Starting a Series on Carl Trueman's Strange New World

[RamistThomist]

Our church is going through Trueman's Strange New World. I will post analysis and summaries here.

Strange New World: Descartes and Rousseau (1)

Trueman, Carl. Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022. The Greek historian Herodotus once said “Custom…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Trueman, Carl. Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022.

The Greek historian Herodotus once said “Custom is stronger than any law.” Quite true. If he were around today, he would have said “Cliché is stronger than any argument.” Upon reading Carl Trueman’s work, one realizes that many innocuous clichés, sayings upon which we moderns have built our identity, have their roots in key moments in European history. That does not make them logically wrong, to be sure, but their historical provenance should give us pause as to their being self-evident.

What are some of these cliches? “Be yourself.” “Be authentic.” I need to find “the real me.” Be who you “really” are. Upon rational analysis, it is hard to see how such inane babble could have had the impact it did. The root of the problem, and solving it–or at least analyzing it–will serve as Trueman’s project, is the ambiguity in the term “self.” What does it mean to be a self? Is it the same as “person?” What, if any, relation does it have to human nature, and is human nature dependent upon biology? Trueman’s definition of self is that it is the shape that gives unity to our lives.

Trueman argues that expressive individualism is the default setting for our culture (Trueman 26). As this problem started in the modern age, it is no surprise that the villain is the first “bad guy” of modern philosophy, Rene Descartes. Aside from the possible fallacies in Descartes’ “I think; therefore, I am,” we see something more momentous: thinking now becomes psychological. There is a new focus on the interior. Mind and body, which Aristotle saw as a unity, are now potentially in opposition.

To be sure, Descartes likely did not intend all of this. He is a villain in name only. The true nemesis is the French philosopher, Jean-Jacque Rousseau. It is with Rousseau that terms like “alienation” and my “true self,” the authentic one, come into full force. Rousseau’s remarks on the “noble savage” and the bad influence of “society” are easy to misunderstand. He is not saying we should go back to an idyllic Eden. Rather, society will always wield a negative influence. This bad influence is not “drugs and crime,” as we see today, but external morality and the dominant culture. Society keeps me from expressing who I really am. This is the first moment of “alienation” (34-35).

How, then, can you find out who I really am? The real me, the one society represses, is inside. An authentic self, therefore, is one that unifies the inner and outer “I.” As a result, sin is society’s fault, not mine. I am not totally innocent, of course. I did the act, after all. But society made me.

This sounds very familiar. Now we understand claims like “I need to be authentic” and “Society made me do it.” That is why our institutions punish both the criminal (incarceration) and the victim (taxing him for the rehabilitation of his aggressor). Society is not let off the hook.

Here is the problem: true ethics is authenticity. Society will always repress my inner desires. If it did not, we would all descend into chaos and anarchy. Upon seeing this, the sane human would revisit his definition of ethics: maybe authenticity qua authenticity is not the best idea. That is not Rousseau’s move, at least as far as I can tell. At this point in Western history man and society are in an uneasy tension.

 

[jwright82]

Our church is going through Trueman's Strange New World. I will post analysis and summaries here.

Strange New World: Descartes and Rousseau (1)

Trueman, Carl. Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022. The Greek historian Herodotus once said “Custom…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Trueman, Carl. Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022.

The Greek historian Herodotus once said “Custom is stronger than any law.” Quite true. If he were around today, he would have said “Cliché is stronger than any argument.” Upon reading Carl Trueman’s work, one realizes that many innocuous clichés, sayings upon which we moderns have built our identity, have their roots in key moments in European history. That does not make them logically wrong, to be sure, but their historical provenance should give us pause as to their being self-evident.

What are some of these cliches? “Be yourself.” “Be authentic.” I need to find “the real me.” Be who you “really” are. Upon rational analysis, it is hard to see how such inane babble could have had the impact it did. The root of the problem, and solving it–or at least analyzing it–will serve as Trueman’s project, is the ambiguity in the term “self.” What does it mean to be a self? Is it the same as “person?” What, if any, relation does it have to human nature, and is human nature dependent upon biology? Trueman’s definition of self is that it is the shape that gives unity to our lives.

Trueman argues that expressive individualism is the default setting for our culture (Trueman 26). As this problem started in the modern age, it is no surprise that the villain is the first “bad guy” of modern philosophy, Rene Descartes. Aside from the possible fallacies in Descartes’ “I think; therefore, I am,” we see something more momentous: thinking now becomes psychological. There is a new focus on the interior. Mind and body, which Aristotle saw as a unity, are now potentially in opposition.

To be sure, Descartes likely did not intend all of this. He is a villain in name only. The true nemesis is the French philosopher, Jean-Jacque Rousseau. It is with Rousseau that terms like “alienation” and my “true self,” the authentic one, come into full force. Rousseau’s remarks on the “noble savage” and the bad influence of “society” are easy to misunderstand. He is not saying we should go back to an idyllic Eden. Rather, society will always wield a negative influence. This bad influence is not “drugs and crime,” as we see today, but external morality and the dominant culture. Society keeps me from expressing who I really am. This is the first moment of “alienation” (34-35).

How, then, can you find out who I really am? The real me, the one society represses, is inside. An authentic self, therefore, is one that unifies the inner and outer “I.” As a result, sin is society’s fault, not mine. I am not totally innocent, of course. I did the act, after all. But society made me.

This sounds very familiar. Now we understand claims like “I need to be authentic” and “Society made me do it.” That is why our institutions punish both the criminal (incarceration) and the victim (taxing him for the rehabilitation of his aggressor). Society is not let off the hook.

Here is the problem: true ethics is authenticity. Society will always repress my inner desires. If it did not, we would all descend into chaos and anarchy. Upon seeing this, the sane human would revisit his definition of ethics: maybe authenticity qua authenticity is not the best idea. That is not Rousseau’s move, at least as far as I can tell. At this point in Western history man and society are in an uneasy tension.

I often think one major problem in America (don't know much about anywhere else except Guam and the Bahamas which is different to a degree because I've been there) is the democratic paradox.
In America I'm so important I can vote on any issue how I feel, elect anyone of the garbage politicians I choose to vote for. I'm that important, I can say whatever I want. I can express my thoughts and feelings to make this world a better place.
But I'm one out of 350 million people give or take. So statistically my vote, opinions, etc aren't that important. It's mathematical that I don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. And people struggle with this scenario, this paradox. I know you're not much impressed with continental philosophy but indulge me for a moment. But there's the "OTHER" those things that vote differently than me, express opinions I don't agree with and those things are going to be "the end of society" (in a philosophical sense). I must cancel them out of the picture for the "good of society".
I think that's our greatest problem of the self in modern society (which all goes back to sin obviously). Some of us don't know how to handle this great paradoxical gift we've inherented.
But I look forward to further installments on this book. I've read about it but not it. Keep em coming brother, just my two cents.

 

[RamistThomist]

Study Notes for Chapter on Marx and Nietzsche

Marx and Nietzsche

Modern self: humans have no intrinsic moral structure or significance (51).

Hegel: human self-consciousness changes over time. That is fairly unremarkable. Hegel went further: human nature itself emerges over time in the historical process (53).

Marx: the material conditions of life shape how we view reality.

Alienation: we feel at odds with our surroundings. For Marx, “alienation is specifically connected…to human beings in relation to economic considerations. A man feels alienated because he is alienated from the fruits of his labor (54-55).

Bottom line for Marx: “if all human relations are economic relations, then they are also political because they all serve the same status quo” (58). This is why the Left will not allow one to politely disagree with a certain sexual or political program. As all of life is politics, so all of life is combat.

Nietzsche

Religion as psychology: belief in God is a crutch because it frees people from creating their own meaning (63). It is also a means by which the weak demonize the strong.

If there is no God, then we are masters. The Uber-mensch “is rather one who engages in dramatic, transgressive self-creation” (65). Ethics, then, becomes a matter of taste. Art is for art’s sake, after all, ala Oscar Wilde.

 

[VictorBravo]

I'm a little concerned that Trueman seems to cite a lot of communitarian sources as the good guys. Of course, excessive individualization is an easy bogeyman to attack, but we have to grapple with the fact that the Spirit convicts individuals and that that the way out is not necessarily to embrace the communitarian agenda.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm a little concerned that Trueman seems to cite a lot of communitarian sources as the good guys. Of course, excessive individualization is an easy bogeyman to attack, but we have to grapple with the fact that the Spirit convicts individuals and that that the way out is not necessarily to embrace the communitarian agenda.

Which communitarian authors do you have in mind?

 

[VictorBravo]

Which communitarian authors do you have in mind?

I should have clarified. I haven’t read this book. I was thinking of The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.

I recall he relied a lot on Charles Taylor

 

[arapahoepark]

I should have clarified. I haven’t read this book. I was thinking of The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.

I recall he relied a lot on Charles Taylor

Strange New World is a reader's digest version of it.

Nevertheless, I am not sure I understand concern.

 

[VictorBravo]

Nevertheless, I am not sure I understand concern.

I don’t think this thread is the place for discussing it much, and I’m still trying to work things out in my mind. Where I’m uneasy is the idea that ethical norms are man-made by a community’s shared set of values.

 

[RamistThomist]

I should have clarified. I haven’t read this book. I was thinking of The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.

I recall he relied a lot on Charles Taylor

Taylor has some issues, but when it comes to navigating modern understandings of the secular, Taylor is the standard.

 

[py3ak]

I'm a little concerned that Trueman seems to cite a lot of communitarian sources as the good guys. Of course, excessive individualization is an easy bogeyman to attack, but we have to grapple with the fact that the Spirit convicts individuals and that that the way out is not necessarily to embrace the communitarian agenda.

Thanks, Vic. One of my concerns with Rise and Triumph as well as other works is that Trueman seems capable of adopting a certain point of view for the purpose of critiquing another, without necessarily thinking through whether the adopted point of view is quite accurate. I see it as a weakness arising from excessive conventionality, but quite possibly there's a different explanation available to those with more philosophical background.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't think Trueman is leveraging Taylor's thought as a way to penetrate humanity wholly but only insofar as Taylor makes accurate observations about the way the culture presses people into common ways of thinking. It's another way of Paul's point that the world conforms us to its thinking in Romans 12:2. The "individual" in modern society is not as free as he believes himself to be. His expressive individualism is shaped by the cultural air he breathes. That a man in modern society believes that he is only authentically himself, when he expresses his desires, is something that the community has conformed him into believing.

 

[CathH]

I don't think Trueman is leveraging Taylor's thought as a way to penetrate humanity wholly but only insofar as Taylor makes accurate observations about the way the culture presses people into common ways of thinking. It's another way of Paul's point that the world conforms us to its thinking in Romans 12:2. The "individual" in modern society is not as free as he believes himself to be. His expressive individualism is shaped by the cultural air he breathes. That a man in modern society believes that he is only authentically himself, when he expresses his desires, is something that the community has conformed him into believing.

Yes. This is how I took it from The Rise and Triumph.

 

[VictorBravo]

His expressive individualism is shaped by the cultural air he breathes. That a man in modern society believes that he is only authentically himself, when he expresses his desires, is something that the community has conformed him into believing.

Fair enough. I'd prefer taking what they call "expressive individualism" to be "mindless conformity." It just takes on a different form each generation.

Do people really think that doing what all the "cool" people are doing is expressing individuality?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

In Strange New World (as in his larger work — which I have not read), Trueman seeks to discern the influences that gave rise to finding identity not in established norms, but simply in how we feel and think about ourselves — and this trumps all previous standards of self-identifying, even long-established moral standards and codes. The new normal is whatever we want it to be, and it is getting legal traction in codified law. It does appear it will prevail.

"Expressive individualism" is the new societal gold standard. Who — now — dares say that the Bible is a repository, or THE repository, of Truth we shall, or worse yet, must, live by? Such are enemies of humanity. It is a brilliant book — whatever its flaws — and foresees the cultural milieu we shall find ourselves in.

I think the answer to this is only to be found in small local communities of God's people who teach the truth well and deeply to young and old, so they know what they believe and live by, and have withal to stand fast whatever the delusional culture demands. Which we can only do in the presence — in the word and Spirit — of our Saviour, Christ the Lord.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Fair enough. I'd prefer taking what they call "expressive individualism" to be "mindless conformity." It just takes on a different form each generation.

Do people really think that doing what all the "cool" people are doing is expressing individuality?

I'm not saying it's the reality that people are really expressing their individuality, but that people believe they can only be authentic when they express what they believe they are deep down within. A person is not being their authentic true selves, for instance, while they remain "in the closet". Hence a desire in their flesh (as we would see it) is something definitive of the individual in our current cultural climate. The acts and words are performative but that is the nature of society. Yes, in reality, they are mindlessly (or sinfully slavishly as we would understand) simply living out as the world would have them do. The main point, however, is that Taylor is simply describing the idea that people are conformed to the way the culture drives them. They don't even think about it. It seems very strange to this culture to point out that a man who, deep down, thinks he is a woman is not, in fact, a woman.

 

[jwright82]

I'm not saying it's the reality that people are really expressing their individuality, but that people believe they can only be authentic when they express what they believe they are deep down within. A person is not being their authentic true selves, for instance, while they remain "in the closet". Hence a desire in their flesh (as we would see it) is something definitive of the individual in our current cultural climate. The acts and words are performative but that is the nature of society. Yes, in reality, they are mindlessly (or sinfully slavishly as we would understand) simply living out as the world would have them do. The main point, however, is that Taylor is simply describing the idea that people are conformed to the way the culture drives them. They don't even think about it. It seems very strange to this culture to point out that a man who, deep down, thinks he is a woman is not, in fact, a woman.

I think you raise some good points, I agree. This whole notion of who is to blame is a bit confusing. We know that individuals make decisions about their lives. But they came from somewhere, from some family that influenced them. I'm not condoning the behavior just pointing to the complexity of it.

 

[RamistThomist]

Chapter Four: Sexualizing Psychology, Politicizing Sex

What is happiness? The classical tradition, from Aristotle through Christianity to Jefferson, defined it as living towards a telos and pursuing the virtues. Post Freud, our society now sees it primarily, though not exclusively, as genital pleasure.

Freud

As Trueman notes, summarizing Freud, “morality rests on notions of disgust, cultivated in the individual by the wider culture, in order to provoke revulsion at certain behaviors. But the basis for that behavior is not rational” (75).

Deep down inside, so Freud thinks, man wants to act out his violent sexual urges. Of course, society cannot work like that. “To avoid this, society engages in a trade-off: it places restrictions on sexual desire through cultivating morality–a code of behavior by which guilt and shame about certain sexual behaviors are internalized” (77).

We probably should not misunderstand Freud. He might not be saying we should have a sexual free-for-all. Rather, at least at this point, he is explaining why we feel guilt. He is wrong, to be sure, but his basic argument seems straightforward.

Unfortunately, he linked sexual desires with society at large. Sex is now political. As Trueman notes, “If we are at root defined in large part by our sexual desires…then sex must be political because rules governing sexual behavior are rules that govern what is and is not considered by society to be legitimate as an identity” (79). This explains why the Gender Mafia will not allow dissidents a “live and let live” approach. Disagreement is a political attack on my identity, and said attacks are perceived as existential.

 

[ZackF]

Thank you Jacob for doing this.

 

[ZackF]

Disagreement is a political attack on my identity, and said attacks are perceived as existential.

This is the money shot. These things are not about the behaviors of someone but rather his essence. What is astonishing is how much of this stuff robs from the Christian worldview almost like a photographic negative.

 

[RamistThomist]

Chapter 5: The Revolt of the Masses

Key idea: we have moved from a fixed world to a plastic world. Earlier generations received a world that, if not stable, at least changed at a normal pace. Today’s world, however, is shaped by technology as though it were raw material (95).

Technology, despite its usage by totalitarian systems, reinforces the individual. More often than not, it is used to gratify individual satisfactions (96). The world has moved from essences to “stuff,” as Trueman calls it. An essence is a stable, fixed point. It is something whose name survives change.

Trueman advances another thesis: “institutions are no longer places of authoritative information but of performance” (100). If a college (Westminster College, Utah) can offer a class on p0rn, then we can safely give up the illusion that universities primarily exist for knowledge. Some of them, anyway.

To be fair, universities do offer knowledge, but that is not the point. Some disciplines engage in rational inquiry. More and more, however, engage in performance, criticism, or public action.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Chapter 5: The Revolt of the Masses

Key idea: we have moved from a fixed world to a plastic world. Earlier generations received a world that, if not stable, at least changed at a normal pace. Today’s world, however, is shaped by technology as though it were raw material (95).

Technology, despite its usage by totalitarian systems, reinforces the individual. More often than not, it is used to gratify individual satisfactions (96). The world has moved from essences to “stuff,” as Trueman calls it. An essence is a stable, fixed point. It is something whose name survives change.

Trueman advances another thesis: “institutions are no longer places of authoritative information but of performance” (100). If a college (Westminster College, Utah) can offer a class on p0rn, then we can safely give up the illusion that universities primarily exist for knowledge. Some of them, anyway.

To be fair, universities do offer knowledge, but that is not the point. Some disciplines engage in rational inquiry. More and more, however, engage in performance, criticism, or public action.

Yuval Levin in his book, A Time to Build, makes the same point about the way people use institutions now instead of seeing themselves as part of them or bound to their preservation and upkeep. The way to make yourself popular in the government, for instance, is to pretend that you are an outsider, fighting the way things are instead of (the reality) that you are part of the establishment. Journalists use the media institutions they are part of as platforms for their promotion, etc. I think it's the same book where he also notes the cultural solipsism that the culture is engaged in because we are so accustomed to always getting what we want that cultural creation is geared toward producing the same things over and over. Yes, there is going to be yet another Willy Wonka.

 

[hammondjones]

Key idea: we have moved from a fixed world to a plastic world.

No doubt he means plastic in sense of mutable (if not also cheap) but it strikes me that w.r.t. streaming media we are far beyond paper, vinyl, plastic - anything physical, into a place where we don't own but merely purchase access to, don't possess permanently but subscribe monthly, and digital books are edited on the cloud.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

No doubt he means plastic in sense of mutable (if not also cheap) but it strikes me that w.r.t. streaming media we are far beyond paper, vinyl, plastic - anything physical, into a place where we don't own but merely purchase access to, don't possess permanently but subscribe monthly, and digital books are edited on the cloud.

His point about it being a plastic world has more to do with who we are as people and not necessarily the goods we use or consume. The example he uses is that his grandfather would not have known what to do with the question as to whether a person needs to decide whether he was a man or not an other questions about "what will I be when I'm older". Our identities as persons are now plastic and moldable to our desires according to the way people now think. Kids didn't grow up in the pre-modern era thinking about who they are and whether they were being authentic to their true selves. If they grew up the son of a mason then they were probably going to be a mason. Not all the social mobility and other features of modernity are bad but it is part of modernity that people are treated functionally now and there is more stress on individuals to figure out not only their valuable function in the ecnomony and society but, now, whether they are what Creation tells them they are.

 

[RamistThomist]

No doubt he means plastic in sense of mutable (if not also cheap) but it strikes me that w.r.t. streaming media we are far beyond paper, vinyl, plastic - anything physical, into a place where we don't own but merely purchase access to, don't possess permanently but subscribe monthly, and digital books are edited on the cloud.

His point about it being a plastic world has more to do with who we are as people and not necessarily the goods we use or consume. The example he uses is that his grandfather would not have known what to do with the question as to whether a person needs to decide whether he was a man or not an other questions about "what will I be when I'm older". Our identities as persons are now plastic and moldable to our desires according to the way people now think. Kids didn't grow up in the pre-modern era thinking about who they are and whether they were being authentic to their true selves. If they grew up the son of a mason then they were probably going to be a mason. Not all the social mobility and other features of modernity are bad but it is part of modernity that people are treated functionally now and there is more stress on individuals to figure out not only their valuable function in the ecnomony and society but, now, whether they are what Creation tells them they are.

Yes to both. It's similar to facebook friends and cryptocurrency. Precisely *where* are they located? Nowhere.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yes to both. It's similar to facebook friends and cryptocurrency. Precisely *where* are they located? Nowhere.

I was reading an article in the latest Modern Reformation that spoke about the concern that Mark Twain and others had about the Telegraph. I think technology has certainly been a good thing in some ways. Reuniting people separated by war or the Holocaust took much longer in the past as did word from loved ones across the State or even around the world. News of a ship sinking or even hurricanes moving across the Atlantic was not something we had access to immediately as we now do. That said, technology has also bent us into thinking of ourselves in disembodied ways. That said, as someone with no central vision, I'm happy to live in an era where I can listen to books that would be locked to me otherwise.