigned to others, and are they fair?
We can rewrite stories: What narratives have we internalized about success, worth, or belonging? How can we create new stories that are more inclusive and empowering?
Let’s look at another real-world example. Consider gender roles, which are among the most deeply ingrained social constructs. Historically, faith, education, and work systems have reinforced the idea that men should be providers and women's caretakers. These roles weren’t based on inherent abilities but on cultural beliefs that became entrenched over time. Yet today, these constructs are being challenged. Conversations about equity, inclusion, and diversity reshape families, workplaces, and communities, creating space for people to define their identities on their terms.
This process isn’t easy. As we reshape these systems, sometimes it feels like we move three steps forward only to fall six steps back. Change means questioning long-held beliefs, confronting resistance, and acknowledging the implicit biases and agendas baked into these structures and systems. It also requires intentionality from each of us: choosing to explore alternatives and imagining something better.
But here’s the crucial piece…systems aren’t just abstract entities that exist outside of us. We create and maintain them through our choices, behaviors, and interactions. And because systems are socially constructed, they can be reshaped—not easily, but with intention, meaningfully.
Who are you in these systems?
Let’s bring this back to the question of identity. Think about the systems you’re part of—your family, workplace, community. Who are you in these spaces? You likely play multiple roles, some of which you embrace and others that may feel imposed. Social Identity Theory suggests that we create and define our own identities with regard to our social groups and adopt behaviors that reflect the group’s norms [iv]. This alignment helps us feel like we belong, but it can also limit us if the roles or norms conflict with our personal values.
For example, someone in a corporate system might feel pressure to prioritize profit over people, even if that clashes with their personal commitment to fairness and equity. Similarly, someone in a family system might feel stuck in the role of “peacemaker,” even when conflict needs to be addressed directly. The challenge, then, is to recognize where your roles align with your authentic self and where they don’t. It also begs a more personal question of what we will choose to do when these roles are incongruent with our authentic selves.
Are we lost in the system?
Things can get tricky here: When we fail to acknowledge the systems shaping us, we risk losing sight of ourselves. When this happens, it’s easy to become passive participants, going along with norms and roles that might not serve us or truly serve others. This disconnection can lead to a kind of individualism where we see ourselves as separate from the systems we’re part of. It can also create a sense of helplessness, where we feel systems are too big or rigid to change.
But the truth is, because systems are socially constructed, they can be reshaped. That process starts with awareness, a better understanding of how these structures work, how they shape us, and how we, in turn, fit into them. When we begin to see systems not as fixed realities but as flexible creations, we can start to think differently about our role within them.
If systems are made up of people, then each of us holds the potential to influence them. This isn’t about sweeping, immediate change; it’s about showing up with intention in the spaces where we live, work, and connect. It means examining our choices within systems and ensuring they align with the world we want to build.
Reclaiming individual agency starts with awareness. It’s about understanding the roles we play, the expectations we’ve internalized, and the opportunities we have to act differently. These actions don’t need to be grand gestures. Often, it’s the small, intentional decisions that make the biggest impact over time. For example, asking:
What roles do you play in the systems you’re part of? Are they roles you’ve chosen or ones that were assigned to you?
What norms or expectations have you internalized? Do they align with your values?
How can you use your position within a system to influence change—whether in your family, workplace, or community?
We cannot overhaul an entire system overnight. Yet, we can take small, intentional actions: speaking up in a meeting when a harmful practice is normalized, encouraging equitable decision-making in your family, and supporting community initiatives that challenge the status quo.
It may seem contrary, but transforming systems through collective action begins with each of us doing our own inner work. Continuous self-improvement and self-development, combined with a renewed sense of being in service to others, create a ripple effect all around us. This concept, simplified as Better Me + Better You = Better Us [v], forms the foundation for rebuilding a shared understanding of the common good that sadly seems to be lacking in society today. By focusing inward, we lay the groundwork for meaningful, outward change.
This isn’t just about abstract ideals; rather, it’s about how we show up every day. Who we are in these systems is not just a reflection of the roles we play or the expectations placed upon us; it’s a reflection of our choices. Systems influence us, but they are not fixed or unchangeable. They are human-made and shaped by the behaviors, norms, and decisions of the people within them, which means they can be reshaped.
When we understand that, we reclaim our agency. Systems may assign labels, enforce norms, or create expectations, but we have the power to question, challenge, and redefine them. This begins with self-awareness: noticing the stories we’ve internalized, recognizing the roles we’ve taken on, and identifying the opportunities we have to act differently.
Who we are in systems is also about our interconnectedness. None of us exists in isolation. Every action, whether speaking up at work, showing compassion in our community, or modeling fairness in our family, sends ripples through the systems we’re a part of. These ripples can reinforce the status quo, or they can inspire change.
So, who are you in systems? Are you a passive participant, shaped by the structures around you? Or are you an active agent, shaping those structures to reflect your values and aspirations better?
The answer lies not just in how you see yourself but also in how you engage with the systems you navigate every day. When you recognize the power you hold, even in small, intentional actions, you begin to reclaim your role—not just within systems but as a co-creator of the world we all share.
Reflections on the journey.
As I think about who I am in systems, the journey becomes one of recognizing my interconnectedness with others and understanding how I both shape—and am shaped by—the world around me. Reflecting on my role in systems has been eye-opening, and it’s not always comfortable. These are some of the questions I’ve been sitting with lately:
What roles do I play in the systems that shape my life? Do these roles reflect my values, or am I holding onto expectations that no longer serve me—or others?
How am I using my position within these systems to create meaningful change? Are there ways I could be showing up more intentionally?
What systems am I actively sustaining through my choices, actions, or silence? And what systems am I working to challenge or transform?
How can I ensure that my small, intentional actions—however insignificant they might seem—contribute to reshaping the bigger picture for the better?
Sitting with these questions has helped me better understand who I am and who I want to become. It’s an ongoing process that requires self-awareness, humility, and a willingness to act, even in small ways. I hope these reflections provide a starting point—a sense of possibility. The more we engage in this work individually, yet together, the more we can transform the systems we’re part of into something more just, connected, and humane.
What are your thoughts?
[i] Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (New York: Anchor, 1967).
[ii] Berger and Luckmann;
Kenneth J. Gergen, An Invitation to Social Construction (SAGE Publications Ltd, 2015), https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921276; Kenneth J. Gergen, “The Self as Social Construction,” Psychological Studies 56, no. 1 (March 2011): 108–16, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-011-0066-1.
[iii] James Truslow Adams, The Epic of America, 1st ed. (Little, Brown & Co., 1931).
[iv] H. Tajfel and J. C. Turner, “An Integrative Theory of Inter-Group Conflict.,” in The Social Psychology of Inter-Group Relations., ed. W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1979), 33–47;
H. Tajfel, “The Achievement of Inter-Group Differentiation.,” in Differentiation between Social Groups, ed. H. Tajfel (London: Academic Press, 1978), 77–100.
[v] Robert Kegan et al., An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization (Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press, 2016).