PDF Summary:The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, by Carl Trueman

What is a “self”? Should we look for our selves in our innermost feelings or in our social contexts and traditions? In The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, Carl Trueman argues that cultural developments of the past three centuries have transformed our conception of selfhood—from a self rooted in religion, tradition, and community to one rooted in individualism, emotion, and sexuality. A professor of biblical studies and ecclesiastical history, Trueman asserts that this change has been disastrous for Western culture because it undermines traditional Christian understandings of marriage, gender, and authority while stigmatizing Christian beliefs as bigoted and irrational.

Our guide will explore Trueman's historical analysis, from the philosophy of the Enlightenment to the rise of the LGBTQ+ alliance and the student activism of the left. You'll read about 19th-century English poetry, the rise of internet pornography, and Sigmund Freud's take on childhood sexuality. Our commentary also dives into the historical context of these developments while exploring multiple perspectives on the culture wars of today.

(continued)...

Trueman's analysis is largely focused on the greater cultural impact of Marx's ideas rather than his particular views of human nature. However, it's worth noting that the Marxist view of human nature also aligns with Rousseau's: The self is in tension with society because its natural passions and inclinations are thwarted by socioeconomic arrangements.

3) Friedrich Nietzsche’s Individualism

Trueman explains that the 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche also subverted the Christian understanding of a universal human nature with a divine purpose. According to Trueman's analysis, Nietzsche elevated the authority of the individual by rejecting all external sources of authority for morality or truth.

Nietzsche proclaimed that individuals had the freedom and the responsibility to create truth and morality for themselves. According to this view, there is no such thing as objective truth or morality: Individuals must determine for themselves what is good and bad. This view holds human nature as something that each individual invents, rather than an objective source of truth that holds authority over humanity. This erodes the Christian view of human nature that people were created by God to follow divine moral laws, not to invent their own laws.

How Did Nietzsche Become Influential?

While Nietzsche wrote and lived during the 19th century, his work was obscure during his lifetime and became popular because of its influence on other thinkers during the 20th century.

• His ideas influenced two important movements of 20th-century European thought. Existentialist philosophers like Martin Heidegger and Albert Camus were drawn to Nietzsche's emphasis on individual freedom, while deconstructionists like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida were drawn to his suspicion of knowledge and authority.

• Nietzsche’s writings also found popularity in the Nazi Party, which saw a potent justification for authoritarian power in Nietzsche's rejection of traditional morality and emphasis on individual will. Adolf Hitler himself actively promoted Nietzsche's work, giving out copies of his books to soldiers and party members.

• Finally, Nietzsche also influenced the psychologist Sigmund Freud, who saw many insights into human character in Nietzsche's self-assertive philosophy.

Transformation #3: Sexualizing Selfhood (20th Century)

Now that we have established the roots of the interior individual and explored the destabilization of human nature, we can turn our attention to a third component of the modern self: sexuality. In this section, we’ll explore Trueman's analysis of two important developments in Western thought: how sexuality came to form the center of human identity, and how this sexualized identity was taken up in radical leftist politics.

1) Sigmund Freud’s Theory of Sexual Psychology

The theories of prominent 19th-century psychologist Sigmund Freud brought sexuality to the very center of human identity. Freud posited that sexual impulses form much of the foundation of the unconscious mind. Trueman explains that by placing sexuality at the center of identity, Freud further eroded the authority to restrict sexual behavior. Recall that, according to the modern self, a good life is one where people are able to fulfill their authentic desires. Therefore, if sexuality is at the very center of psychology, then a good life will be one in which sexual desires are fulfilled.

(Shortform note: While he was one of the most famous intellectuals of his time, many of Freud's ideas have since been debunked. Later psychologists have re-evaluated his studies and found his methods unscientific: Freud didn't develop falsifiable hypotheses or gather empirical data to support his theories. Some of Freud's most controversial ideas include his contention that children experience sexual desire toward their parents and that women envy men for their penises, ideas that carry little weight in modern psychology. However, many would agree with Trueman's assessment that Freud’s ideas were nonetheless influential, leaving their mark on public culture.)

Trueman highlights two areas where Freud's theories posit sexuality as the center of identity.

1) Genital pleasure: According to Trueman's analysis, Freud placed sexuality at the core of identity by describing genital pleasure as the psychological blueprint on which all other forms of happiness and satisfaction are modeled. The human mind innately understands sexual pleasure, and therefore other activities are only pleasurable if they provide a psychologically similar experience.

This led Freud to argue that sexual repression was the source of most psychological unhappiness. He saw the restriction of sexuality as a defining feature of civilization and reasoned, therefore, that unhappiness stems from participation in society. This fit neatly with Rousseau's moral philosophy that society was a source of moral corruption.

(Shortform note: Mental health practitioners understand sexual repression a bit differently from Freud: They define sexual repression not by whether a sexual desire is fulfilled, but whether it’s accepted internally. People repress their sexuality when they grow up with messaging that their sexuality is not acceptable. Some researchers identify internalized discomfort with sexuality as a contributing factor to high rates of suicide among LGBTQ+ teens, which seems to support Freud’s correlation between psychological happiness and sexual repression.)

2) Sexualizing children: Trueman also states that Freud placed sexuality at the core of human identity by viewing children as inherently sexual. Freud maintained that problems of sexual repression began in early childhood and stemmed from a child's relationship with their parents. Freudian psychology also sought to reframe childhood masturbation as a medical rather than moral concern. According to this view, children don't become sexual beings as they enter puberty—they’re always sexual.

(Shortform note: Freud's theory of child sexuality is based on his idea of the "Oedipus complex," a theory that holds that children experience sexual attraction to their opposite-sex parent and jealous resentment of their same-sex parent. While most contemporary psychologists dismiss this theory, there is evidence supporting something called "sexual imprinting." This theory posits that, as adults, people are more attracted to someone who resembles their opposite-sex parent. While the evidence is mixed, this has even been documented in rats, suggesting a biological explanation.)

2) Freudian Marxism

Trueman explains that, after Freud made identity sexual, 20th-century academics fused Freudian ideas about sexual repression with Marxist notions of class struggle. Recall that Marx saw society as a struggle between an economic elite and an exploited working class. Freudian Marxists added another layer, arguing that economic elites also maintained their power through psychological domination. Therefore, Freudian Marxists sought to identify and overturn this domination. While previous generations of Marxists had focused their attention on property laws and labor contracts, Freudian Marxists focused on how the oppressed classes felt.

Also, recall that Freud posited sexual restriction as a defining feature of civilization. Freudian Marxists began to view sexual restrictions as a form of class domination. In particular, they viewed the traditional patriarchal family as a source of oppression. They argued that traditional families taught people to be obedient to their fathers, which led them to be submissive to economic and political elites. Therefore, to overthrow the oppressive elites, you must first overthrow the traditional family.

Eros and Freudian Marxism

In making sense of how thinkers and activists synthesize Freudian and Marxist ideas, we must understand Freud's concept of Eros. Freud posited that all of human behavior was motivated by one of two drives, Eros or Thanatos. Named for the Greek god of love, Eros was a drive that included sexuality, affection, and survival. Eros is the primary motivation of human behavior, and therefore, the primary source of satisfaction in life. He contrasted this with Thanatos, named for the Greek god of death, a drive toward destruction, death, and violence.

Since Freud posited that maintaining civilization required the suppression of Eros, utopian thinkers like Herbert Marcuse began to argue for a society where people would be free to follow their Eros without inhibition. This led to calls to seek out and overthrow sources of oppression that Trueman highlights as the major contributions of Freudian Marxism.

3) Separating Sex From Gender

Trueman states the sexual nature of selfhood continued to change as feminists began to separate biological sex from cultural gender. Trueman explains that the traditional Christian understanding of gender holds that it’s determined by biology rather than culture: Someone is born with male or female anatomical parts, and that determines whether they’re male or female.

However, during the 20th century, feminist philosophers began to suggest that while sex may be determined by biology, gender was a social construct and therefore, created by culture. In particular, the feminist Simone de Beauvoir asserts that "woman" is a cultural category that is imposed on people. She argues that women are expected to assimilate into the role of woman. This role, she explained, was not determined by the natural order of the world, but through socially constructed norms and expectations.

Recall that the modern self is at odds with culture and society that restricts its authenticity. By relocating "womanhood" from the "self" to "culture," Beauvoir places traditional understandings of gender at odds with the interior, authentic self, which is then free to reject the social construct of “womanhood.”

Simone de Beauvoir and Hegelian Dialectics

In arguing that "woman" exists as a cultural category separate from biology, Simone de Beauvoir drew influence from the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and his ideas about the "other."

Hegel posited a theory called the "Master/Servant Dialectic." This theory sought to explain the power dynamics of intersubjectivity by highlighting two distinct roles: master and servant. The master demands recognition from the servant, but doesn't offer recognition in return. This reduces the servant to an "other," someone who doesn't have the power to define themselves, but must accept the definitions placed on them by the master.

Beauvoir saw a similarity between these roles and the relationship between men and women. She argued that historically women had been "other" to men—that is, placed in a role that men defined for them. This role, she explained, was separable from the experience of being a human with female anatomy, and therefore "woman" can be a cultural category as well as a biological one.

Part 3: The Modern Self Undermines Christian Morality

Now that we have defined the modern self and traced its development over history, we can explore how this transformation has reshaped culture. Trueman asserts that by changing people's understanding of "selves," this transformation has impacted society in destructive ways. In this section, we'll explore two major impacts on modern society: the prioritization of feelings and the rise of the LGBTQ+ movement.

Prioritizing Feelings

Trueman explains that modern selfhood encourages people to place a much greater emphasis on feelings over objective truths, morals, or reasoned arguments. He states that this change in priorities has reshaped society in three distinct ways.

1) Oppression Is a Feeling

Trueman contends that because modern people prioritize feelings, many young people equate feeling discomfort with being oppressed. Recall that Freudian Marxists redefined oppression as psychological domination. Therefore, feeling bad when hearing speech one disagrees with can be framed as a form of oppression. Trueman explains that this tendency is most prevalent in leftist activism on college campuses, where simply expressing traditional points of view is seen as a form of oppression. He contends that this change has rolled back freedom of speech on campuses while undermining the mission of higher education, which includes challenging students' assumptions.

(Shortform note: In The Coddling of the American Mind, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that the problem of viewing oppression as a feeling has been compounded by a broadening definition of trauma. While the term once referred to the lingering psychological effects of extremely negative life experiences, Lukianoff and Haidt contend that it has grown to encompass any psychological discomfort. Since encountering challenging ideas can be uncomfortable, this broad definition of trauma equates hearing uncomfortable views with long-term psychological damage. Ultimately, this conflation lends moral credibility to silencing views that students find uncomfortable in the name of protecting their mental health.)

2) Pornography Is Ubiquitous

Trueman contends that the modern self has paved the way for the widespread acceptance and normalization of pornography. If sexual desires are simply part of an authentic life, then there is very little moral ground to object to fulfilling those desires by consuming pornography. Furthermore, those who object to pornography may be cast as trying to impose a restrictive puritanism on others.

Trueman maintains that pornography is highly destructive to morality. By prioritizing the gratification of the individual consumer, pornography detaches sexuality from its greater moral context of relationships and procreation.

(Shortform note: A growing body of research is identifying the detrimental impacts of pornography. Many users have found themselves addicted and struggle to control their pornography consumption. Researchers have found that it can also be detrimental to relationships as heavy users may lose sexual interest in their partners. Furthermore, adolescent males may learn distorted expectations about sex that will then impact their future relationships. However, some psychologists maintain that people with pre-existing mental health conditions are at much greater risk for pornography addiction and that the distorted messaging for young males can be counteracted through education.)

3) Normalization of Abortion

The prioritization of feelings has resulted in a widespread normalization of abortion. Trueman explains this is because the rationale for abortion rests on the well-being of the parents. If a child would make them happy, then they allow it to be born. However, if a child would make the parents unhappy, then it’s acceptable to take the child's life. Trueman holds that abortion destroys the life of a child and that its widespread normalization devalues human life.

(Shortform note: Trueman's analysis here focuses largely on Western history and culture. Outside of this context, individualistic parental goals can play a very different role in moral debates over abortion. For example, countries such as China, Iran, and Vietnam have adopted anti-natalist policies to lower birth rates and prevent overpopulation. In China, these policies have resulted in forced abortions and sterilizations. In these cultural contexts, the individualistic desire of the modern self is to have children—but is subordinated to the economic goals of state authority figures.)

The Rise of the LGBTQ+ Movement

Trueman contends that the rise of the LGBTQ+ movement—a political alliance organized around the interests of gay, lesbian, and transgender people—depends on an understanding of the self that is individually determined, at odds with traditional culture, and highly sexual. Furthermore, Trueman explains that this movement's aims are opposed to traditional Christian values and destructive to the continuation of Christian culture. In this section, we'll discuss how the modern self shaped the LGBTQ+ movement, transgender identity, and modern understandings of marriage.

1) The Modern Self Shaped the LGBTQ+ Movement

The modern self played an essential role in forging a political alliance of gays, lesbians, and transgender people. Trueman asserts that these groups aren't necessarily natural allies. For example, during the 1970s, many lesbian feminists argued that their sexuality was deeply rooted in an embodied experience of femininity, and not simply the female equivalent of male homosexuality.

Furthermore, the identities of gays and lesbians are based on an understanding of gender that contradicts the claims of transgender identity. The defining feature of homosexual identity is an attraction to the same gender. For this to exist, gender needs to be a relatively stable category. Trueman asserts that transgender identity requires the rejection of gender as a stable category. The individual is free to declare themselves a different gender because these categories have no stable or continuous essence.

However, a shared modern understanding of the self brought gays, lesbians, and transgender people together into an alliance. Recall that a modern self places authenticity in tension with society and places sexuality at the core of authenticity. Because each of these groups saw their authentic sexual identities as being in tension with society, this created a shared sense of victimhood that bonded the alliance.

Tension and Coalition Building in the Early LGBTQ+ Movements

Historians confirm Trueman's analysis that there were tensions across gender lines in the early years of the LGBTQ+ movement. However, some argue for a more complex picture of the alliance’s formation than simply a shared conception of personal victimhood.

Many of the early gay rights organizations in the US were formed by white, middle-class gay men, and the goals and rhetoric of these organizations reflected the interests of these specific groups. Because recruitment efforts depended heavily on social networks, membership in these organizations would remain lopsided in favor of men, and women in these spaces sometimes faced misogynistic views and behaviors. Furthermore, many lesbian activists identified more strongly with feminist and women's liberation movements in the 1970s.

That said, several cultural tendencies brought these groups together. Before the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s, many feminist movements were already skeptical of the health care industry's ability to recognize and fulfill their health needs. Therefore, they easily found common cause with the HIV/AIDS treatment activism that took root in the gay movements of the 1980s.

2) The Modern Self Shaped Transgender Identity

Trueman asserts that transgender identities are the product of modern selfhood. To claim that someone's real gender is the opposite of their biological sex, the internal, feeling self must take priority over external conditions.

Furthermore, a sense of oppression from persecution fundamentally shapes trans identity. Recall that the modern self places authenticity in opposition to culture. Therefore, those who advocate traditional gender identities can be cast as antagonists to authentic selfhood. And because Freudian Marxists defined oppression as psychological, those who reject transgender identities are now widely seen as "oppressors." Thus, the widespread acceptance of transgender identities in the context of modern selfhood directly leads to the moral stigmatization of traditional Christians.

(Shortform note: While Trueman asserts that transgender identity is an assertion of individual preferences over biology, this picture is complicated by debates over the origins of transgender identity. Scientific research has gathered some evidence that genetics may play a role in being transgender. This has led some researchers to argue that transgender identity has a biological basis. However, these claims are controversial, especially among advocates for transgender acceptance. Some argue that claiming a biological basis for transgender identity would give medical institutions the gatekeeping power to determine who is "really" transgender, and could exclude those who identify as nonbinary.)

3) The Modern Self Redefined Marriage

Lastly, Trueman maintains that a redefinition of marriage is an inevitable outcome of the modern conception of selfhood. He makes this case by contrasting traditional Christian marriage with the modern view of marriage.

Traditional Christian marriage fulfills the sacred purpose of creating children and a stable home for them. The modern conception of marriage makes marriage about the emotional fulfillment of the partners getting married. Trueman pushes back on defenders who claim that this is merely an expansion of traditional marriage. Instead, Trueman considers this a destruction of traditional marriage, because this detaches marriage from the sacred moral framework and places it in the framework of the modern, feeling self.

(Shortform note: Though the traditional moral framework of Christian marriage is becoming less popular, it does still divide LGBTQ+ activists on whether they want to participate in the institution of marriage at all. Some argue that marriage has historically oppressed women, both through cultural expectations that they obey their husbands and through legal doctrines that forbid married women from owning their own property. Thus, they reject marriage entirely as a corrupt institution. On the other hand, other LGBTQ+ activists hold that by abstaining from the cultural and legal protections of marriage, same-sex couples become relegated to a status of second-class citizens compared to heterosexual couples.)

Part 4: Guidelines for Christians Today

Trueman states that his goal is primarily to provide a history of the gradual transformation into modern selfhood rather than a set of guidelines for the present. However, he still offers four recommendations for modern Christians seeking to preserve traditional values.

1. Find inspiration in the second-century Christian church. At this time, Christians were a religious minority living in a powerful empire where Roman authorities viewed Christians with moral suspicion. Nonetheless, Christians thrived as a small community of firm believers who adhered to their religious laws.

(Shortform note: Drawing inspiration from this period provides a challenge in that historical records are scarce. However, one surviving document, the Epistle to Diognetus, paints an instructive picture of early Christian life. It explains that Christians were not recognized by typical markings of a cultural group (such as common dress), but assimilated to the laws and customs of their local cultures. However, they quietly followed their own religious doctrines, such as monogamous marriage and not exposing children (a Roman practice of leaving unwanted children to die in the elements). Christians lived in their societies as if simply "passing through.")

2. Prioritize moral laws over aesthetics. Trueman contends that many modern Christians have adopted the modern preoccupation with image and aesthetics to attract followers. Trueman considers this too close to the Romantic poets, who prioritized aesthetics over moral law.

(Shortform note: In calling on Christians to prioritize moral laws over aesthetics, Trueman stakes out a position on a longstanding debate in Christianity. During the Reformation, Protestants condemned the use of statues, paintings, and ornamental architecture in Christian worship, considering these superstitious and idolatrous. In response, the Roman Catholic church began investing more heavily in Christian artwork to differentiate themselves and argue against Protestantism.This debate echoed earlier controversies over iconoclasm and the role of art in Christian worship going all the way back to the Byzantine Empire.)

3. Create a strong community. Trueman explains that religions flourish when their members form strong communities. He recommends cultivating stronger ties among religious believers to help Christianity flourish.

(Shortform note: Researchers have found that membership in religious communities correlates to higher levels of happiness, health, and civic engagement. This suggests that not only are communities conducive to continuing religious values and beliefs (as Trueman suggests), but that community and belonging are some of the most important things religions offer their followers.)

4. Recognize the importance of the physical body. Trueman asserts that Christianity cannot allow itself to become detached from the truth that humans were created in God's image and that Christian commitments require full recognition of the human body's importance to creation.

(Shortform note: Christian doctrines on the body vary by denomination. However, many highlight a core teaching from the apostle Paul in the book of First Corinthians: "Your body is a temple... You are not your own; you were bought for a price." This suggests an obligation to care for your body because you’re your body's steward, not its owner.)