Who are you? Now, depending on the century you were born in, this question may foster a whole plethora of answers. If you were born in the midst of the 16th century, you might answer with something along the lines of "I am a father," or "I am a Buddhist," whereas with the millennials of today you would find answers such as "I am Latino," or "I am a homosexual." What is the outstanding difference within these answers? The answer to that is the expanse of sea between communal identity, and individual identity.
In traditional cultures that existed before the horrifying events of the second world war, the notion that one found their self-esteem and worth in sublimating their own desires to the duty they found in the country, God, and family was called their communal identity. Therefore, the peoples of the past had an identity within themselves, but it was always sublimated to something greater than the self; whereas today, the common theme is that the self comes before all else.
The questions like "Who am I?" and "How do I know that I am an admirable person?" were expected to be found outside of one's self in the world around them. For example, if we look back in American history to its civil war era, we can see its people's intense loyalty to their home state above all else. Robert E. Lee, the man who would go on to lead the Confederate Army against the Union forces, denied an offer by the north to lead its military (with whom his ideals lined up quite well) to ensure that he would remain in good standing with his Virginian brothers and sisters. The heroic narrative of the time was of self-denial, of a person that gives up their own desires in order to fulfill their duty. From this came some great good. The community was at the epicenter of people's daily lives, they could not exist without their neighbors!
In traditional communities, everything about the individual was present for the purpose of bolstering the family or the clan or the neighborhood you were a part of. When you were out of sugar, you went to the neighbor's to borrow some of theirs. When you needed some time away with your spouse, the neighbor's would take care of the children for a few days. In the evenings, people would sit on their porches for hours talking and playing cards with the people that lived around them. Even your sexuality and your financial affluence were in some way used to bring up those around you. To be clear, sex in itself has almost always been a private endeavor shared between typically two people alone. But the product of sex in the years before contraceptives was, of course, bringing up children. The more children that were brought into the community around you, the stronger it could become! Especially in societies where the risk of being conquered and the goal of conquering others was constantly on the mind of the whole people group. Not to mention, everyone took part in bringing up the children. This could be through rearing them to learn certain tasks and professions, or teaching them the ways of manhood or womanhood. The saying "It takes a village to raise a child" is not simply a playful euphemism. The same may be said for affluence. When you spent money in that time, it went directly back into the businesses around you, essentially, helping your neighbors.
Though, let me be extremely clear. Evidently there was something wrong with a communal identity. It was smothering. If there were issues in the home, they were kept quiet because family surpassed the pain a member of it might go through. Abusive relationships were never treated or extinguished in fear that you might lose your identity and therefore your worth by leaving the toxic situation. Yet, there is still something to be said about the downfalls of individualism.
All of this changed after WWII when individualism began to make its way into society. This ideology told people that they must find their identity and their self-worth within themselves before they would be able to go out into the world. Thus, the heroic narrative became one not based on duty, but desire. It became heroic to pursue your desires despite what your family says, your country says, and so on. This led the new generation coming out of this era to place their identity within what they chose. They chose to be identified by their sexuality, their color, their country of origin, their political affiliation. In today's culture, the phrase, "I identify as..." has become a staple for people across western culture. The question is no longer who you are, but rather what you are.
The problem with placing your identity upon what is within is that when someone disagrees with it, it is taken as an absolute offense to your innermost being. Everyone becomes an enemy, even some of the most loving and accepting people you or I may know. At the heart of many people's beliefs, today is the notion that you ought to accept everybody's beliefs, regardless or your own and if you don't, you are a bigot. This has a fatal flaw of course. By aiming to be the most accepting society, we now have become the most exclusive! If someone disagrees with us on these core values, we tend to immediately remove them from our lives and label them as racist, sexist, and/or homophobic.
Individual identity can not work in a society of social beings. It is an absolutely tremendous burden to carry. The universe commands us to find ourselves and to have a dream and to make it a reality. Not everybody can achieve their dreams, however. This turns into a crushing blow to the psyche; to believe that your purpose in the universe was left unfulfilled.
Thus, we are left with the question, is the traditional form of identity that puts all of the focus on family and the world outside of ourselves correct? Or is the individualistic view that we can find an identity within ourselves correct? Here is the Christian answer.
No.
Both have fatal flaws that ultimately leave us groping for a fading view of the self and are suffocating to the individual. Both make idols out of things that are fleeting. The traditional view made an idol out of the family and out of patriotism, leading to great strife. The modern view makes an idol out of the self and leads to great social fragmentation and loneliness.
We are social beings who need community, but we also need self-esteem. As Timothy Keller, Theologian and Pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City put it, "Only if you get the love and approval of someone you esteem will you ever get self-esteem." If you aim to receive it from your family, or the people you work with, or your friends from high school, it will ultimately suffocate you. It is impossible to live up to the standards of those around you constantly without growing weary of trying.
So, If God exists and if he did intricately create us, then surely our identity would have to be rooted in him, or we would never be entirely whole in our identity. Surely, if we admire Jesus and find that he loves us endlessly, in spite of our failures, then our sense of self-worth could never be more supple! This allows us to be involved with the healthy community without being strangled by it. It also allows us to express our innermost being without idolizing ourselves.
"The door at which we've been knocking our whole lives will be opened at last." -C.S. Lewis
We are no longer communalists, nor are we individualists, we then become Christians whose chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever.
