What is Wrong with the Modern View of Identity (Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self Part 3)

Our website: www.justandsinn...
Patreon: / justandsinner
This video is the third part in a series in which I discuss Carl Trueman's recent book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.

[@poordoubloon10]

That point about Hobbes (and Locke) and the 'social contract' has always been my biggest issue with the compatibility of Liberalism and Christianity. Either social orders (government, family, church, etc.) are humanly instituted contracts that can be "unmade" as easily as they were made... or there is something divinely instituted and essential to our existence about these arenas. They are mutually exclusive perspectives.

[@babylonianexile927]

I wouldn't be so harsh here. The concept of a "social contract" is a necessary stepping stone in the process of researching what it means to govern justly and effectively. Also it should be mentioned that "contract" and "covenant" are synonyms, and even God deals with people through covenants.

[@FedoraMan316]

Thank you, pastor! I find this kind of stuff interesting. I, for one, would appreciate a continuation of the series.

[@johnandrez]

Let me humbly put forward my disagreement with some of what you have said. I apologise for the length of this post, which I have broken up into six sections, and I understand if you have neither the time nor the freedom, due to family constraints, of devoting the time to read it. Regardless, I felt the need to leave my thoughts. Having said this, I feel I should caveat these reflections by saying that I did not see Part 2 and Part 3. I enjoy a few of your videos for being able to understand a confessional Lutheran perspective, but I do not have the time to watch them all. Also please recognize that your discussion on identity can involve a lot of different kinds of identities, but I centered my reflections on the hot-button issue that involves me and is splitting denominations apart. 1) ABSTRACT SPECULATIONS ON PREVIOUS AND CURRENT DISCOURSES ON THE SELF HAVE NO BEARING ON WHY SEXUAL MINORITIES NOR EXIST, NOR DO THEy EXPLAIN THEIR POLITICAL AGENDAS I'm a gay man. When I was a pre-teen finding myself experiencing attractions to other boys instead of girls like the rest of my peers, at no point was I thinking, "Hmm. Since the dominant liberalism of North America in which I was raised has taught me that its social institutions are opressive and that I cannot be my true self, I should have these feelings for boys because it's countercultural to the oppressive institution of the family. This will be, from now on, my true self." Most kids don't think like that. I couldn't even define for you what "identity" was, or whether I had one, or why I wanted one, or why it needed to be expressed. I didn't have any consciousness of having fetishized an identity or politicizing my own deeply felt emotions. As I grew and as I matured and as my sexuality developed, yes, I gained an identity, first exonymous, those terrible words that are thrown at a someone who's different, "fag," "queer," "homo," "fudgepacker" - and then, a word freely-chosen, "gay" because it was used and shared by other men who share the same romantic/sexual attractions as I did. But despite the gained identity, and yes, despite the fact that a growing political awareness inculcated in me a sense that I do have an "agenda," at no point do I, nor anyone in my immediate social circle of fairly progressive - even radically progressive - friends desire the destruction of the family.

[@Robofish22877]

Thank you Dr. Cooper! This was utterly fascinating. I would I’ve to hear more, Particularly some practical application in the church and our personal lives. Do you advocate we shift back toward a society were the individual is expected to step away from the self and embrace an externally imposed identity?

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Maybe I should spend some time talking about what the solution should be. The fact is that in some ways we *can't* just go backwards and revert to an earlier way of doing things. For better or worse, the technological changes of the twentieth century are here to stay, and will continue to impact how we view ourselves, society, and our neighbors. But there are some things that I think we can do to move away from such a self-focused notion of identity: get involved in your local community. Join clubs. Start clubs. Use manners. Respect tradition. Reject public education. Stop watching TV.

[@Jm20375]

This is great. I’d love to see more content like this! Thoughtful analysis on modern culture and issues from a religious and philosophical perspective is very helpful.

[@jeffb1275]

I listened to all three, and it's a mind-opening roadmap towards seeing how we arrived in this place, where individualism is out of control - a society that Cooper points out is not sustainable. Recommended.

[@originalwords443]

What are your thoughts on sphere sovereignty of Abraham Kuyper? I like this view as it gives different rights to different entities, individual, family, church, etc. It's neither individualism nor collectivism, and it protects against authoritarianism.

[@WilliamFAlmeida]

This is so helpful. I'm not Lutheran, but stuff like this makes me consider Lutheran schools for my kids

[@Jassaj1985]

I would like a whole video about the issue of liberal vs classical/christian view of the government.

[@Jassaj1985]

Also maybe something about your own view of the proper relationship between church and government or maybe between Christians and the government. Because I think you have been somewhat unclear about the issue. You have said (on twitter) that Lutheran reformers supported Christian government but on the other hand you have yourself expressed support for the liberal order.

[@Jassaj1985]

@Daniel Swick I have watched those in the past. Maybe I should re-watch them but I seem to remember a compromise with liberalism with which I am uncomfortable with. To me it seems clear that liberalism (in its classical sense) and the whole view of self and of the world that comes with the enlightenment and modernity... etc. is the source of much of our problems, not just currently but for hundreds of years now. Yet conservative Christian seem to mostly want to defend (classical) liberalism while also criticizing its fruits. Shouldn't we want to cut down the whole tree?

[@Jassaj1985]

@Daniel Swick Cutting down the tree is probably an over statement. I largely agree with you but I still wish Dr. Cooper would go deeper into the issue.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I can do that. It's something I've thought about a lot, and it is rather difficult to balance what I think have been the genuine benefits of liberalism in some ways with its mistaken premises regarding the isolation of the individuals. Ultimately, I think the liberal order does need to come to an end, but I'm simply unsure of what should take its place.

[@abdulwahabsaifee9036]

Thank you very much for your lectures they are useful and informational. I'm looking forward to hear more from you and learn from you Lord blessing.

[@JW_______]

This brings me back to some of my college political philosophy classes. Love it. Thank you!

[@davidlauer9379]

I am a new patron. I really appreciate your videos.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Thank you!

[@davidlauer9379]

I may be on a path to becoming a Lutheran, but it is far too early to know where this will end up. Your resources are very helpful.

[@johnandrez]

5) WHY IS THE CLASSICAL VIEW OF IDENTITY (AS HAVING TO CONFORM TO THE SOCIAL ORDER) NECESSARILY SUPERIOR OR MORE COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY? A MIXED EVALUATION OF THE SOCIAL ORDER IS ARGUABLY MORE APPROPRIATE. As I said before, with the the rise of certain forms of Protestantism, celibacy and singleness is devalued, and the fertile heterosexual family life becomes, culturally speaking, not simply the ideal, but the sacred norm, deviation from which is stigmatised and considered "abnormal." It is no surprise to me that at some point in history, people begin to feel that aspects of the social order have become oppressive. And to be honest, it's surprising to me that you seem to simply assume that the classical view of the self conforming to the social order is somehow more superior and more compatible with Christianity. I would have thought the doctrines of the fallenness of human nature would be quite compatible with the idea that throughout human history, various societies have created social institutions orders that, to a greater or lesser degree, are sometimes oppressive to the human being made in God's image. Especially for Protestants, this taintedness of our social order may include even the institutions of the Church, which Christians confess is divinely founded, but which, according to the Protestant narrative, for many centuries had repressive institutions, many false doctrines, false teachers, exaggerated mortifications, and pious but fraudulent practices. Secondly, I would think that many Christians in the early Church did not hold the social order and the government as sacred - to be received as is and to which our identities and our inner lives must conform - because too much of it was connected to paganism. While later Byzantine writers might eventually paint the Roman Empire as of divine origin, separately established from the Church, many early Christians certainly felt the tension between their baptismal promises and that social order. They avoided circuses, and theatres, and the Olympics, and meat offered to idols, and other such daily realities of imperial life that were all labeled "pompa diaboli." Although it's obvious that many Christians did not compromise on their faith, many Christians offered pinches of incense to the emperor, or participated in so-and-so pagan rite because they held a political office and their attendance was obligatory, etc. Certainly, you do not think that an inner, authentically Christian self should capitulate to the social order. So this 'mixed' evaluation of the social order, is equally possible, I would think, in a Christian worldview. The social order, after all, is not untainted by our fallenness, and the social order may be explicitly anti-Christian or just too pagan. 6) MOST PROGRESSIVES ARE FAMILIAR WITH "INTERSECTIONALITY THEORY" IN WHICH IDENTITY IS NOT PRIMARILY SEXUALISED BUT IS FOUNDED AT THE INTERSECTION OF VARIOUS AXES OF IDENTITY In contradistinction to your portrayal of the discursive shifts on identity (the classical giving way to a psychic, allowing for an increase of the sexualization of identity), I find that much of progressive discourse on identity and the self has really useful diagnoses, especially of the idea of self-identity as a multifacted thing, an intersection of various identities. This, I think, poses a challenge your idea that the identity is being primarily sexualised in the modern thought. Rather than the identity being sexualised, sexuality is a part of identity, as is race, as is class, as is family background, as is native language, etc. That is to say, rather than identity being psychologised, it is a conglomeration of self-paradigms that are informed by things psychological (e.g. preferring to read rather than play sports), as well as social (e.g. being born to a lower class family but going to an elite boarding school, being raised in or marrying into the British royal family, etc.), as well as inherited or inherent or unalterable traits (e.g. being born black or white, experiencing same-sex attraction, etc.). Ultimately, I found this past hour of listening to be incredibly frustrating. You seem to be trying to describe the rise of or combatting a certain kind of unmarried, selfish, self-centered, childless liberal who wants to destroy families and loves identity politics and whose academic pontifications sexualizes identity and distorts the sacred social order that you prize so much. This describes literally no one I know, and perhaps only a handful of extremist thinkers on the internet. Perhaps I'm exaggerating your perspective, but this is what you come off as. Although you yourself have criticized romanticising other periods in time (one of your other videos on trads romanticizing a certain kind of patriarchal family life), I feel as if you make the same mistake in this video, romanticizing past conceptions of identity, and its relation to the social order, for no other reason than, it seems, because they already conveniently bolster your commitments to seeing feminism and the LGBTQ rights movement as necessarily societal evils. I hope I have put forward my thoughts in a way that was not hateful, aggressive, or disrespectful. Please pray for me, a sinner.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Though I don't have time to respond to everything you have posted here, I appreciate your viewing the video and thoughtful interaction.

[@johnandrez]

@@DrJordanBCooper Thank you for your voicing your appreciation. It means a lot that you at least gave it a read-through. God bless you. (Also, I am not sure if my section #3 was successfully posted, so I'm posting it again. I apologise for the double post if you've already read it.)

[@bds8715]

thank you for writing all this and adding perspective to this issue. A *big* problem on the issue of same sex attraction and identity is the simple fact that so many people, including myself, cannot comprehend same sex attraction. I'm attracted to women because my body wants to make children---it's in our DNA. Is gay attraction the same feeling? If so, then the body wants to make children with the wrong body. The attraction literally makes no sense. I think it was Foucault who said homosexuality is not a desire but something desirable, something to be worked for. Was Foucault secretly straight and forced himself to be gay for ideological reasons? Is there really no ideology behind SSA?

[@babylonianexile927]

"And to be honest, it's surprising to me that you seem to simply assume that the classical view of the self conforming to the social order is somehow more superior and more compatible with Christianity. I would have thought the doctrines of the fallenness of human nature would be quite compatible with the idea that throughout human history, various societies have created social institutions orders that, to a greater or lesser degree, are sometimes oppressive to the human being made in God's image." Carl Trueman is a Neo Victorian propagandist, as are most "conservative" commentators. They do not even speak for historic Protestantism, let alone historic Christianity.

[@johnandrez]

@@bds8715 I apologise for not having responded sooner. I did see your post when it first popped up on my updates, but it slipped my mind as I got busier. With respect to your comments and questions, I must confess that I am quite confused by your assertion that you're attracted to women "because [your] body wants to make children." I can't speak for most people, but I assume that most people are somewhat materialistic and that sexual attraction often begins with that person's looks. The attraction deepens and becomes more than just sexual when you're attracted to the many other facets of that person beyond their body: their personality, their intelligence, their virtues, their kindness, or whatever it is you might find beautiful in someone. I can also tell you that, for better or for worse, most of my friends, gay, straight, or bi, are usually attracted to someone physically first, followed by intellectual or emotional attraction. Kids are usually the last thing on our minds, if they even want them (some don't). If you found out a woman that you had been interested in were infertile, would you suddenly loose all attraction? Maybe some men might, and maybe you're one of them. No judgement on my part. However, a lot of men would still find themselves quite attracted to her, be it her physical beauty, her intelligence, her goodness, her hard-working nature, whatever. I'm not a straight guy. I don't have ANY attraction to women at all, so there is a chasm that is unbridgeable. I don't understand how it is to be you, and you don't understand how it is to be me. All I can tell you is that I don't know how it feels like to be attracted to someone just because, in your words, "my body wants to make children." Don't get me wrong, I do want kids, but for me and my partner, unlike straight couples, sexual intimacy doesn't lead to kids; they are essentially two separate desires for me. The sexual intimacy experienced between men, therefore, have some overlap with straight couples and some parts that don't overlap. The overlapping stuff consists of the consensual and mutually pleasurable exchange of affectionate gestures that stimulate arousal and are an expression of love, trust, tenderness, and committed unity. In the words of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, as the groom is about to place the ring on his bride's hand, he announces, "With this ring, I thee wed. WITH MY BODY, I THEE WORSHIP. With all my worldly goods, I thee endow. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The stuff that doesn't overlap with heterosexual intimacy is that when my partner and I experience sexual intimacy, it doesn't lead to babies. We have this in common with straight infertile couples, who yet, presumably, are still attracted to one another and love one another. Perhaps what you meant to say is that the biological and evolutionary roots of why you're attracted to women is because of the biological need for procreation. This would leave me less confused, because, indeed, the two are deeply linked in all of nature, sexual union and procreation. I recognise and admit this. However, that does not make me (or infertile heterosexuals) freaks. Christian doctrine grounds me in the truth that I am a unique creation of God, loved into being. While He clearly didn't use the same cookie cutter on me as he did with most other people, He still made me out of the same dough. I still breathe, and feel, and love, and feel remorse, and shame, and I struggle with sin, and I also feel attraction to other people, and I try and work out that attraction in fear and trembling, as we Christians work out all of our salvation. Indeed, to me, the roots of my sexuality are mysterious and not so obviously spelled out in the Bible or in biology, but I have long since stopped feeling that this makes me evil. I have faith in the justifying and sanctifying power of Christ's cross and resurrection. I try and put the Church first, I believe in the Nicene Creed, I practice monogamy, and I try and love my neighbour as myself. It seems to me that, like for many straight couples, loving my partner is one of the easiest ways to train my soul in loving my neighbour as myself. * * * As for Foucault, I have never read Foucault. I don't really read critical theory or continental philosophers. I am a simple layman with a bachelor's degree in linguistics. I know only a little about sexuality studies or gender studies or feminist thought, but I haven't read any of the big names. My reflections on sexuality and gender are mostly from my personal point of view as a gay male and as a Christian. Maybe it's possible that you could philosophise your way into having a different sexual orientation? I don't know. I tried being celibate and theologising my way into being a "better Christian" but that didn't change me into being straight, and it arguably made me a worse Christian. The only ones who could tell, in my opinion, whether Foucault was really gay or just into a new intellectual idea, are the ones who've had him in their beds.

[@chemnitz6834]

This was a very necessary video Dr. Cooper, thank you for returning to this subject. Have you considered making a Classical Trinitarian response to Unitarian arguments, especially those made by figures like Dr. Dale Tuggy? Some may roll their eyes at the idea of dealing with Unitarians, but I would say it is still necessary.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I can look into it.

[@claytonhester7054]

The Epic of Gilgamesh is very introspective, but very far from the brooding that modern introspective literature may at times fall into.

[@lc-mschristian5717]

Thank you. Godspeed and God's peace be with you.

[@BirdDogey1]

The Dead Poet's Society comment was so spot on.

[@tmlavenz]

Thank you for this important investigation.

[@johnandrez]

(continued) 2) FAMILIES AREN'T PERFECT, AND THE INSTITUTIONS WE SURROUND AROUND THE FAMILY AND THE WAYS WE IDOLIZE THE FAMILY ARE OPEN TO LEGITIMATE CRITIQUE, BUT ONLY THE MOST IDEOLOGICALLY EXTREME THINKERS WANT TO DESTROY THE FAMILY. And that's one of the primary reasons why I find a lot of what you say so hard to take seriously, because you did that thing so many conservatives do, which is bring up the supposed agenda to destroy the family, and in so doing, you paint so many progressives with a unimaginably huge stroke of a brush. "Demonstrate from the literature" all you want, but most progressives aren't that ideologically extreme. When you say, "they say this," you are pointing at a minority of progressives/liberals, probably in academia, or currently studying at university. There is no reigning orthodoxy among progressives in this matter, and if you don't recognize the minority nature of that view and the extremeness and radicalness of that view, then you'll find that much of what you say simply won't resonate as true with the average progressive who comes along your videos. Just as there is much to distinguish you, a confessional Lutheran, from a Westboro Baptist, or a culturally/nominally Christian Donald Trump, progressives are also diverse. Let me open up personally for a second. I love my family. I even deeply agree with the instinct that the family, ideally, is a school in which the young human being is first exposed to and is trained and disciplined by love. But families aren't perfect, and family members are sinners too. Coming out to my father was one of the most difficult things I ever did, and it caused me a lot of pain for many years thereafter. My father officially disowned me at some point, and we haven't seen each other in years, nor have we spoken to one another. As you can imagine that kind of pain or sense of abandonment is difficult to convey in a few lines on a KZbin post. As a Christian, I try not to hold grudges and I try to forgive, but as I grew older, I realise that this has affected me in more ways than I thought and I've realised that forgiveness is not always instantaneous. Therefore, despite loving my family and trying to forgive my father daily, I know from personal experience that a good virtuous Christian marriage doesn't purify family life of the many sins and disordered relations that can appear within it.

[@thomaseubank1503]

Hey I wanted to know if you would recommend Paul Tillich. What are your thoughts on what he wrote?

[@WilliamFAlmeida]

Question: what of the charge that Protestantism is what has given rise to this individualistic views. You briefly mentioned that Protestantism capitalized on this, but what of the Catholic claim that it was a cause of these individual views?

[@kjhg323]

The shift from a broadly Platonic (teleological) view of human nature to a view of the autonomous individual, where "true reality" is internal, was so profound that we haven't even managed to sort through the consequences over the course of several centuries. Given the "autonomous individual" view of human nature, and goodness in general, it is difficult to see any objection to homosexuality, transgenderism, cafeteria religion, and the like. Additionally, unless we reject the whole project, there doesn't seem to be any coherent objection to polygamy, incest, and bestiality; or to the ever expanding list of "genders,"; or to things like transracialism, trans-age-ism, or trans-species-ism; and there seems to be no place whatsoever for the institutional church. I'm afraid we ain't seen nothin' yet, but we know the truth will triumph in the end (Matt. 16:18). The project of the autonomous individual has only one possible conclusion: collapsing in on itself. I sincerely hope people like you, Dr. Cooper, will be there to respond graciously and with a kind spirit when that day comes.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Agreed. Things are going to get bad. And that's why we need to rebuild from the ground up with out local communities, schools, churches, and families.

[@johnandrez]

You don't need the discourse or theory of "the autonomous individual" to have an internal recognition of who you're attracted to or what your gender is. Even in classical cultures, people have been attracted to people of the same sex, and this internal realization has nothing to do with how identity is being talked about or understood by the wider culture. Even if you could shut down the whole "autonomous individual" perspective in the wider world, gay people and trans people won't magically stop existing. Whether the culture emphasises the autonomous individual or the outward external social obligations the individual has to the social order, gay people will experience the internal, subjective experience of attraction to people of the same gender. As Dr. Jordan B. Cooper himself admits in the beginning, the internal life and internal self-reflection is always there. Also, most progressives or LGBTQ people aren't interested in transracialism (super controversial), trans-age-ism (first time I've heard of that!), trans-species-ism (do you mean transhumanism?), and there are many other arguments that could be made against those things that have nothing to do with whether or not discourses on identity emphasize the inner and psychological or the outward and social.

[@Wanttoknowabout]

I understand that you would like more views and I can see how view counts show what people are interested in. But once in a while it is good to do something for the minority who care about these things and find this more interesting that what the masses crave.

[@rebeccaritter]

Hello what about Jesus when he said that the one that just looks at a woman and has desire is breaking the covenant with his wife

[@danthiel8623]

Nice

[@bds8715]

greek mythology is full of sexuality, but it's outward like you say. Now sexuality = you instead of as a mere part of you....... maybe this development came from a materialist view of the person? (you are your body and your body is sexual)

[@matheusc929]

The authentic self theory from Heidegger is so lame.

[@AZVIDE0Z]

ID politics is nothing more or less within the category of objectifying people. It's sad if you ask me.