Our confused culture
“What we found is that there is a large gap, between on the one hand, the certainty with which beliefs are held on these matters, and on the other hand, what a sober assessment of the science reveals.”
-Adam Keiper, Editor of New Atlantis Journal
There is no question that the idea of being “inherently and immutably gay or straight”—an idea called “Essentialism”—is a completely new human nature paradigm, introduced for the first time at the turn of the 20th century and then popularized in the 1990’s.
What is questionable, though, is whether it is actually true that all people have a natural inborn “sexual orientation” that determines whether they sexually desire the same-sex or opposite sex. While this question used to be debated frequently and intensely by academics and researchers, secular society seems to have settled the matter rather unanimously:
Essentialism is widely considered the only possible truth nowadays, and people are generally punished or scorned for challenging it.
This phenomena is all the more surprising given the scientific evidence, which actually refutes this belief. For example, as John’s Hopkins Psychiatrists and Epidemiologists recently wrote:
“The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are “born that way” — is not supported by scientific evidence”. (1) (See bottom of posting for reference)
The question then begs to be asked: How do we understand this powerful and drastic cultural shift?
the seven ethical values or our Secular Culture:
Carl Trueman, a professor of ecclesiastical and intellectual history at Grove City College, as well as an ordained Orthodox Presbyterian minister, has, in recent years, written a series of intellectual histories which consider this question. According to Trueman, the success of these extreme ideas is due to its “piggybacking” onto several centuries-in-the-making cultural developments, which most people are not explicitly aware of even if they build on these developments in constructing their view of the matter.
Here I will briefly describe these cultural developments, as I best understand them, discussing how each one, in its own right, is deeply anti-religious. By understanding the underlying values that shape the LGBTQ landscape, readers may more clearly understand what they are implicitly endorsing when they support this movement.
Man-Made or Subjective Ethics:
Over the last few centuries, mainstream society has shifted how it defines right and wrong. Originally society relied on religion and tradition to provide these definitions objectively, or outside an individual’s own consciousness and will. Behaviors then had to conform to religious teaching and law. But increasingly, religion has been depicted, not only as implausible based on scientific and philosophical inquiry, but as an oppressive exploiting force inhibiting justice and authentic self-expression.
Ethical systems which seem vague or minimal when compared with traditional religion, are now relied on by many people and society to distinguish moral from immoral. For example, the consent of the participating parties is typically seen as the sole important factor as to whether a particular sexual relationship is moral or immoral. Or another new ethic: outside parties, like family and community, are now expected to affirm and support the non-traditional identities and relationships of their loved ones, without even asking questions, even if these go directly against the family and community’s most cherished values.
With the rejection of a traditional objective ethical compass in secular society, moral behavior is now decided by new standards supported by those radical forces which currently hold much cultural, economic and political power. This “disruption” of traditional values is the most important context for understanding the great influence of LGBTQ ideology.
2. Feelings as Identity (Expressive Individualism):
Over the last few generations, society has increasingly given human beings the authority to define their authentic selves through their feelings, as opposed to family, nation or faith. Feelings determine authentic identity. Thus, to question the person’s feelings is to question their identity and attack their very personhood. Expressing one’s “authentic self” is also considered one of society’s highest values. Consequently, to stop a person from expressing this in any way, or even to question it—for example if it offends traditional mores or violates religious law and teaching —is a shameful, ignorant. or neurotic behavior at best. At worst, it is seen as an act of violence or oppression, which must be prevented and perhaps punished.
This paves the way for people to impose identities onto others, even if those others do not agree with the validity of such an identity.
3. The Sexual Revolution:
Over the last few generations, sexual desire and pleasure have been increasingly seen by society as one of the most central and important parts of a person’s identity. Sexual desires are seen as a manifestation of our most authentic selves, making it unfathomable or even immoral to not help a person publicly perform or actualize their true sexual self. Again, to judge a person who expresses something other than what tradition or religion proscribes, or to restrict a person from expressing their sexual desires, is seen as cruel, uneducated, neurotic, and/or oppressive.
4. Consumerism:
With economic and technological advances, “happiness” is increasingly seen as the main objective of the individual as a consumer unit. Life satisfaction is now unmoored to traditional obligations and understandings. The quick satisfaction of this “consumer unit’s” immediate desire for pleasure and affirmation, as opposed to a hard and long term quest for moral improvement through prayer, religious study and acts of kindness to others, becomes the focus of society. This perhaps explains our culture’s addiction phenomenon, where it is so common for humans to endlessly pursue material substance and objects as a way to attain (temporary) happiness.
5. New is Better than Old:
Society has increasingly moved in a direction of “disruption”, where the new is implicitly considered good and the old implicitly bad. Honoring tradition and the values of older generations is not only seen as silly and unnecessary but are sometimes even depicted as kind of neurotic behavior.
6. Virtual Communities:
In the past, people would not veer from the values and laws of their physical geography because this risked being isolated, unsafe and judged. But technology has increasingly given people the luxury to seek a sort of belonging and community outside of their family and culture. This allows and encourages rejection of old norms and establishment of supportive and affirming connections with others who believe and behave as they do, even if this connection is only virtual or imaginary.
7. The Victim as Virtuous:
For many generations now, society has increasingly moved towards depicting victims as inherently virtuous, no matter what their actions are. This is particularly so if they are labeled and celebrated as “oppressed” by economic/cultural/political elites who deem it a social justice “mitzvah” to pity, celebrate, affirm and rescue such a person (and thereby affirm, confirm and justify their own elite status). The two major consequences of this are: a) It becomes a grave social sin to question this victimhood label and assert that they are not victims. This “sin” often is seen as deserving severe sanctions. b) It becomes justifiable and commendable to debase and shame, those who are labelled “oppressors” of victims.
Conclusion
Hopefully this brief treatment has helped to point the way to understanding how society has metamorphosized such that it is normal and even laudable for a person to define their true self by their feelings, whether sexual attraction or gender self-perception. Now we might understand how is it now widely seen as immoral and unconscionable to not affirm, welcome and celebrate someone who decides that they are LGBTQ ? And we can even know why is it considered shameful and despicable for a parent, rabbi or a therapist to tell someone struggling with same-sex desire or with sexual-identity confusion that they “may not be inherently LGBTQ”, and that they can have a trusting, fulfilling long-term heterosexual relationship?
Many people have these questions but feel silenced from expressing them. And the answers are not easy to find. Hopefully, this brief summary based on the writings of Carl Trueman can help shed some light on these questions.
(1) Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh, “Executive Summary,” Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences, The New Atlantis, Number 50, Fall 2016, pp. 7-9.