In the Interim: Some Clarifications
Answering Some Questions About My Examination of Trueman's Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self
Since beginning my articles on Carl Trueman’s book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, I’ve received questions and pushback from people who love the book and think it is an indispensable tool for Christian teachers and pastors, a point with which I strongly disagree. This post will address some of those questions and criticisms. It will also clarify what it is that I’m arguing overall about The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.
My Thesis
As I stated in article 1,1 I began researching the book in order to understand how Trueman was using the word modern. His description of the contemporary self was nearly identical to the usual academic description of the modernist self, so this was odd. Not only that, but Trueman did not even briefly mention the postmodern self as theorized by scholars like Frederic Jameson, Terry Eagleton, Giles Deleuze, and Kenneth Gergen. This was even more problematic, as a proper history dealing with the transition from premodernity, through the foundational modernist thinkers with whom Trueman does interact (viz. Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud), and to the present theorists of sexual identity (e.g. Judith Butler) who accept some of the modernist ideas about the self but reject many others, necessitates at the very least an explanation as to why this is the case (i.e. one would have to give a brief exposition of the postmodernist self and why one does not identify it with the contemporary self). Trueman’s work was in need of clarification which could only be achieved by research.
My Evidences
I showed that Trueman’s idea of the self is indeed the modernist self. But I didn’t explain how it is the case that he could be identifying the contemporary self with the modernist self without giving any explanation as to what happened to the postmodernist self. That was the goal of my second article. In my second article,2 I demonstrated that for Trueman the modernist and postmodernist are not antithetically opposed movements in history but different stages of development. The modernist period, in other words, is not over, according to Trueman’s thinking, but is now at a more advanced stage. This is why Trueman, like the Marxists he cites approvingly, identifies postmodernism as the logic of late stage capitalism, which he calls late “consumerism.” So I show that when Trueman talks about the “modern” self he means the “modernist” self for these two reasons — 1. He thinks that the postmodern turn is really just another permutation of modernism, and 2. He thinks that the contemporary self is really the modernist self, as typically depicted by scholars.
In article 3,3 I show that while Trueman agrees with the Marxists about how we ought to view the postmodern turn (i.e. as a further permutation of modernism) he does not agree with the them about the nature of the self that inhabits the postmodern/late-modernist period. However, what I did not do was explain why that is the case. I am hopefully going to do that in the next installment. If you want the TLDR version of the article here it is: Trueman’s thinking about the postmodern turn aligns with the Marxists because Trueman is a communitarian. This is why his understanding of the self is modernist in the strict sense of that term. Communitarians view Marxism and Postmodernism as both relying upon an individualistic concept of the self that is not historically, sociologically, or biologically feasible.
Consequently, Communitarians share similar views to the Marxists regarding capitalism’s supposed corrosive effects in society via the relativization of values and traditions and authoritative institutions as a consequence of commodification and consumerism. However, they do not necessarily agree with the materialism of Marx, nor with his deterministic eschatology. And they share similar views to the Postmodernists regarding the tyrannical and destructive force of individualism. However, they do not agree with the postmodernists as regards the dissolution or erasure of the modernist self (i.e. the autonomous, individualistic, indivisible ego).
Trueman is presenting a standard communitarian critique of classical liberalism, portraying the contemporary self as largely, if not entirely, contiguous with the modernist self. This self is individualistic. Expressive individualism is merely a species of that genus individualism, and shows the destructive character of individualism. This is not only an asinine position to hold, it is unbiblical. But these points will be fleshed out in later articles. Until then, I hope this helps clarify the trajectory of my thought.
Q & A
Q1. Why Does this Matter?
A: In a word, this study matters because Trueman’s book is being promoted as a work that provides us with insight that can help us understand the root of why our culture has gotten to the point where a man can say, without being laughed out of the room, “I am a woman trapped in a man’s body.” And it doesn’t. The issue plaguing the West is not individualism of any sort; it is collectivism. One needs only to look at the on-going cancellation of those who express and individual opinion that is not sanctioned by the work to see that this is the case. One need only look to the BLM and Antifa protests of just a few years ago, as well as the COVID hysteria of the last two years to see that collectivism is alive, well, and literally destroying cities, institutions, and the individual freedom to think and speak and act in a manner that is not sanctioned by the mobs and, what is more, by the governing authorities.
Individualism, of any sort, is not the root problem at all. We need a stronger emphasis on individualism. We need a return to belief in the primacy of reason. We need to once again state the obvious fact that reality can be rationally apprehended and explicated.
Q2. Why Even Bring Up Marx?
A: I brought up Marx to contextualize Trueman’s thinking. He has been promoting the work of Marxists for over two decades among the putatively Reformed churches and institutions where he has served. He has done so as an educator, but also as one whose political and economic leanings have always been more amenable to those of the left. This is not insignificant. Holding a socialistic economic theory as being compatible with Christianity demonstrates that either one’s socialistic theory is not all that socialistic, or that one’s Christianity is not all that Christian. These two ways of looking at private property and the role of the government are mutually exclusive.
Q3. How Impactful Was the Postmodern Turn for Non-Scholars?
A: This question is one that Trueman himself has answered for us. He recognizes the influences of postmodern theorists on the fields of history, anthropology, linguistics, and anthropology. He is not ignorant of the force of their impact not only on academics, however, but also upon the non-scholars, as he openly talks about the influence of postmodernist Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity on contemporary academics and lay people alike.
The postmodern turn did take time to affect society as a whole, but one needs to remember that the postmodern turn explicitly involved a renunciation of the old higher culture/lower culture distinctions of modernism, and this resulted in the mixing and matching of high and low cultural products (e.g. literature, film, music) as well as high and low cultural practices (e.g. pedagogy, academic writing, etc). This means that the time which it normally would have taken for the premodern and modern philosophies to trickle down to the laity via the arts was shortened. Advances in technology also made this possible (e.g. cheap mass reproduction, electronic reproduction, video recordings, and so on).
Q4 & 5. Why is the Postmodern Self Important for the “Ordinary Person” to Know About? How Does it Affect Trueman’s Argument?
A: This is important to know because Trueman is presenting ideas that are in line with postmodernism, while he is fully aware of how Christians view postmodernism (i.e. as a threat to objective knowledge claims and, therefore, the integrity of Christian theology and praxis). It serves to show that Trueman’s contemporary self is a chimera that is in line with the postmodernists in two ways.
Firstly, the postmodern self is a social construct. It is constructed through historical, social, and economic exchanges mediated by social institutions and the language they use. Trueman’s correction to the modernist self is a view of the self that is not very much different than that of the postmodernists. Trueman’s attack on the modern self, then, is an attack on a strawman, an entity that simply does not feature in secular society.
Secondly, the self that Trueman attacks is derived from orthodox Christian theology. The modernist self that Trueman sets his sights on is one whose best attributes are dependent upon and inseparable from the Christian worldview. To attack the autonomous, indivisible, atomistic ego whose highest and primary function is reasoning, and whose body is a tool, an instrument calibrated for the expression of his interior life, but which is not the person himself, is to attack Christianity’s teaching on the doctrine of man. This has further implications for the doctrine of the incarnation, it should be noted, and that is very troubling.
Q6. Isn’t It Obvious That We Are Surrounded by Expressive Individualism?
A: The simple answer here is “No.” In order to see why this is the answer, we need to look beyond our one-on-one interactions and to what overall way of looking at the world is informing those interactions with so-called “expressive individualists.” In the first place, the idea that one’s highest purpose in life is to seek one’s personal fulfilment is expressed within a context that disallows deviation from a commitment to relativism regarding metanarratives. No one story has universal explanatory and critical power over any other. In the second place, it is expressed within a local collective/group which disallows deviation from its commitment to its own narrative. The group’s own narrative provides the constraints within which one is allowed to operate.
This means that identifying an individual’s goals, identity, actions, etc as objectively wrong is offensive to the individual as a member of a group. Why? Because the individual’s group is not subject to any standard other than its own. To state that an individual is wrong, then, is to state the group to which he belongs is wrong. It is to impose an external rule on the group to which he belongs, and this is an act of violence.
The question “Who are you to impose your standard of right and wrong on me?” is really asserting:
“You are deviating from the accepted truth that there is no objective standard by which the actions of my group and, therefore, myself may be judged. You are committing an act of violence against all other groups, my group, and, therefore, against me.”
This may seem convoluted, but listen to people when they speak about their personal offenses.
As an x person, I am personally offended.
I’m an x, and I find your characterizations of x to be offensive.
You are not an x person. How dare you try to tell me that I am wrong!
Statements of identity differ somewhat in that they are implicitly referencing one’s membership to the larger social body that accepts the universal anti-metanarrative maxim of cultural relativism. Consider —
You called me he and him, but those are not my personal pronouns. [Translation: You have imposed an external standard of judgment on him that does not respect the universal maxim of cultural relativism.]
I have the right to identify as anything I want. [Translation: Self-identification is not determined by any external, absolute, universal set of standards. This is the universal maxim. You are deviating from it.]
By calling Jennifer “Jeff” you are dead-naming her. [Translation: You are trying to exercise authority over the use of names, but according to the universal maxim that is not allowable.]
Why are you trying to police my language? [Translation: You are trying to exercise authority over my use of language. You do not possess that authority and are, therefore, guilty of an act of violence against me/my group.]
Looking at the context in which the above statements are formed helps us understand them with a little more clarity. Referring to oneself as the offended party doesn't imply that one is an individualist. Stating that one's highest good is finding his truth, or attaining one's most sought after pleasure, or living one's best life also doesn't imply that one is an individualist.
True individualism consists in thinking for oneself, and acting for oneself in accordance with one's rationally ascertained conclusions. And this is precisely what we don't see much of in the world today. We are surrounded by group-think and collectivist political activists, parties, and policies. Deviation from the mainstream views on subjects x, y, or z results in public defamation, shaming, cancellation, and even physical assault.
If you want to combat identity politics, then don't embrace the collectivist ideologies of either the left (e.g. Marxism, socialism, etc) or the new right (e.g. Communitarian conservatism). Instead, think and act as an individual made in God's image who has the responsibility and blessing of thinking for yourself.
-h.
