|
|
Probe Ministries
Where Did "I" Go?:
The Loss of the Self in Postmodern Times
Rick Wade
Introduction
Who are you, anyway? Do you have an identity? What
constitutes your identity? Who your parents are? Where you were
born? What you do for a living?
Christians will rightly
locate their identity ultimately in the God who created us in His
image. We are His creation made for His purposes and glory. But are
we important as individuals before God? Are we just a small part of
the mass of humanity? Or are we unique individual selves with some
characteristics shared by all people but also with a set of
characteristics unique to ourselves?
According to the
mindset overtaking the Western world called postmodernism,
you aren’t really a self at all. You have no unique identity that
is identifiable from birth to death; there’s no real
"you" which remains constant throughout all of life’s
changes.
In a previous
article my colleague, Don Closson, explored the views of human
nature held by theists, pantheists, and naturalists. In this
article I want to examine the postmodern view of human nature and
consider a possible direction for a Christian response.
Postmodernism: The End of Modernism
What is postmodernism? It is generally acknowledged that
postmodernism isn’t a philosophy as we typically think of
philosophies. It isn’t a single, well thought out philosophical
system which seeks to define and answer the big questions of life.
Postmodernism is more of a report on the mindset of Western culture
in the latter half of the twentieth century. Some call it a mood.
We might say it is a report on the failures of modernism along with
a hodgepodge of suggestions for a new direction of thought and
life.
Modernism is the name given to a way of thinking born
in the Enlightenment era. It was a very optimistic outlook buoyed
up by the successes of the sciences which produced some truly
wonderful technology. We could understand ourselves and our world,
and working together we could fix what was broken in nature and in
human life.
Unfortunately the chickens have come home to
roost; we’ve discovered that our optimism was misguided. We
obviously haven't fixed all our problems, and the more we learn,
the more we realize how little we know. Reason hasn't lived up to
its Enlightenment reputation.
Not only have we not been
able to fix everything, the technology we do have has had some bad
side effects. For example, the mobility which has resulted from
modern transportation has removed us from stable communities which
provided standards of conduct, protection, and a sense of
continuity between one’s home, work, and other activities of life.
Add to that the globalization of our lives which brings us into
contact with people from many different backgrounds with many
different beliefs and ways of life, and we can see why we struggle
to maintain some continuity in our own lives. We feel ourselves
becoming fractured as we run this way and that; and at each
destination we encounter different sets of values and expectations.
As theologian Anthony Thiselton says, the resulting "loss of
stability, loss of stable identity, and loss of confidence in
global norms or goals breed deep uncertainty, insecurity, and
anxiety."{1} We no
longer take our cues from tradition or from our own inner
"gyroscope"--an
internalized set of values which guides our lives. Rather we are
"other-directed." We take our cues from other people who
are supposedly "in the know" and can tell us what we are
supposed to do and be in each different compartment of our lives.
We find ourselves
"eager to conform, yet always in some doubt as to what exactly
it [is] that [we are] to conform to."{2} We are "at home everywhere and nowhere,
capable of a superficial intimacy with and response to
everyone."{3}
All this produces in us a sense
of constantly being in flux. The debate over which was fundamental
in our universe--change or
stability--occupied the thought of
Greek philosophers long before Christ. This debate continues in our
day. In fact, one writer noted that "postmodernism can be
viewed as a debate about reality."{4} The search in modern times to find what is
really real--what is true and
stable--has given way. In
postmodern times, change is fundamental; flux is normal.
In all of this we seem to lose our sense of identity. In fact,
as we will see, avant garde postmodern thinkers say we have no self
at all.
Basic Issues: Truth, Language, and Power
I noted earlier that postmodernism is more a report on the
failures of modernism than a philosophy itself. One of the key
issues which divides the two eras is that of truth. Whereas
modernism was quite optimistic about our ability to know truth not
only about ourselves and our world but also about how to make life
better, postmodernism says we can’t really know truth at all. To
mention one way our lack of confidence in reason to get at truth
shows itself, consider how often disputes are settled with name-
calling or a resort to the ever ready "Well, that's your
opinion," as if that settles the issue, or even to force. As
one scholar noted, "Argument becomes transposed into rhetoric.
Rhetoric then comes to rely on force, seduction, or
manipulation."{5}
Since we can’t really know truth¾if there is truth to be known¾we can't answer questions about ultimate
reality. There is no one "story," as it's called, which
explains everything. So, for example, the message of the Bible
cannot be taken as true because it purports to give final answers
for the nature of God, man, and the world. In the jargon of
postmodernism, it is a metanarrative, a story covering all
stories. Any metanarrative is rejected out of hand. We simply can’t
have that kind of knowledge according to postmodernists.{6}
One of the basic problems in knowing truth is the problem of
language. Knowledge is mediated by language, but postmodernists
believe that language can't adequately relate truth. Why? Because
there is a disjunction between our words and the realities they
purport to reflect. Words don't accurately represent objective
reality, it is thought; they are just human conventions. But if
language is what we use to convey ideas, and words don't accurately
reflect
objective reality, then we can't know objective reality. What we do
with words is not to reflect reality, but rather to
create it. This is called constructivism,{7} the power to construct
reality with our words.
What this means for
human nature in particular is that we can’t really make universal
statements about human beings. We can't know if there is
such a thing as human nature. Those who hold to constructivism say
that there is no human nature per se; we are what we say we
are.
There is a second problem with language. Postmodernists
are very sensitive to what they call the will-to-power.
People exercise power and control over others, and language is one
tool used for doing so.{8} For instance, we define roles for people, we
make claims about God and what He requires of us, and so forth. In
doing so, we define expectations and limits. Thus, with our words
we control people.
As a result of this idea about
language and its power to control, postmodernists are almost by
definition suspicious. What people say and even more so what they
write is suspected of being a tool for control over others.
What does this mean for human nature? It means that if we try to
define human nature, we are seen as attempting to exercise control
over people. As one person said, to make a person a
subject--a topic of study and
analysis--is to subject that
person; in other words, to put him in a box and define his
limits.
Thus, human nature can’t be defined, so for all
practical purposes there is no human nature. There is more, though.
Not only is there no human nature generally, but there are no
individual selves either.
Postmodernism and the Self
Let’s look more closely at the postmodern view of the
self.
Writer Walter Truett Anderson gives four terms
postmodernists use to speak of the self which address the issues of
change and multiple identities. The first is multiphrenia.
This refers to the many different voices in our culture telling us
who we are and what we are. As Kenneth Gergen, a professor of
psychology, says, "For everything that we 'know to be true'
about ourselves, other voices within respond with doubt and even
derision."{9} Our
lives are multi-dimensional. The various relationships we have in
our lives pull us in different directions. We play "such a
variety of roles that the very concept of an 'authentic self' with
knowable characteristics recedes from view."{10} And these roles
needn’t overlap or be congruent in any significant way. As Anderson
says, "In the postmodern world, you just don’t get to be a
single and consistent somebody."{11}
The second term used is protean. The
protean self is capable of changing constantly to suit the present
circumstances. "It may include changing political opinions and
sexual behavior, changing ideas and ways of expressing them,
changing ways of organizing one’s life."{12} Some see this as the
process of finding one's true self. But others see it as a
manifestation of the idea that there is no true, stable
self.{13}
Thirdly, Anderson speaks of the de-centered self. This
term focuses on the belief that there is
no self at all. The self is constantly redefined, constantly
undergoing change. As one philosopher taught, "The subject is
not the speaker of language but its creation."{14} Thus, there is no
enduring "I". We are what we are described to be.
Anderson's fourth term is self-in-relation. This concept
is often encountered in feminist studies. It simply means that we
live our lives not as islands unto ourselves but in relation to
people and to certain cultural contexts. To rightly understand
ourselves we must understand the contexts of our lives.{15}
If we put these four terms together, we have the image of a
person who has no center, but who is drawn in many directions and
is
constantly changing and being defined externally by the various
relations he or she has with others. All these ideas clearly go in
a different direction than that taken by modern society. It was
formerly believed that our goal should be to achieve wholeness, to
find the integrated self, to pull all the seemingly different parts
of ourselves together into one cohesive whole. Postmodernism says
no; that can't happen because we aren't by nature one cohesive
self.
So there is no "I", no inner self to wrestle
with all these different roles and determine which I will accept
and which I won't and, ultimately, who I really am. How, then, do
changes come about? Who decides what I am like or who I am?
According to postmodern thought, we are shaped by outside forces.
We are socially constructed.
The Socially Constructed Life
What does it mean to be socially constructed? It
means simply that one's society's values, languages, arts,
entertainment, all that we grow up surrounded by, define who we
are. We do not have fixed identities which are separable from our
surroundings and which remain the same even though certain
characteristics and circumstances may change.
It was once
believed that what we do externally reflects what we are on the
inside. But if there is no "inside," we must rely on that
which is outside to define us. We are products of external forces
over which we have varying levels of control. The suspicious
postmodernist sees us as having little control at all over the
forces impinging upon us.
Thus, we are created from the
outside in, rather than from the inside out. If in traditional
societies one's status was determined by one's role, and in modern
societies one's status was determined by achievement, in postmodern
times one’s status is determined by fashion or style.{16} As styles change, we
must change with them or be left with our identity in question.
It's one thing to want to fit in with one's peers. It's another
altogether to believe that one’s true identity is bound up with the
fashions of the day. But that's life in the postmodern world.
Being bound up with the fashions of the day, however,
means that there is no eternal context for our lives. We are
"historically situated."{17} That means that our lives can only be
understood in the context of the present historical moment. All
that matters is now. What I was yesterday is irrelevant; what I
will be tomorrow is open.
Let's sum up our discussion to
this point. In postmodern times there is no confidence in our
ability to know truth. There is no metanarrative which serves to
define and give a context to everything. Change is fundamental, and
changes come often and do not always form a coherent pattern. There
is no real human nature, nor are there real selves; there is no
real "me" that is identifiable throughout my life.
Whatever I am, I am because I have been "created", so to
speak, by outside forces. One of the most potent forces is language
with its ability to define and control. My life is like a story or
text which is being written and rewritten constantly. How I am
defined is what I am. What I am today is means nothing for
tomorrow. To empower myself, I must take charge of defining myself,
of writing my own story my way, not letting others write it for
me.
But for many postmodernists this isn't really an
individual exercise at all. I am a part of a group, and I'm
expected to remain a part of my group and be defined in keeping
with my group. Furthermore, no one outside the group is permitted
to participate in the defining process. So, for example, men have
nothing to say to women about how they are to act or what roles
they are to fill.
Results
The bottom line in all this is what you already know. Life
in the postmodern world is one of instability. To quote Thiselton
again, the losses of stability and identity and confidence
"breed deep uncertainty, insecurity and anxiety. . . . [T]he
postmodern self lives daily with fragmentation, indeterminacy, and
intense distrust" of all claims to ultimate truth or universal
moral standards. This results in defensiveness and "an
increasing preoccupation with self-protection, self-interest, and
desire for power and the recovery of control. The postmodern
self is thus predisposed to assume a stance of readiness for
conflict."{18}
Our fragmentation, our lack of an internal "gyroscope" to
give direction and balance, the pressures of external forces to
conform, the lack of continuity in our lives, together work to
strip us of a sense of who we are, or that we are a single somebody
at all.
Some people might despair over
this. But many believe we should embrace this rather than fight it.
If we aren't happy with our own individual "story", we
should rewrite it. We need to simply accept our inner multiplicity
and devise a story that accounts for it. "If meaning is
constructed in language," says one writer, we must learn to
tell "better, richer, more spacious stories" about our
lives.{19}
But if the forces surrounding us are so strong, how
shall we stand against them? If we find ourselves resisting others
who try to define us or set standards for us, indicating that we
believe they're strong enough to have an influence over us, how are
we ever going to be able to avoid being a pawn for those who are
more powerful? How can we avoid get sucked up into "group-
think", where we're always expected to toe the party line?
What happens to our own individuality? Is there no place for our
individual unique sets of gifts and abilities, needs and desires,
loves and concerns?
Consider also the potential for loss
for the individual in favor of the group. What if the group's
standards or goals diminish the individuals in the group? Prof. Ed
Veith has spoken of the similarities between this mentality and
that of Fascism with its suppression of the individual in favor of
the group. With or without realizing it, postmodernists aren't
establishing a basis for empowering the oppressed, but are
"resurrecting ways of thinking that gave us world war and the
Holocaust."{20}
Veith quotes writer David Hirsch who said, "Purveyors of
postmodern ideologies must consider whether it is possible to
diminish human beings in theory, without, at the same time, making
individual human lives worthless in the real world."{21}
A Christian Response
Is there an answer in Christ for the fragmented, suspicious,
"non-selves" of the postmodern world?
In this
writer's opinion, it is simple common sense that we are individual
selves with an identity which we carry throughout our years despite
the various changes we experience. "I" can be held
accountable for the things "I" did five years ago. The
individual brought to the witness stand is believed to be the same
"self" who witnessed the particular events in the past.
The worker is promised a pension when she retires with the
understanding that the retiree will be the same self as the one who
worked for many years.{22} Furthermore, we know that we have a set of
abilities, great or small, that are our own and that we can use for
good or for ill. We naturally resent being molded in the image of
other people and prevented from expressing our own true nature.
Does Christ have anything to say to the postmodern
individual who can’t shake the common sense view that he is the
same person today that he was yesterday? Or to the person who wants
to affirm or regain her own identity and chart a course for life
that she as an individual can experience and learn from and within
which to develop as an individual self?
Indeed He does. The
call of God in Christ is to individuals within the larger story of
God's work in this world.{23} For one thing, having been created by Him
we see ourselves as ones who can be addressed as Jeremiah was with
the news that God knew him before he was born. It was the same
Jeremiah being formed in his mother’s womb to whom God spoke as an
adult (Jer. 1:5). Furthermore, in Christ we recognize ourselves as
responsible individuals who must give an account for our actions
without pointing the finger of blame at "society" (Rev.
20:12).
In Christ we can acknowledge that we are shaped to
a great extent by our surroundings, and that we are historically
situated to an extent. But we aren't trapped. Redemption
"promises deliverance from all the cause-effect chains of
forces which hold the self to its past."{24}
There is
more. In Christ the suspicion which marks postmodern man who is
ever on guard against being redefined and controlled by others
dissolves into a love which gives itself to the interests of God
and other men.{25} The
will-to-power of postmodern man which is self-defeating gives way
to the will-to-love which reaches out to build up rather than to
control.{26} We can
indeed find common ground with people of other groups. "The
cross of Christ in principle shatters the boundaries and conflicts
between Jew and Gentile, female and male, free person and
slave" (Gal. 3:28).{27} Recognizing our relative historical
situatedness should help us to understand the importance of the
local church as the social context within which barriers are
destroyed.{28} In
Christ, then, we have love rather than conflict, service rather
than power, trust rather than suspicion.{29}
In Christ we recognize that sometimes life seems
chaotic, that there are places of darkness in which we feel
overwhelmed by outside forces that don’t behave the way we think
they should. Consider the experiences of Job and of the writer of
Ecclesiastes. But we are called to "set our minds on things
above" (Col. 3:2), to put our confidence in "the fear of
the Lord" (Prov. 9:10; Job. 28:28; Eccl. 12:13) rather than
give in to despair or try to find a solution in simply rewriting
our story with our own set of preferred "realities."{30}
Thiselton emphasizes the importance of the resurrection for
postmodern man. "The resurrection holds out the promise of
hope from beyond the boundaries of the historical situatedness of
the postmodern self in its predicament of constraint.".{31} In addition,
"Promise beckons 'from ahead' to invite the
postmodern self to discover a reconstituted identity." It
"constitutes 'a sure and steadfast anchor' (Heb. 6:19) which
re-centres the self. It bestows on the self an identity
of worth and provides purposive meaning for the
present." The work of Christ promises a restoration of the
individual self which will "once again [come] to bear fully
the image of God in Christ (Heb. 1:3; Gen. 1:26) as a self defined
by giving and receiving, by loving and being loved
unconditionally."{32} As Steven Sandage writes, "The core
absolute in life is not change but faith in our unchanging God, the
'anchor of the soul' that reminds us we are strangers longing for
a better country " (Heb. 6:19; 11:1-16).{33}
The message of
hope is the one postmodern men and women need to hear. That
message, delivered two millennia ago, still speaks today. "The
word of our God stands forever" (Isa. 40:8). Some things never
change.
Notes
1. Anthony Thiselton, Interpreting God and the
Postmodern Self: On Meaning, Manipulation and Promise (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 130.
2. Walter Truett Anderson, The Future of the
Self: Inventing the Postmodern Person (New York: Jeremy P.
Tarcher/Putnam, 1997), 26.
3. David Reisman, with Nathan Glazer and Reuel
Denney, The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American
Character (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), 26; quoted
in Anderson, 26.
4. Steven J. Sandage, "Power, Knowledge, and the
Hermeneutics of Selfhood: Postmodern Wisdom for Christian
Therapists," Mars Hill Review 12 (Fall 1998): 66.
5. Thiselton, 13.
6. Gene Edward Veith, Postmodern Times: A
Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture (Wheaton,
IL: Crossway Books, 1994), 49. Note Lyotard's brief definition:
"Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity
toward metanarratives." Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern
Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans., Geoff Bennington and
Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984),
xxiv).
7.Ibid., 47-51.
8. For a Christian's recognition of this in his own
life, cf. Sandage, 68-69.
9. Kenneth J. Gergen, The Saturated Self:
Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life (New York: Basic
Books, 1990), 228. Quoted in Anderson, 38.
10. Gergen quoted in Anderson, 38.
11. Anderson, 38.
12. Ibid., 41.
13. Ibid., 42.
14. Ibid., 42-43.
15. Ibid., 51-56.
16. Veith, 85.
17. Thiselton, 42, 148-150.
18. Ibid., 130-31.
19. Anderson, 56.
20. Veith, 80.
21. David H. Hirsch, The Deconstruction of
Literature: Criticism After Auschwitz (Hanover, NH: Brown
University Press, 1991), 165; quoted in Veith, 80.
22. Thiselton, 74.
23. I am greatly indebted to Thiselton for this
portion of the discussion. See chaps. 23 and 24.
24. Thiselton, 155.
25. Ibid., 160.
26. Ibid., 161.
27. Ibid., 43.
28. Cf. Sandage, 72.
29. Thiselton, 43.
30. Sandage, 71-72.
31. Thiselton, 43.
32. Ibid., 163.
33. Sandage, 73.
© 1999 Probe Ministries International
About the Author
Rick Wade graduated from Moody Bible Institute with a B.A.
in Communications (radio broadcasting) in 1986. He graduated
cum laude in 1990 from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School with
an M.A. in Christian Thought (theology/philosophy of religion) where
his studies culminated in a thesis on the apologetics of Carl
F. H. Henry. Rick and his family make their home in
Garland, Texas. He can be reached via e-mail at
rwade@probe.org.
What is Probe?
Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3-minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at Probe.org
Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by writing to:
Probe Ministries
2001 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 2000
Plano, TX 75075
(972) 941-4565
info@probe.org
www.probe.org
Copyright (C) 1996-2012 Probe Ministries
Email this to a friend
copyright
© 1995-2012
Leadership U. All rights reserved.
Updated: 14 July 2002
|