The concepts of ‘self’ and ‘identity’ are often implicitly conflated in constructivist research, limiting our understanding of important theoretical issues. The Ontological Security Studies (OSS) literature provides one example of this, often reducing a concern with ‘security of the self’ to a matter of identity, thereby limiting OSS’ analytical reach. This article draws from the writings of Laing and Giddens to make the case for keeping ‘self’ and ‘identity’ analytically distinct. Understanding ontological security as a multidimensional framework meant to affirm the self’s existence, it proposes to see ‘identity’ as just one dimension of ontological security, and to conceptualise ‘self’ in terms of personhood. Such a reading allows us to grasp the discursive and ritualistic institution of sovereignty as an existential framework on which the personhood, and therefore ontological security, of all states depends. Thus, OSS would benefit from considering ontological security beyond identity. Beyond this, the article shows that distinguishing more clearly between ‘self’ and ‘identity’ illuminates the debate on state personhood in IR, indicating that paying more attention to these key concepts would be helpful for constructivist research more generally.