Carl Trueman’s “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self” is an extended answer to the question of how the statement “I am a woman trapped in a man’s body” came to be “regarded as coherent and meaningful.” (p.19) Trueman leans heavily upon the works of Phillip Rieff, Charles Taylor, and Alasdair MacIntyre to formulate his answer. In Part 1, Trueman examines how the works of these three men help provide “categories for analyzing the pathologies of this present age…” (p. 102) He then goes back to the Rousseau, where he finds the genesis of the modern ‘self’. He traces the modern self through the Romantics: Wordsworth, Shelley, and Blake, and then through Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche in Part 2. In Part 3 he looks at Freud and the “politicization of sex.” And finally, in Part 4, he brings it all together to show how the modern self has metastasized in the “triumph of the erotic…therapeutic…and transgenderism”.
There are many ways that one could attempt to come to answer that original question that Trueman poses in the Introduction. He chooses to look through the lens of three recent thinkers. Trueman does a good job of introducing the relevance of these three thinkers to the question at hand.
Charles Taylor’s “social imaginary” offers a concept that helps discuss the way in which “people think about the world, how they imagine it to be, how they act intuitively in relation to it.” (p.37) Additionally, Taylor shows how culture has moved away from teleology—“a specific, given end.” Having abandoned the idea of “the world possessing intrinsic meaning,” (p.39) we find ourselves able to “manipulate by our own power to our own purposes.” (p.41)
Phillip Rieff brings insight into culture—namely his three stages of culture. We find ourselves in a “third world culture” today—a “therapeutic culture”—a psychologized culture. Those in this psychologized “third world culture” can have no dialogue with those in a first, or second world culture, because they share “no common authority on which they might agree to the terms of debate in order to determine exactly what it is they are debating.” (p.81) The “third world culture” has abandoned “a sacred order”—meaning there is no greater “transcendent” authority. (p.77)
Alasdair McIntyre’s insight “offers...a basis for understanding the chaotic nature of modern ethical discourse because there is no longer a strong community consensus on the nature of the proper ends of human existence.” (p.83) Out of this chaos emerges “the language of personal preference based on nothing more rational or objective than sentiments or feelings.” (p.85) In a word, we’re left with “emotivism.”
Going back to Rousseau offers the philosophic foundation for what these three thinkers diagnosed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Trueman helpfully compares the way Augustine talks of ‘the self’ in his “Confessions” to ‘the self’ in Rousseau’s “Discourse” and “Second Discourse.” Augustine, as an orthodox Christian, “blames himself for his sin because he is basically wicked from birth.” (p.111) Whereas Rousseau, “has come to understand that people are not monsters by nature but by virtue of their social conditioning.” (p.113)
Trueman points out that Rousseau “sees empathy as having a universal stability because it is grounded in his confident assertion of a universal human nature possessing a conscience that is the same for everyone.” (p.122) He quotes Rousseau’s “Emile”:
“There is in the depths of souls, then, an innate principle of justice and virtue according to which, in spite of our own maxims, we judge our actions and those of others as good or bad. It is to this principle that I give the name conscience.”
It is here, in Rousseau, that we find articulated a rejection of original sin. Rousseau rejects the depravity of man, instead, arguing that “individuals are intrinsically good, with sentiments that are properly ordered and attuned to ethical ends, until they are corrupted by the forces of society.” (p. 123) Rousseau sees “the eternal laws of nature and order…written in the depth of [the wise man’s] heart by conscience and reason.” (p.124)
This is one area I wish that Trueman had developed more, as it seems that Rousseau and those that follow in his thought, have rejected God’s law word, and exalted natural law. Rousseau discovered the conscience of man as the great arbiter of good and evil. Man has become judge, having godlike power. It is the exaltation of natural law over the law of God that has born anarchy into the world, ascribing to men the power to define right and wrong.
Trueman does lay responsibility regarding the “modern transgender movement” at the feet of Rousseau, writing, “it is the inner voice, freed from any and all external influences…that shapes identity for the transgender person… a position consistent with Rousseau’s idea that personal authenticity is rooted in the notion that nature, free from heteronomous cultural constraints, and selfhood, conceived of as inner psychological conviction, are the real guides to identity.” (p.126)
The Romantic movement, as characterized by William Wordsworth, Percy Shelley, and William Blake develops Rousseau’s philosophy by beginning with the principle that man, in his original state, is good. It is society that corrupts men, using “means of manipulation by which the powerful keep others subjugated and which is perpetuated primarily by the self-interest of those who have used it to gain the power they enjoy.” (p.149) It is primarily religion that is used to exercise this power over men. Religion is not “wrongheaded or benign” but is “essentially evil.” (p. 155)
Nietzsche picks up and builds upon these ideas and takes them further toward their logical end. Darwin, of course, “legitimizes” the idea that “the world as we have it does not need a designer or divine architect. It can be explained without any reference to the transcendent.” (p.187) Trueman, synthesizing these ideas, writes, “When teleology is dead and self-creation is the name of the game, then the present moment and the pleasure it can contain become the keys to eternal life.” (p.190) So when Freud comes along and writes these ideas in “scientific idiom” he was able to deliver “rhetorical power in this modern age.” (p. 202)
Freud “provided the West with a compelling myth… that sex, in terms of sexual desire and sexual fulfillment, is the real key to human existence, to what it means to be human.” (p.204) He too, targets religion, calling it an “infantile neurosis.” (p.215) Freud establishes a “scientific” connection between the so-called civilizing of the “sexual instinct”, arguing it “comes at significant cost, for it means that it is impossible for the civilized ever to be truly happy” because “happiness depends on the fulfillment of personal sexual desires.” As Trueman writes, concerning Freud’s conclusions, “Civilization thus has at its very core the impossibility of human beings ever being truly happy and content.” (p.219)
These ideas are then picked up and synthesized by Marxists and consequently politicized. “Sex is no longer a private activity because sexuality is a constitutive element of public, social identity…It is only through public acknowledgement of their legitimacy that those identities are recognized and legitimated. To outlaw, for example, gay sex or merely to tolerate it, is to outlaw or merely tolerate a certain identity.” (p.239) It is this politicization that then begins to threaten free speech. He writes, “it becomes necessary to make sure that good words and ideas are not simply promoted but are, if possible, enforced and given a monopoly in public discourse. Why, after all, would bad words and ideas be allowed when their only purpose is to inflict psychological damage on and cause oppression of the marginalized, the dispossessed, and other victims of the ruling class’s practices of domination?” (p.252)
It is now becoming clear how the philosophy of the modern self is a threat not only to religious liberty, but an existential threat to orthodox Christianity which is understood by this new understanding of “the self” to be not only an oppressor, but fundamentally evil. As these ideas have developed and advanced, the culture and law have begun to reflect the new ideology and accept it in the legal code of western nations. Trueman examines several of the key Supreme Court decisions that have begun to advance this new ideology.
Trueman rightly notes that these Supreme Court decisions are “an easy matter to sell to the wider culture on the grounds that the bases for objecting to it have already been conceded.” Some things have yet to gain traction, such as polygamy and pedophilia, but this is the case “because society simply has not had enough time to accustom itself to the idea…” (p. 313)
In Part 4, Trueman gives a short and insightful history into the history of the LGBTQ+ movement, with a particular emphasis on how such diverse and competing interests grouped together to fight the hegemony of the heterosexual culture. This is an interesting section, which exposes the fragility of the movement. It is also interesting to note that the movement defines itself in traditional, binary, heterosexual categories. The very ideology depends entirely upon the idea that God made them “male and female.” Each letter in the acronym is an inversion of a biblical category. Trueman notes this “internal incoherence” in Rieffian categories as an “anticulture.” He writes, “it is defined negativily, by its rejection of past norms and the destruction and erasure of the same.” (p.373)
Trueman concludes “that the LGBTQ+ issues that now dominate our culture and our politics are simply symptoms of a deeper revolution in what it means to be a self… The problem is that we are all part of that revolution, and there is no way to avoid it.” (p.384-385) He argues that “The church has to address the matters that the sexual revolution and expressive individualism raise in a far more thoroughgoing fashion.” (p.393)
Trueman offers three ways the church must respond to this ideology. First, “the church should reflect long and hard on the connection between aesthetics and her core beliefs and practices.” This means we must not fight ideological battles the way the world does—namely winning on “the basis of moral principles, not on the attractiveness and appeal of the narratives of the people involved.” He adds, “pastoral strategies…must always rest on deeper, transcendent commitments.” (p.403)
Secondly, he writes the church “must also be a community.” This new definition of self and its consequent expression “being preached from every commercial, every website, every newscast, and every billboard… is, humanly speaking, likely to provoke despair.” The church can act as an antidote and place of respite. (p.404-405)
Finally, “Protestants need to recover both natural law and a high view of the physical body.” He does not mean natural law to “persuade the wider world” but “for the church herself. She needs to be able to teach her people coherently about moral principles.” (p.405)
Trueman only spends a few pages at the end on these solutions. It is admittedly, not a focus of the book. The book, again, is meant to answer the question of how the statement “I am a woman trapped in a man’s body” came to be “regarded as coherent and meaningful.” (p.19)
Reflecting on this now, upon completion of the book, it seems that Christians must do a better job of building culture, not merely settling for baptized versions of secular culture. We’re in the position we’re in, having surrendered much to Rousseau’s philosophy, and letting much of the psychologized ideology of self into the church. Trueman writes, “Protestantism has often failed to reflect the historical concerns of the church in its liturgy and practice, most obviously in the megachurch movement and the manner in which it has frequently adopted the aesthetics of the present moment in its worship is arguably a sign of the penetration of the anticulture into the sanctuary of historic Christianity. Christians today are not opponents of the anticulture. Too often we are a symptom of it.” (p.389)
I wish Trueman had spent more time developing that idea, as it seems to me the central failure of the church. The church hasn’t been the church. As Jesus admonishes us, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you.” (Matt. 6:33) We must focus our efforts on the kingdom of God, and in so doing, we will find the solutions for today’s crisis and prepare for tomorrow’s.