Introduction

Contemporary debates often treat belonging as a fragile or novel aspiration—something that must be newly invented or defended against the complexities of modernity. Yet many of the norms, institutions, and moral commitments that structure modern societies already contain seeds of belonging. These seeds reflect moments—often partial, contested, and inconsistently realized—where societies have acknowledged the inherent dignity, humanity, and equal worth of all people. 

Historically, this recognition was far from inevitable. For much of human history, social norms treated ordinary lives as expendable or insignificant. Monarchies elevated royalty and other elites above all others; ancient practices included burying servants alive alongside rulers to serve them in death. The rejection of kingship and inherited hierarchy, most notably expressed in the United States’ founding Declaration that “all men are created equal,” and further in the constitutional prohibition on titles of nobility and equal protection provisions, marked a profound normative shift toward universal human value, even as that principle was simultaneously denied to women, enslaved people, and non-property holders.1 It is worth quoting the Declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed…” It is understandable that this phrase is considered not just the most important in the Declaration, but also the most important in United States history. The Declaration goes on to say that when these principles are denied by a government, the government is not legitimate.

And yet, there is the issue of it stating “all men,” not “all people” or even all citizens. Another obvious impediment is that the drafters, including the principal drafter and future president, Thomas Jefferson, held many people enslaved. These considerations point to a deep divide in our society, but they may obscure the importance of this and other provisions as aspirational visionary values rather than as statements of reality or law. Properly understood, these values can provide grounding and momentum. It is not my intention to weigh in on this tension. I have been on both sides. Some would argue that it was a great symbol, nothing more. Something at best to be proud of, but of no substantive value. Indeed, it was a symbol, but not just a symbol. Symbols often have great power and importance even when they are not clearly substantive. Many, including Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr., saw it that way—as a vision and as aspirational. Its full reach may never be realized, and yet, it is and should be used to both direct and measure our progress. King called it a promissory note. But others see this statement of equality as simply hypocrisy. Like the claim of it being symbolic, it may be that this statement is hypocrisy, but not just hypocrisy. There is a saying: “hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.” Even as we notice the vice, we must not lose sight of the virtue. I believe it is important to think that this move towards equality as a principle and founding value serves as a national vision and what Richard Bernstein called a "regulative ideal,” a profound ideal that orients our attention and motivates our actions. We may never reach it. How can we? We are called to always redefine it. It has force and power and can serve as a measure of progress. This same approach can and should be used when we embrace the phrase belonging without othering. But these prototypes for belonging can provide grounding, a vision for the future, and a measure of where we are now.

As Rabbi Stephen Wise observed, “vision looks inward and becomes duty. Vision looks outward and becomes aspiration. Vision looks upward and becomes faith.” Vision is all of these things, and we make a mistake when we overlook its power. As King famously observed, “the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice.”2 But this bending is not inevitable. Not all seeds bear fruit. We have an important role in shaping the future and in what seeds bear fruit. And yet, many seeds have been planted, and some are already bearing fruit. There can be and is some backsliding and effort to not just erase our past but also our future. But these seeds of belonging and longing help explain why efforts to exclude, dehumanize, or dominate others feel fundamentally illegitimate to many people today: they contradict our better angles and values already embedded in our institutions and collective consciousness, and at times, how we treat each other. These seeds, planted yesterday, bend toward belonging, regardless of how much they are denied over the years, and regardless of players in history who desperately try to bury them to maintain their power and the status quo. I recently returned from Minnesota, and while the wounds of ICE were clearly present, there was also a palpable sense of common care, of people neighboring across boundaries that sometimes is used to create strangers—or worse. I could not help but think that the answer to the question "Are we our brothers and sisters' keepers?" was a resounding yes.

This memo is about a vision that continues and deepens that work. Our challenge is not simply descriptive or observational but also imagining, creating, and practicing. We must not allow the future to become the prisoner of someone else’s story of the past and what is possible. This memo is to call us to a different vision and to see the seeds that are already here, and those yearning to be planted and cared for. I try to help with this effort by identifying a few institutional and normative seeds of belonging that are already growing, both within the United States and globally, that express an aspiration, a vision, and direction toward universal humanity and provide foundations upon which a fuller vision of belonging can be built. It is not complete. I invite you to add to this effort by identifying other seeds and nourishing the seeds in our culture, our neighborhoods, and in our hearts.

 

“They tried to bury us; they did not know we were seeds.”
- Dino Christianopoulos

 

Defining Seeds of Belonging

For the purposes of this memo, seeds of belonging are norms, practices, values, or institutional commitments designed to apply categorically to everyone, regardless of status, identity, or membership. They are expressions of belonging without othering in their respective spheres. These seeds are not fully realized, but they are more than aspirational. They give us something to build on. They remind us of what we have already started. Their significance lies not in flawless implementation, but in their universal logic and heartfelt empathy and care: the idea that all people deserve dignity, protection, and moral consideration as part of a shared “we.” They are both ways of measuring where we are going and the gaps, and they help define a moral grounding. But they also set limits. The aspiration is that all are desirous of dignity, and the limitation is that none can be excluded.

These seeds of belonging function as our compass and regulated ideals—normative commitments that societies may never perfectly achieve, yet which nonetheless guide institutional design, constrain power, and shape moral accountability. As I suggested above, equality is the paradigmatic example. As legal philosopher Jeremy Waldron argues, basic equality is not an empirical claim about sameness, nor merely a policy preference, but a foundational moral commitment that requires institutions to justify their actions by reference to the equal moral worth of all human beings.3 Even when violated in practice, such ideals continue to regulate how injustice is identified, contested, and resisted, echoing Jefferson’s framing of equality as an aspirational principle capable of guiding political progress even when imperfectly realized.4

Indeed, expressions of belonging appear in legal systems, philosophical traditions, and moral frameworks across cultures and historical periods. Importantly, these seeds are not limited to any single nation, people, or culture. Indeed, they are not even limited to just people. They appear in philosophical traditions, religious teachings, constitutional principles, and international agreements, reflecting a growing, though fragile, global recognition of shared humanity and interconnected life. The goal here is to free our vision so we can more robustly use our imagination and determination. We are part of something important and wonderful in the unshackling of the human spirit and condition that allows us to reclaim our connection and belonging with each other and the earth. So let’s look at some of our seeds.

Legal and Constitutional Seeds of Belonging

Due Process Law

The principle of due process reflects one of the clearest institutional expressions of belonging without othering. At its core, due process asserts that everyone, regardless of citizenship, wealth, race, or social standing, deserves fair treatment before the state.5 It is not surprising that the due process clause in the US Constitution does not use the word citizens and certainly does not use the delimiting terms of race or gender. Instead, it uses the categorical term "people." While due process is often inconsistently applied, its categorical nature signals a commitment to equal moral worth. The question is not whether someone deserves due process, but whether society has lived up to that promise.

In contemporary practice, the universal logic of due process continues to surface even amid political pressure to restrict it. For example, US courts have repeatedly affirmed that non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, are entitled to due process protections in immigration proceedings, reinforcing the principle that legal personhood, not citizenship, triggers this fundamental right.6 While these protections are often contested and unevenly enforced, their persistence reflects a durable normative commitment to equal human worth before the law. While some have tried to limit the application to only good people, these efforts have largely been rejected. It is what Omri Boehm calls “radical universalism” that gives this promise such power and makes it an important expression of belonging without othering. It is not the law that gives this value its grounding, it is adhering to this value that gives the law its legitimacy. 

Prohibitions on Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment” similarly reflects a foundational norm that government power must be constrained by respect for human dignity.7 Though the term is not precisely defined, its ambiguity allows it to evolve alongside global norms and moral understandings. International human rights law, including the abolition of the death penalty in many countries, further reinforces this principle as a global seed of belonging rather than a purely US-centric one.8

The categorical abolition of the death penalty in many jurisdictions exemplifies this logic: the state affirms that no person’s life is beyond moral consideration, regardless of their crime.

Modern applications of this norm can be seen in the growing global rejection of capital punishment and life-without-parole sentences for juveniles. As of 2024, more than two-thirds of countries worldwide have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, reflecting an emerging consensus that certain punishments violate basic human dignity regardless of the offense.9 Within the United States, Supreme Court decisions limiting extreme sentencing for juveniles further illustrate how evolving moral standards continue to shape interpretations of dignity and belonging.10

Equality as a Foundational Institutional Commitment

The modern commitment to equality is so deeply embedded in contemporary legal and moral frameworks that it is often taken for granted. Yet imagining its absence clarifies its significance as a seed of belonging. Without the principle that all persons possess equal moral worth, institutions would be free to assign value hierarchically—to privilege the powerful, the wealthy, or the dominant as a matter of course.

In the United States, the Civil War illustrates the stakes of equality’s contested meaning. Absent the repudiation of chattel slavery and the constitutional amendments that followed, legal personhood itself would have remained conditional. One might expect there to be contestation about the meaning of equality prior to the Civil War, and one would be correct. The post‑war constitutional order, however incomplete, moved to make it clear that equality was reaching for a universal goal. Equality was becoming a clearer regulating ideal that continues to shape law, citizenship, and belonging.11 There is no person beyond personhood.

The aspiration toward equality as a regulating ideal is not confined to the United States or the Western constitutional tradition. In post-apartheid South Africa, the 1996 Constitution explicitly grounds the political order in the value of “human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms.” Emerging from a system built on racial hierarchy, the South African constitutional framework intentionally re-centered governance around the dignity and equal worth of all persons. In doing so, it illustrates how societies can deliberately institutionalize belonging after periods of profound exclusion.12

Universal Public Goods as Seeds of Belonging

Universal Public Education

Universal public education reflects a powerful normative claim: that every child deserves access to learning and opportunity. The idea that education should be provided on a universal basis, rather than something reserved for elites, signals a belief in shared social membership and collective responsibility for future generations.13 Although disparities in equality persist, the underlying commitment remains a cornerstone of belonging-oriented governance.

In recent years, the universal logic of public education has been reaffirmed through policies such as states extending K-12 access to undocumented students and the expansion of universal pre-kindergarten programs. These efforts rest on the premise that educational access should not be conditioned on legal status or family income, but rather recognized as a collective investment in shared civic life.14 Even where implementation varies, the underlying norm affirms that every child belongs within the public sphere.

Healthcare and Emergency Care

Healthcare systems that guarantee care on a universal or near-universal basis further express the notion that human life has intrinsic value. Even in systems without universal healthcare, requirements that emergency care be provided regardless of ability to pay reflect a moral boundary that societies are unwilling to cross.15 These norms suggest that survival itself should not be contingent on status or wealth.

Contemporary debates around universal healthcare similarly reveal enduring seeds of belonging. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries temporarily expanded healthcare access, vaccination, and emergency treatment regardless of insurance or immigration status, signaling a widespread recognition that public health and human dignity are inseparable.16 These responses demonstrated how crises can activate latent norms of shared fate and collective responsibility.

Foundational Philosophical and Moral Traditions

Philosophical, moral, and religious traditions have long articulated universal principles that later became institutionalized as modern seeds of belonging. These traditions did not emerge as abstract exercises in moral reasoning alone, but as responses to social orders that normalized hierarchy, domination, and disposability. Over time, they supplied the conceptual vocabulary that made claims of universal dignity, equality, and shared humanity intelligible and contestable.

Classical and Enlightenment Foundations

In Western political philosophy, the idea that all human beings possess intrinsic moral worth developed gradually through debates about natural law, reason, and political legitimacy. John Locke’s theory of natural rights rejected the divine rights of kings. It asserted that all persons are born with inherent rights to life and liberty, rights that governments exist to secure rather than grant. Locke’s argument helped establish the radical premise that political authority must be justified with reference to those governed, rather than lineage, conquest, or divine favor.17

Immanuel Kant extended this logic by grounding human dignity in rational agency itself. His formulation of the categorical imperative—that persons must always be treated as ends in themselves and never merely as means—provided one of the most explicit philosophical articulations of universal moral equality. Kant’s framework does not depend on culture, status, or membership; it insists that moral obligations apply categorically to all human beings. This conception profoundly shaped modern constitutional democracies, international human rights law, and contemporary understandings of legitimate state power.18

Together, these Enlightenment commitments to reason, universality, and moral equity represent one important foundation for modern ideas of belonging, alongside religious, moral, and cultural traditions that have articulated similar commitments across societies. While often criticized for abstraction or individualism, they supplied the normative tools that later movements used to challenge slavery, feudalism, and inherited hierarchy.

Philosophical traditions outside the Western canon have similarly articulated conceptions of belonging grounded in shared humanity. The African philosophy of Ubuntu, often summarized as “I am because we are,” emphasizes the interdependence of human beings and the moral importance of community. Rather than grounding dignity in individual autonomy alone, Ubuntu frames human flourishing as relational and collective. This philosophy played a visible role in South Africa’s post-apartheid reconciliation process, shaping the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and broader national efforts to rebuild social trust after systemic injustice.19

Religious and Moral Traditions as Seeds of Belonging

Religious traditions across cultures have also articulated seeds of belonging through universal moral claims that transcend social hierarchy. In the Christian tradition, Galatians 3:28 proclaims that there is “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,” asserting a radical moral equality that cuts across ethnicity, class, and gender. While frequently contradicted by historical practice, this passage has served as a recurring moral resource for abolitionist, civil rights, and liberation movements, illustrating how universalist ideals can persist even when institutions resist them.20

Similar universal moral commitments appear in other religious traditions. Jewish teachings emphasize the concept of “b’tzelem Elohim”—that all human beings are created in the image of God—establishing a theological foundation for equal dignity.21 Islamic ethical traditions articulate the moral equality of believers and non-believers alike under divine judgment, while Buddhist teachings emphasize universal compassion and the inherent suffering shared by all sentient beings.22 These traditions differ in theology, but converge on a shared intuition: human worth does not derive from status, power, or identity.

Moral Transformation and Historical Reckoning

Moral traditions also reveal how seeds of belonging can grow through processes of reckoning and transformation. John Newton’s evolution from a slave ship captain to an abolitionist and the author of Amazing Grace illustrates how moral insight can reorient individual conscience and, eventually, public norms. Newton’s later writings condemned the slave trade as incompatible with Christian ethics, contributing to broader abolitionist movements that reframed slavery as a moral atrocity rather than an economic necessity.23

Similarly, abolitionist movements in the United States and Britain drew simultaneously on Enlightenment ideals of equality and religious convictions about human dignity, demonstrating how philosophical and moral traditions often operate in tandem rather than in isolation.24 These movements transformed abstract principles into institutional change, embedding moral seeds into law and governance.

Indigenous governance traditions also reflect enduring seeds of belonging rooted in relational responsibility and collective stewardship. Many Indigenous legal traditions emphasize reciprocal obligations between individuals, communities, and the natural world. Rather than viewing belonging solely as membership in a bounded political community, these frameworks often understand it as a set of relationships extending across generations and ecological systems. Such perspectives broaden contemporary conversations about belonging by emphasizing interconnectedness not only among people but also between humans and the environment.25

Contestation and the Limits of Universality

Importantly, these philosophical and moral traditions have never been uncontested. Contemporary critiques associated with post-liberal and anti-Enlightenment thought argue that universalism erodes community, dissolves social bonds, and undermines “thick” forms of belonging rooted in tradition or identity. As outlined in recent analyses of the so-called Dark Enlightenment, such critiques often reject equality itself as a governing ideal, favoring hierarchy, exclusion, or explicitly othering frameworks as necessary for social cohesion.26

Yet, this rejection underscores the central role these traditions play as seeds of belonging. The persistence of opposition to universal equality highlights its regulatory power: ideals that were merely rhetorical would not require sustained intellectual resistance. The fact that equality, dignity, and universality remain objects of contestation confirms their status as foundational commitments shaping modern moral and political life.

International and Global Expressions of Belonging

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) stands as one of the most explicit global articulations of belonging. Drafted in the aftermath of World War II, it affirms that all human beings are “born free and equal in dignity and rights.”27 While enforcement remains uneven, the declaration reflects a shared global aspiration to universal inclusion.

Regional human rights systems provide additional examples of institutional commitments to belonging beyond national boundaries. The European Convention on Human Rights (1950) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights both establish legal frameworks for individuals to challenge state actions that violate fundamental rights. These systems reinforce the idea that dignity and justice are not solely matters of domestic law but are embedded within broader international commitments to human worth.28

International commitments to protect refugees, prohibit torture, and constrain collective punishment reinforce the principle that certain rights attach to human beings simply by virtue of being human. The 1951 Refugee Convention and subsequent protocols codified protections for people fleeing persecution, regardless of national origin, while international prohibitions on torture established non-derogable limits on state power even in times of crisis.29

Conclusion

The existence of exclusion, inequality, and violence does not negate belonging; it reveals the tension between principle and practice. Across legal systems, public institutions, philosophical traditions, and global norms, societies have already planted seeds that affirm universal humanity.

These seeds are neither inevitable nor self‑sustaining. History demonstrates that societies can and do backslide, often with devastating consequences. Yet their persistence also explains why regression generates moral crisis and resistance rather than indifference. The belief that belonging requires othering reflects not necessity, but a failure of imagination—one contradicted by the very institutions and values many societies already claim as their own.

One may ask for proof that we all belong. But we could also ask, “What is the alternative?” Those who embrace the notion that some are categorically the “other” and without human value and dignity are not only making a philosophical claim, but they are making a claim that violates much of our religious, political, and cultural understanding. But I believe that our constitution, our faith, and our spirit demand that all people matter—that all belong. Boehm asserts that faith is needed, in part, because of the limitations of knowledge. We plant seeds as an expression of our humanity and our faith. But how do we make them grow? The task ahead is not to invent belonging from scratch, but to recognize, preserve, and cultivate what is already present before the future is lost.