Transcending Rigidity Part V: What Story Are We In?

In the last essay, I asserted that while we have cultural values about which there is broad consensus (such as alleviating human suffering or protecting the marginalized), we 21st century-ites largely have no narrative of meaning from which we live. Our morality largely consists of “playing nice”: that is, in the words of Jonathan Haidt, “being fair” and “doing no harm”, or in the words of Charles Taylor, showing “respect” to others.[1] But there is little consensus about what these values mean, let alone how to implement them. The recent debate about detention centers at the US border and the separation of children from their parents is a prime example of a total lack of clarity about how to care for, let alone respect, those on society’s margins. Furthermore, all of this debate happens in contention with another Western value, which is the drive towards individual self-expression, what we might call being one’s true or authentic self. This drive is captured in the cultural catchphrases “you do you” and “live your best life.” The impulse to express one’s self has become a default cultural mandate. And certainly, in most contexts, self-expression is far better than self-repression. Still, it must be asked: to what extent is “expressing one’s self” a part of the good life (or not), and what is the goal of this self-expression?

Authenticity and self-expression have become high ideals in our culture and are now treated as ends in and of themselves. In fact, they should be treated as means to an end.[2] After all, we can express ourselves for many reasons, many of which do not make us (or anyone else) happier, let alone virtuous. I can call someone an expletive and say “I was just being honest,” but I should not mistake such honesty for virtue. I can, in like manner, be honest simply to blow off steam. Or I can be honest to encourage someone. I can be honest to confront them, with care and concern for their well-being. In each instance, the intent of the expression becomes a measure of virtue or the lack thereof. One must not, then, simply say, “Express yourself.” One must ask, “What is the goal of self-expression?” On social media (and in real life), what appear to be transparent self-disclosure may simply be an attempt to bolster the ego by garnering attention. If self-expression is simply its own end rather than the means towards a greater goal—such as loving another or creating beautiful art for the world—self-expression becomes a ship with no harbor, doomed to endless sailing and no satisfaction.[3] If not focused on “willing the good of another,” self-expression becomes, simply, self-indulgence.[4] Indeed, “living our best life,” if defined in terms which do not move us towards the maturity of Stage 4 (see essay 1 and 2 in this series) and its focus on loving others, we are climbing the wrong ladder, as Thomas Merton put it, destined one day to discover it.[5] And if our “best life” consists in seeking new ways to express ourselves while hoping people respond with adulation or even envy (indeed, this seems to be much of the drive and temptation behind social media), we will always be unhappy, like the gluttons in Dante’s vision of hell: always eating, never satisfied. Self-expression without love, in fact, is probably a good definition of the terrible life. As my friend Bryan Rouanzoin says, “authenticity without commitment is just self-indulgence.”[6]

 Societal Confusion

We now live in a continual paradox. The values “be fair” and “do no harm,” at least superficially, incline us towards focusing on others. But the value “you be you” inclines us towards self-focus. In our new conception of morality, such as it stands, there is continual competition between the values be fair/do no harm/respect others and the cultural imperative to fully express one’s self.[7] Furthermore, self-expression is as ambiguous as are “respecting others” or “being fair.” What exactly, after all, does it mean to “do you”? The tension between these values generates increasing confusion.

We live at a time in which the pushback against the objectification of women is in high gear, thank God. The #metoo movement is not a Christian movement, but it certainly has its root in the Judeo-Christian tradition that all people have intrinsic value and none should suffer abuse because of disparities in power. Nevertheless, at the same time that our culture pushes against the objectification of women, pornography and the objectification of women proliferates. The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue illustrates the paradox. Suffering a downturn do to the free-flow of sexual content on the internet and due to cultural pressure to be more inclusive, the swimsuit edition has recently sought to diversify, focusing on models of different body types and even one wearing a burkini (a burqa combined with a bikini). Can the magazine, by diversifying, claim that it “empowers” women, rather than objectifying them? How would we determine which is so?[8] That is, where does objectification end and empowerment begin? Similarly, is viewing harder expressions of pornography simply “you doing you”, or is it participating in the objectification—or, in some cases, the exploitation of—women? Are you doing harm? How do we decide?

To accommodate both narratives—“you do you” and “do no harm,” we must become double-minded about what is in and out, in terms of our moral narratives. Like Alice in Wonderland, things keep changing size and shape, as we try to force things into our subjective perceptions of what is moral. Consider this example from an article about “normalizing rape fantasy,” which includes the line: “Rape fantasies aren’t really about rape."[9] I’m a fan of nuance, but this sentiment is Orwellian. Of course a moral person is for sexual consent across the board in any sexual encounter, without exception; but the argument here is to also normalize rape fantasies—rape, by definition, being the total absence of consent—while maintaining that this sort of indulgence is not dangerous. There are some cases where you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Nevertheless, since the prevailing sentiment in the ongoing sexual revolution is “Hey, I’m into it, so it’s okay!”, any space for moral discourse disappears. In fact, when moral discourse becomes located within the orientation “you do you,” the basis for moral discourse is obliterated. Once subjective feeling or preference becomes the trump card in moral discourse, there is shortly no basis for any moral discourse at all.

I saw an article on the website Buzzfeed called “Thirsty Men of the Week,” which consisted of muscular men, sweating, shirtless, or sweating and shirtless. I scrolled down to the article’s comments, curious to see what the reader reaction would be, knowing that Buzzfeed would never publish an analogous story featuring scantily-clad women. The comments, almost universally, decried the double standard: since Buzzfeed would never allow an article so blatantly objectifying women, why would they do so with men? At least here was some consistency. But what were the editor’s thinking? How could such an obvious double standard get by their censors? Is it (as I’m left to assume) that because women have so long been objectified, men should be, at least until the scales are equal?

These are examples of the tensions and the push/pull between our dominant culture values of (a) “respecting others” and (b) “you do you”/”live your best life.” Sometimes they exist in harmony. Often, they do not. And where does one end and the other begin? Supermodel Chrissy Teigen, when criticized for getting blocked on Twitter by President Donald Trump, responded: I have a best-selling book, great boobs, a family I love, am literally eating pasta on a lake in Italy and I married rich.[10] The response is amusing—and I get that, to some degree, she’s speaking tongue in cheek. But her response is also telling. Especially the “great boobs” comment. Is having ample breasts a part of the meaningful life? Of “you being you”? The statement might be read as entirely anti-feminist, defining as it does any quality of life based on the quality of one’s breasts. On the other hand, Teigen is being herself! Living her best life! Pushing back against those who would question her independence and unique self-expression. In this sense, in defending herself, she’s being deeply feminist.

I am aware that the above examples focus on sex, sexuality, and gender. Indeed, I focus on these intentionally, because sex and gender tap into our deepest desire for loving connection with another. The intensity of feeling around these topics creates helpful contrast for seeing the contradictions in which we are living. Feminism in its broadest history, specifically, provides an interesting example of the contradictions which we don’t know how to resolve. What is now known as first wave feminism began in the 19th century and continued into the 20th, and was mostly concerned with the right to vote. Second wave feminism (1960s-1980s) critiqued the limiting societal roles—childbearing and homemaking—into which women were forced. Second wave feminism was often accompanied by women breaking out of social roles and in some sense becoming more masculine in order to break through closed doors. Putting away makeup and exchanging an apron for a business suit. Second wave feminism in this sense rejected the objectification of women. Third wave feminism (mid 1990s to present) pushed back against this masculinization of women. If second wave feminism toned down the sex appeal of women, third wave feminisms says in response, “No, be as sexy as you want!” (You can hear the clear affinity towards the mantra “you do you” and even Teigen’s “great boobs” comment.)

But again, these distinctions can create confusion. Whereas dressing sexily was once seen as anti-feminist, now calling out overt or over-the-top sexualization can be seen as “slut shaming.” Which is right? And how do we know where good taste devolves into inappropriate sexualization of either men or women? We really have no idea. When we locate moral standards within the strong feeling of a subjective individual, there’s no possibility of moral conversation.[11] Morality becomes located in individual feeling and confirmation bias, which re-enforces the cultural imperative “you do you”, distancing us from any unified basis for moral discourse.[12]

Technology, for all its gains, further hazards our situation. Moral conversation subsumed by personal preference is fire, technology is gas on the flames. Social media creates echo chambers where we learn there is no need to thoughtfully consider a disconforming point of view—an opinion that does not fit within our preferences. If we disagree, we can quickly find someone or some news source who agrees with us. And, after all, if we disagree with anyone, we need not take the time to think about it; if television turned the world from thinking to entertainment, as Neil Postman so clearly descried, the internet (and social media, in particular) has become television’s more powerful progeny. Attention spans are shrinking as media stimulation expands, further discouraging us from thoughtful consideration of anything at all. Once retreating into echo chambers and avoiding nuanced thought become habitual, we easily come to believe that our subjective preferences reflect objective reality and are not limited or biased (as all subjective preference must, in fact, be). The net result is that all social discourse, moral or otherwise, is increasingly framed as either/or.[13] This is the presentation of “fact” when we become too lazy to consider thoughtful nuance. In either/or thinking, either A is right/wrong or B is right/wrong, and there is no middle ground.

How many times have you seen an article claiming “A is the greatest thing in the world”, followed by an article the next week (or even the next day) claiming “actually, A is a terrible thing”?

Tom’s Shoes giving shoes away to the poor is great/Tom’s shoes giving shoes away is the worst kind of disempowering charity.

Abortion is only about saving a child’s life/Abortion is only about the rights of women.

Republicans are the only party that cares about America /Republicans want to destroy the poor.

Democrats actually care about people/Democrats want to destroy America.

Of course, the nature of debate always involves opposing viewpoints in confrontation. But true discourse involves conversation, give and take, and respect, which is pre-requisite for accessing the pertinent facts and details necessary for comprehension, let alone a profitable dialogue. In our culture, we have increasingly less (vanishingly less, I should probably say) time for such thoughtfulness. The result is a shrill tenor to public discourse which is evident from our politics to our news media to our discourse over social media.

 Perils Ahead

Perhaps this does not seem perilous. Perhaps the confusion between the values “you do you” and “respect others” is no immediate danger. Perhaps our lack of awareness about how technology is changing our discourse patterns is not that big of a deal. But I would argue it is dangerous and it is a very big deal to increasingly “resolve” our moral dilemmas simply by yelling louder at each other, or by retreating to echo chambers where our own point of view is re-enforced without thoughtful interrogation, or by relying on whatever personal preference is strongest within us. There be dragons! In fact, history tells us that once we forgo the need for transformative conversation, we begin to de-humanize each other, to re-enforce our belief that we are right. Personal prejudice and institutional racism, for example, is only kept in place by such dehumanization and mis-placed certainty. Once such de-humanization takes root, violence inevitably follows.[14]

This context of confusion, of a loss not only of moral narratives but of any way of talking about morality at all, makes it hard for us to progress to spiritual maturity. Indeed, the de-humanization ultimately produced by our confusion is the antithesis of the maturity of Stage 4. Further, our societal focus on “you do you” ends up separating us from the greatest moral narrative of all, which is a life well-lived as a life focused on caring for others. To this topic we will turn next. 

[1]  In an interview with Jonathan Sacks. Morality in the 21st Century Podcast. “Episode 8: Jonathan Haidt.” September 3, 2018; Taylor, Charles. Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Cambridge University Press. 1989. Pages 14-19.

[2] Of course, when discussing culture, it must be asked, “Whose culture are we talking about?” Talking about “culture” can be walking where angels fear to tread: what culture and whose culture are we talking about, anyway? After all, culture changes according to demographic. In 21st century America, the cultural concerns of a largely black audience will no doubt be different than those of a largely white audience. So, we must ask, in any cultural conversation, what indicators are being using to define culture? Universities and news and media are generally taken as default cultural indicators, and these are helpful for providing concrete data on shifts in culture; new classes or news articles on any given subject may, for example, signal a change in cultural awareness. Since I am interested in discussing modes of public discourse, I take the news media as my prime cultural indicator. While it would take serious research to study and taxonomize the issues of concern in this essay—instances of the cultural values “be fair/do no harm” and “you do you,” in particular, as expressed in news media—I will largely rely on my anecdotal experience. Nevertheless, instances of these values and these values in competition, as evinced in media, abound, and I will cite numerous examples in the course of this essay.

[3] And of course, almost all of our action in the world involves dual motives, some virtuous, some self-involved, which we are not able to separate from one another. Nor should we wait to act until we feel purely motivated, which may have us waiting a long time and thus undercutting virtue altogether. Virtue becomes real in action and not before.

[4]  St. Thomas’ excellent definition of love. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,26 4, corp. art.

[5]  See essay 1 in this series, “Transcending Rigidity: Four Phases of Spiritual Development, Part I.”

Stage 1 = Anti-social/Chaotic (“Chaos”)

Stage 2 = Formal/Institutional ( “Bounded” or “the Boundaries Stage”)

Stage 3 = Doubt/Skepticism (“Deconstruction”)

Stage 4 = Mystical/Communion (“Union”)

The full Thomas Merton quote is: “People may spend their whole lives climbing the ladder of success only to find, once they reach the top, that the ladder is leaning against the wrong wall.” Qtd. in Richard Rohr’s “Orthopraxy.” August 26th, 2015. https://cac.org/reverse-mission-2015-08-26/

[6] In conversation, but I took the liberty of quoting him in The Cost of Cheap Grace: Reclaiming the Value of Discipleship by Bill Hull and Brandon Cook. Navpress. 2020. Page 58.

[7] In some sense, this tension mirrors the individualism of Western cultures and the communalism of Eastern cultures. Which is not to say this is an East/West issue but rather that these issues are archetypal and will express themselves archetypally throughout cultures.

[8] “Although the women in this year’s issue are an array of shapes and colors and backgrounds, Day admitted that the issue traditionally has focused on the male gaze, and with highly sexualized results. But she said the magazine is ‘evolving’ and that the criticism of the issue objectifying women is ‘subjective.’” Qtd in ‘Is the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue Still Relevant’ by Kali Hays. May 8, 2019.

https://wwd.com/business-news/media/is-the-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-issue-tyra-banks-alex-morganstill-relevant-1203125840/ [April 21, 2020]

[9] https://medium.com/@JessicaLexicus/reclaiming-my-rape-fantasies-fd469a0dfa9b I recognize that Medium is not exactly mainstream media, but this writer has more than 44,000 followers, and I take Medium as revelatory (if not predictive) of the cultural conversations that are coming. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/201411/don-t-call-them-rape-fantasies

[10] I have a best selling book, great boobs, a family I love, am literally eating pasta on a lake in Italy and I married rich. https://t.co/OHLfgnp8CL

— @chrissyteigen July 31, 2017

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chrissy-teigen-trump-block_n_597f70c7e4b00bb8ff387405

[11] Ultimately, the expression “you do you” is rooted in what Alasdair MacIntyre calls an “emotivist culture,” in which moral evaluations are ultimately based on subjective feeling and individual preference, rather than any larger guiding moral narrative. See MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virue: A Study in Moral Theory. The University of Notre Dame Press. 2007. See “Chapter 3: Emotivism: Social Content and Social Context.”

[12] See, again, MacIntyre, Alasdair.

[13] Remember that either/or thinking is a sign of Stage 2 thinking (see essay 1 in this series) which serves us as children and hampers us as adults.

[14] A cycle described in Rene Girard’s mimetic theory. See I See Satan Fall Like Lightning. Orbis Books. Maryknoll, NY. Orbis Books. 2001.