The Modern Self Re-Embedded in Pre-Qin Daoist Terms:
How Can and Should We Regard Pre-Qin Daoist Philosophy as a Tradition of Thought that Can Re-Embed the Modern Self?
Nienke Ernstsen
University of Amsterdam M. Leezenberg & J. Bos
Abstract
Meaning and value orientations have become products of the neutralizing processes of modern thinking. In this neutralized framework of moderns, the existential predicament is meaninglessness. Namely, by taking a neutral stance over the world, the insight into moral ontology is lost. Human beings are theorized as rational agents, self-expressing entities, and disengaged subjects that break free from an immersion in nature which they can objectify. Taylor’s critique expresses that disenchantment lingers over the modern self since there is a reinforcement of the immanent frame that strengthens these attributes of modernity and leads to estranged and disembedded conditions. The
antidote lies in that which creates engagement and embeddedness. The Pre-Qin Daoist aesthetic ideal can re-embed the modern self by corroborating the coexistence of the porous and the buffered self in the meaningful world. Conceiving of the world in aesthetic terms brings about a form of enchantment that is currently lacking in the modernized twenty-first century attitude. Namely, the aesthetic endeavor highlights the importance of the sensuous and instinctive element of human beings. The sense of dwelling in a world of meaning entails that humans are engaged with one another including its environment, as such leading the framework to be a meaningful whole.
Keywords: Charles Taylor, modernity, modern self, Pre-Qin Daoism, aesthetics, meaninglessness
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude towards my thesis supervisor Michiel Leezenberg of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Amsterdam. He consistently allowed this thesis to be a better version of my work and steered me into the direction deemed necessary to bring the best out of this learning process. The engagement with this thesis and expertise of Michiel were of great support.
I would also like to thank Jacques Bos of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Amsterdam as the second reader of this thesis, and I am grateful for his valuable comments on this thesis. Moreover, I would like to acknowledge the tutors and lecturers I have had throughout these past two years for their excellent guidance, and for giving me the opportunity to grow as a researcher. You provided me with the tools needed to successfully complete this path.
Finally, words cannot express how grateful I am for my parents, my sisters, my partner, and my friends. With my deepest gratitude I thank you all for giving me unfailing support and continuous encouragement and love throughout these years. You sustained and inspired me throughout the process of researching and writing this thesis, which would not have been possible without you. Thank you for distracting me. Thank you for helping me to keep myself, and this work together. Thank you for keeping me harmonious.
Thank you, Nienke Ernstsen.
Contents
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
Introduction 5
Part I: Charles Taylor’s Critique of Modernity 8
Introduction: Part I 9
Chapter 1: Framing a new narrative, modernity 13
1.1. Neutralizing Theorists 14
1.2. Origins of the Neutralized World View 17
1.3. Disenchantment and Deus Emeritus 22
1.4. A Narrative of Possibility 27
Chapter 2: The Rise of the Modern Identity 30
2.1. Identity in a Modern Narrative 30
2.2. From Porous to Buffered 32
2.3. Malaises of Modernity 34
2.4. Embracing Opposites? 38
Part II: The Re-Embedding Role of Pre-Qin Daoist Philosophy 43
Introduction: Part II 44
Chapter 3: Daoism Answers Taylor 48
3.1. Dial Daoism 48
3.2. Enchanted Aesthetically 51
3.3. Daoist Aesthetics Outlined 56
3.4. Zhuangzi’s Aesthetics 60
Chapter 4: Daoist Aesthetic Embeddedness 65
4.1. Embeddedness Through Aesthetics 65
4.2. Daoist Aesthetic Appreciation 70
4.3. Meaning in an Aesthetic Horizon 74
Conclusion 78
Introduction
“Know the male, but keep to the role of the female, (…) and you will return to being a babe, Know the white, but keep to role of the black, (…) and you will return to the infinite,
Know honour, but keep to the role of the disgraced, (…) and you will return to being the uncarved block. (…) Hence the greatest cutting does not sever”. Daodejing, chapter 28.
Meaning, purpose, and significance have inspired the biggest questions of humankind: where do we come from? Where are we going? They have inspired creative activity, adventures, and promises. They have inspired the way we develop to be as human beings. It is these elements that have layered centuries of devotion and of belief. Meaning was found in family, purpose with God, significance with jobs.
Interchangeably, these conditions have differed in definition infinite times for the heads alive on this planet. They have constituted the articulated and tacit layers under human skin, being the cause or consequence for human thought and action. Therefore, it could be argued that meaning provides one of the basic building blocks necessary in human existence. Meaning provides the answers to the ‘why’ in our questions, and strengthens the ‘because’ in our arguments. Backgrounds have filled the meaning of meaning. They have constituted the meaningful framework in which we dwell as human beings. The meaningful whole shows us our path, and the way we are heading towards.
The culmination of history has led the humankind to advance in social,
economic, and technological developments over the past centuries. Developments that have laid the foundations for life as we know it today. From sunrise to dawn, the forces of modernization are extremely visible in the 21st century, manifesting themselves in the
human drive for growth, innovation, and progress. The human beings inhabiting the current age differ vastly in their mode of existence, ranging from ancient tribes following rites with centuries of age to the modern autonomous societies that are
leading the latest advances of the age. Having domesticated the Earth and its resources, modern humans are faced with a challenge which lingers through their blood, bones, and mind. Namely, the secular foundations rooted in rationalized and instrumentalized practices have led to the estrangement and disembeddedness of the modern self. This refers to the disassociation of humans with a framework that, in the case of humans being embedded, would have held a relational character deeply rooting humans with their activities and thoughts into a context. Whereas the pre-moderns were embedded in an enchanted cosmos of magical forces, the moderns are embedded in an internalized use of reason enlarging the space between the world and themselves. This form of embeddedness, which rather disengages the human being from its surroundings, is regarded as disembeddedness in this thesis. Relying on Charles Taylor and Pre-Qin Daoist texts, a further analysis of this condition will be explored.
This thesis will first outline a critique on modernity from the perspective of Charles Taylor, specifically relying on three of his books: Sources of the Self (1989),
The Malaise of Modernity (1991)i, and A Secular Age (2007). Even though Taylor
provides just one of the wide variety of perspectives on modernity, his writings are of great contemporary relevance. Taylor introduces a unique perspective on what it means to be a modern human, as well as the characteristics of this identity. Moreover, he highlights the importance of a meaningful cultural framework which embeds the self. The aim in this part of the thesis is to assess the problems of modernity that Taylor outlines, explore the character of the modern identity that arises from modernity, and clarify the malaises that follow modernity. From this narrative, a conclusive statement will be assumed on the critical points of modernity and its consequences for the modern
i From this point onwards, Sources of the Self and The Ethics of Authenticity will be referred to as Sources and Malaise respectively. The latter has also been published under the name of The Malaise of Modernity, which is why Malaise is suited as an appropriate name.
self. Subsequently, two classical Daoist texts will be used to introduce the themes that could be beneficial in rethinking the problems of the modern self outlined by Taylor. Pre-Qin Daoism is chosen over other Chinese schools of thought since it is rooted in metaphysical foundations that try to inspire a holistic engagement of humans with their surroundings. These texts are the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi. The leading research question will thus be: “How can and should we regard Pre-Qin Daoist philosophy as a tradition of thought that can re-embed the modern self?” The aim of this thesis is to show the relevance of Pre-Qin Daoist thought in the problematic of the modern self as expressed by Taylor, and to see how it could provide solutions for the modern problem of meaning.
This thesis is separated in two parts, the first dedicated to Taylor’s critique of modernity and the development of the modern identity, and the second dedicated to the exploration of how Pre-Qin Daoist terms can be applicable to the modern context. Attuning to the necessity of embeddedness of the modern self, the concept of
embeddedness will be explored through the aesthetics revealed in the Pre-Qin Daoist texts. This analysis will therefore stress the shadows of the modern self, that have rid it from meaning and significance, and have resulted in a sense of disenchantment and disembeddedness. It is essential to understand modern developments in order to gain a deeper understanding of their consequences upon modern identity and the self. The quest for meaning involves an exploration of these developments, alongside its
consequences in the current day. Therefore, the PQin concepts that can potentially re-embed the modern self will be thoroughly assessed and evaluated. This analysis will be based on the poetic and metaphorical readings of the ancient texts and requires the insights of meaninglessness and disembeddedness to further understand how the modern self can embark on a path to embeddedness.
Introduction: Part I
In a modern age of energizing development, our human identity has grown to be complex and rich, constituting the modern identity. In order to understand the identity of modern humans, we ought to take a step back in history to comprehend the nature of developments in thought that took place in modernity. Charles Taylor has contributed extensively to the understanding of modernity and its roots, and will therefore be taken as the baseline for the critique of modernity, outlined in this thesis. Specifically, it will focus on the problems Taylor outlines, and the arguments he forms to understand the modern identity. Amongst the aspects explored in Taylor’s critique will be the roots of modernity and the narrative it generates, the constitution of the modern identity and the difference with the identity that preceded it, and the three malaises of modernity and their consequences on society. Therefore, this thesis considers modernity in light of Taylor’s works as stated in the general introduction, where modern identity is a part of this, made explicit only in one of his later works.
In view of modernity, some central concepts to Taylor’s philosophy are to be defined. Amongst these concepts are ‘modernity’, ‘identity’, and ‘framework’. First of all, Taylor mostly refers to modernity with regards to the growth out of the pre-modern lifestyle, a lifestyle defined by people being part of a larger cosmic order filled by magicii as outlined in A Secular Age.1 This epochal shift can be considered to be
conditioned by first, the intellectual tendencies such as the inclination to use critical reflection, seek physical explanations for the phenomena around us, and the affirmation of humans being individuals. The second condition to be considered is comprised of the newly risen institutional structures defined by bureaucracy, capitalism, or rule by law
ii Magic, in terms of the world being enchanted objects that are charged with meaning roaming beyond the human sphere.
amongst others.2 Regarding it as a rollercoaster through faith, distinguishing between
these conditions, we ought to regard the consequential processes that follow from these tendencies and institutions. Both aspects are crucial to the shift that led modernity to appear as “a place of reason, freedom, and control”.3 In line with this thought, Taylor
specifies that modernity is “a movement from one constellation of background understandings to another, which repositions the self in relation to others and the good”.4 With regards to this background, it is in Sources and in Malaise in which he
argues that a key difference lies in modernity lacking the genuine moral sources the pre-modern societies had. The background Taylor refers to thus changes from being a natural divine purpose that was imbued in the traditional orders to being an ensemble of practices that promote a self-identity.5 The characterized self-identity that accompanies
the era of modernity is outlined in Sources to be “the senses of inwardness, freedom, individuality, and being embedded in nature which are home in the modern West”.6
These are also characteristics that as such define the modern identity. With identity being another crucial concept to Taylor’s work, it is essential that before adding any descriptive concepts of the different identities Taylor identifies, a closer look should be taken on what identity means.
Identity in Taylor’s work is considered to be “what allows us to define what is important to us and what is not”.7 Taylor stresses that identity is not possible without
being orientated in moral space, which is what characterizes that which is ‘important’ to us.8 Therefore, it can be interpreted that identity is embedded in the human practices,
and if these practices change, so does the human identity. He states that as such the “modern identity arose because changes in the self-understandings connected with a wide range of practices – religious, political, economic, familial, intellectual, artistic – converged and reinforced each other to produce it”.9 Having defined modernity above
under two conditions of intellectual tendencies and newly arising institutional structures, this characterization of modern identity seems to follow the methodology and definition of what Taylor deems to be appropriate in identifying identity. Therefore, not only identity in general, but also the modern identity should be understood in
relation to its practices, and the moral space they operate in; meaning it should be understood in relation to the capitalist and bureaucratic practices10, or to the notion of
autonomy or a disengaged rational self11 which both constitute the moral space in which
this identity can play out. With this said, Taylor insinuates that human identity requires a framework, specifically of strong evaluation12, meaning that moral issues that involve
“discriminations of right or wrong” are standing independent of our desires, inclinations or choices, such that they can be judged.13 In Sources, Taylor specifies that the
necessary conditions for human identity are what he coined as inescapable frameworks.14 Therefore, the next crucial concept to define is ‘framework’.
Taylor uses concepts such as framework, narrative, context, and background to show that beliefs “are held within a context or framework of the taken-for-granted, which usually remains tacit, and may even be as yet unacknowledged by the agent, because never formulated”.15 Whereas ‘narrative’ has a more discursive aspect to its
understanding, ‘context’ and ‘background’ are more related to situational settings that form ideas, and ‘framework’ is the structure in which one views and understands things, it should be made clear that all notions are relying on one simple principle. Taylor’s reason to say it is ‘tacit’ that beliefs are held in a taken-for-granted framework, is because humans draw upon an unarticulated sense of things – the framework – which later in application may be explicitly represented. It is against such unarticulated framework – and thus a tacit framework – that that which we try to understand can make sense to us. Taylor argues that a framework is that which embodies human
practices with beliefs and interpretations.16 His account of a framework thus
incorporates the qualitative distinctions which make sense as a mode of life to which we accordingly will function.17 It is a framework that hosts the background of our thoughts
and actions, even though we do not fully understand them.18 It is a historical given, and
determines what is significant as well as the possibilities of a culture or epoch.19
Therefore, in making sense of our human lives and our existence, Taylor advocates we must grasp our lives in terms of a framework – or a narrative – not only because it reflects the historical cultural period, but also because it reflects our becoming identities and the moral space that is interwoven in these practices and understandings of life.20
As such, we encounter an era that starts in the seventeenth century in Europe, where a new framework is crystalized with humankind at its center. To further grasp the developments in modernity and its consequences, as well as the forming of modern identity, a closer look will be taken at Charles Taylor’s critique of modernity. At the basis of this critique lies the idea that modernity is an era where the world received naturalistic explanations.21 From this, it is essential to identify the roots of modern
identity and explore how the narrative associated with this identity has developed. Specifically, because this modern identity maps out a route that gives answers to many struggles faced by modern humans today.
Chapter 1: Framing a new narrative, modernity
Appointing the time scope of modernity to commence around the seventeenth and eighteenth century, it is imperative to examine the conditions that led to the development of this new, modern framework. In line with Taylor’s understanding of frameworks, this analysis will look at what characteristics determine the newly rising embodiment of practices and beliefs, and how this determines new human thoughts and actions. Since Taylor mostly draws upon a critique upon Cartesian disengagement, the narrative he posits to be modernity is closely related to the deceptive intellectual developments from Anglo-Saxon theorists. 22 Therefore, it is from these intellectual
developments that we can assume to find the source from which Taylor expands upon what modernity is.
In Sources of the Self, Taylor’s starting position is that we should treat our moral instincts – described as the sense that human life is to be respected in a world shaped by moral responses – as the way in which we access the world.23 Thus, he articulates the
assumption that it is not only necessary to draw upon our moral instincts themselves, but also the background upon which we articulate and enact our moral responses. He advocates that how we “think, reason, and question ourselves about morality supposes that our moral reactions have these two sides: that they are not only ‘gut’ feelings but also implicit acknowledgements of claims concerning their objects”.24 It is said that this
ontological account is denied by Cartesian epistemology – which he claims has inspired the naturalists who consequently wrongly model practical reasoning. First, this
ontological account sees human beings as being attributed with predicates such as being creatures of God, or agents of rational choice, which stand analogous to the
explanations moderns have of their world.25 Therefore, Taylor claims that moral
Alongside this claim, he remarks that it is then apparent that natural sciences focus on a world where our responses have been neutralized, since the ontological claim that humans are attributed with aforenamed predicates are denied.
In line with Taylor’s ontological quest, he defines moral ontology as the
ontological account that explores the background of moral intuitions that make sense of human responses and articulate the human sense of with regards to questions about the good.27 This is relevant to his mission, as the moral ontology accordingly justifies his
reasons for connecting identity in the realm of a framework, and thus also moral space. More importantly, Taylor states that moral ontologies are often regarded as irrelevant or invalid, whilst a reductive sociobiological and naturalist explanation rises taking on the role of moral ontology.28 It is within this neutralized stance that he sees a problematic
pitfall for morality. Namely, by taking a neutral stance over the world, the insight into moral ontology is lost. This is the key argument to stating that the modern identity experiences a decline or a loss as a consequence of modernity in the forms meaning, reason, and freedom29 which will be explained later on in this section. Therefore, it is
essential to turn to theories that reduce the role of moral ontologies, and have changed the framework that led to modernity.
1.1. Neutralizing Theorists
To further grasp the implications that Taylor regards as deriving from theories that reduce moral ontologies, it is imperative to further explore his argument to rightly understand the critique of modernity. Foremost, Taylor seems to be concerned with the self-referential nature of naturalists and of the modern epistemology that is trapped in Cartesian epistemology. This can be deduced from his theory of the transition from natural rights to subjective rights. Whereas natural rights are not granted a waiver –
since in the power of nature it is implicit that such waiver cannot be granted –
subjective rights are based on the possessor’s will to act upon it.30 Human agents are, as
such, conceived as autonomous in their enactment of rights. Thus, a new moral outlook develops from the concept of autonomy, where there is an appeal for freedom of people to develop in their own way.31 The consequence of such reformulation of rights is
inherently expressed in the possibility of freedom of human beings in developing themselves, giving birth to the individual.
In autonomy becoming an essential principle to understanding morality, Taylor makes the following analysis: in having autonomy, human beings are theorized as disengaged subjects that break free from an immersion in nature and objectify it, or as rational agents and self-expressing entities.32 Here, Taylor offers different descriptions
that are ascribed to the human being and that essentially characterize the human being as autonomous. For Taylor, humans have the capacity of autonomy, which is realized within a framework, and can then be exercised in context of this framework. To clarify, the notion of autonomy from Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) will be explained in more detail, since it provided an extremely influential view on moral philosophy since the 18th century. Not only has Kant formulated it as a principle
of his categorical imperative33, he also considers autonomy to be “the ground of the
dignity of human nature and of every rational creature”.34 In essence, for Kant,
understanding autonomy is the key to understanding and justifying the authority that moral requirements have over us. Freedom does not consist in being bound by no law, but by laws that are somehow of one’s own making. It is the idea of laws made and laid down by oneself, and, in virtue of this, laws that have decisive authority over oneself. Kant’s autonomous will emerges from a consideration of the idea that the will is free in a negative sense.35 The rational will operates by responding to reasons. This does not
operate through exogenous influences. For a will to be free is to be physically and psychologically unforced in its operation. In other words, we have to be autonomous to take morals into account. The question is, how does Taylor regard this position of autonomy in relation to morals?
It is in part IV of Sources where Taylor addresses Kant as giving a new
foundation to the “subjectivization or internalization of moral sources”.36 In relation to
the broader picture, the world in which it is possible to develop as an individual one’s capacity to be autonomous, is a world which is neutralized, mechanized, and
instrumentalized. Taylor does justice to Kant’s conception of autonomy by expressing that it is through an autonomous will that we can be moral. This autonomous will is possible through the aforementioned subjective rights above the natural rights, since they give the space of freedom for individuals. Therefore, having proposed such conditions, Taylor regards this era as a new narrative providing new grounds for an identity to develop upon. Therefore, in relating autonomy to the development of subjective rights – with this being a mere introduction to his ideas on ‘neutralizers’ in history – Taylor seems to regard autonomy, subjective rights, and individuals as
elements that constitute a narrative in which people can relate to as such. In line with his definition of identity, it is a new background to which humans can relate to.
Part of the modern identity which Taylor considers problematic, is the fact that moderns doubt and wonder about the meaning of life.37 Initially, this would sound
controversial since we have just addressed in line with Kant that it is through autonomy that one can act morally. Thus, what does Taylor regard as neutralizing about this theorization? To answer this question, there is a key term that comes back throughout his critique that defines the essence of his worry, which is also strongly related to religion which will be addressed later. The key term is ‘internalization’, since this takes
a transformative turn appointing a new role for subjects and their subjectivity. One specific element to address is that the modern forms of narrativity that accompany this trend includes stories of linear development and progress in history.38 This results from
the aforementioned neutralization, and as such forms part of the narrative in which, as described, subjects are placed as rational agents and self-expressing entities. He comes to claim, that, in this neutralized framework of moderns, the existential predicament is meaninglessness.39 This leads to ego loss, sense of emptiness, lack of purpose or loss of
self-esteem amongst the pathological complaints.40 Taylor later describes this as not
encountering an echo outside of ourselves that creates a sense of absence41 which is
expressed through these pathological complaints. As seen, the new framework draws a parallel in the reformulation of subjects themselves and the consequences in meaning that are accompanied by dominant patterns in psychopathology that generate a culture with a loss of horizon. Specifically, this is because Taylor claims that, in having a framework which seems to be optional due to the internalization and subjectivization processes – in the sense that it can be determined according to one’s own ways – it develops the disenchantment of modern culture.42
In understanding this neutralized framework, it is essential to critically assess several authors from which Taylor grasps the insights on the framework of modernity. Amongst these are Plato, Descartes, and Locke as providing a substantial ground for critique on the development of the ideas of the subject and their relation to the world. On the other hand, Weber and Nietzsche are amongst the authors which Taylor uses to enunciate the critique he has on the three afore named philosophers.
Key to understanding Taylor’s formulation of moral orientation in the world, is that there is an inherent relationship between identity and the good. The ‘good’, in Taylor’s view, designates that which is considered “valuable, worthy, admirable, of whatever kind of category”.43 It is the good which should be understood as the moral
source in Taylor’s philosophy. In the relationship between identity and the good, he draws on different stances in which this can be scrutinized, where through the analysis of Plato, Descartes, and Locke, Taylor manages to explain how it is that we can neutralize the world through objectification.44 His main argument develops from a
rational disengagement and internalization that have taken place throughout the history of western thinkers. Therefore, there is a line of thought that established – in Taylor’s view – the vocabulary, thought, and enactment of a neutralized world view which will be explored in the following sections.
An initial insight that motivates Taylor’s analysis stems from the idea of self-mastery.45 Taylor argues this is advocated by Plato, where self-mastery is achieved
when the ‘higher part’ of the soul (reason) rule over the ‘lower’ part (desires ). This dichotomy sets forth analogous distinctions between the results of adopting either position, where to reason conditions self-possession over being possessed by external conditions that are insatiable.46 Uniting the human being under rational hegemony
determines a new harmony and concord for the highest self as human agents. Taylor claims that the unification of the self under rational hegemony introduces
‘internalization’.47 It is essential to remark that this unity is only possible through the
opposition of another realm, namely the opposition of the soul against the body, or the immaterial against the physical.48 Within this opposition, Taylor portrays the framework
that surrounds the conceptualization of internalization. He argues that Plato depicts the soul as tending towards order and harmony when ruled by reason, entailing that the
natural order takes on a self-affirming aspect of the rational hegemony. Furthermore, in realizing rational capacities, one can perceive and understand order in the terms of order itself. Therefore, assuming there is a Good in the cosmos, followed by assuming there is order in the Good, and seeing that reason sees and understands order, a rational doctrine of moral resources is implemented in this framework. This entails that there is an ontological link that connects the idea of there being a good life for human beings because of their nature as rational animals.49
Thus, from the Platonic developments of a moral outlook, Taylor contemplates the dominance of reason in idealizing self-mastery as a stance to act in the world.50 The
substantive definition of reason together with the dichotomies identified in Plato’s
Republic define the directions of awareness and desire.51 In these dichotomies, Taylor
turns to Augustine to continue his argument. He claims that Augustine takes the Platonic distinction between the bodily and the immaterial in terms of the flesh and spirit.52 Augustine is treated as a transitional figure for modern intellectual tendencies
since he radicalizes the doctrine of rational contemplation to a form of reflexivity which is particularized and focused on one’s first-person experiential relationship with the world.53 It is this form of spirituality – the one where God’s existence starts from
‘within’ – which frames Descartes’ cogito. The Augustinian intuition is reshaped by Descartes locating the moral sources within us54: rationality is the basis for bringing
ourselves in harmony with the cosmos.55 Taylor claims that the Cartesian turn imposes
an objectification of the physical realm – most importantly our surrounding world and our body – seeing it mechanistically and functionally as an uninvolved external observer.56
Turning to Descartes, Taylor claims that in order to pursue this understanding of reason, we should see Descartes’ new model of rational mastery in terms of
instrumental control.57 It is important to keep in mind that Taylor projects a history of
enlightened reason back on Descartes without addressing the larger tradition of the enlightenment. Taylor argues that this instrumental control is to be distinguished from Plato’s introduction of instrumentality in the sense that reason is defined as directing agency in a demystified domain which is now grasped in mechanistic and functional terms. In Plato’s age, there was a will to conform to a good beyond the self, which after Plato started the history of a ‘movement inward’.58 Descartes further develops this by
characterizing reason as the capacity to construct orders that meet the demands of knowledge, understanding and certainty.59 The implication that Taylor draws from this
ethic of rational control is that it brings about an internalization of moral sources.60
Taylor states that Descartes prescribes a stance of “detached engagement”.61 Thus, he
interprets the Cartesian framework of reason as involving a push to disengage from the physical realm and radically doubting all that can be doubted.62 He continues to state
that, in a disenchanted mechanized world, rational control is a matter of mind that stems from the agent’s sense of dignity as a rational being.63 Therefore, the Cartesian ideal of
rational control as an instrumental stance defines Descartes’ ethic of a disengaged world and body.64 It is the internalization of Platonic ethics which finds its roots in the
Augustinian inwardness. Precisely this inwardness is claimed to have prepared the grounds for modern unbelief namely through the conception of inwardness of self-sufficiency and the autonomous ordering powers of reason.65
The next objectifying intellectual as proposed in by Taylor is Locke. Taylor coins the term ‘punctual self’ as a subject that develops from the disengagement and rational control set forth in Cartesian thought.66 This punctual self arises from the
rejections of the Cartesian notion of innate (or a priori) ideas, and the rejection of teleology.67 The latter refers to there not being a definition of the human subject as
being bent to the truth or the good.68 It is Locke’s position which advocates
knowledge through personal experience generating an ideal of independence and self-responsibility.69 This initiates the prevalence of autonomous reason, where the human
being can examine the world and himself as objective. The ideal of rational mastery as reflected in Plato thence becomes fully internalized, virtually detaching himself from any form of embodiment. According to Taylor, this understanding of self is inherently related to the radical disengagement that Locke proposes in the midst of Enlightenment thought. Another concept that pushes this disengagement is Locke’s introduction of the will. Through our will, as a power and liberty to examine our desires and objects, one can determine what the greatest good is with rational canons of evidence.70 As
contingent creatures shaped by habits, we have the advantageous position with reason to refashion them according to the prospect of self-remaking in terms of what has been empirically identified as the greatest good. This is an imperative implication of the sequence of thought that Taylor proposes, since this radical disengagements opens up a framework of reforming the moral horizons.
Even though Taylor regards these developments of a perfectly detachable consciousness as an illusion, he regards the immense influence these thoughts have had in the Enlightenment. The promise of self-control and remaking holds due to the belief in a disengaged world and body, and a radical self-mastery through reason and
instrumentality. The freedom and independence that this way of thinking promotes is highly attractive and helped create the modern self. The power of disengaged reason and capacity for self-definition and exploration opened up the doors to the making and remaking of self, as well as of the world. Taylor calls it the “extra-worldly” status of the objectifying subject that enables the punctual subject to see him or her as a ‘self’ or an ‘I’.71 The exploration of these main figures in philosophy has opened up the claim that
this philosophy of disengagement and objectification created a third-person perspective image of the human being. However, it is charged with a first-person stance since reflexivity as a turn to oneself – regarding the self as a self – is essential to be able to objectify in the first place. Thus, the disembedded self allows the framework of objectivity that has been generating since Plato’s age.
1.3. Disenchantment and Deus Emeritus
Taylor’s critique of modernity makes use of two fundamental concepts posited by Weber and Nietzsche: disenchantment and Deus emeritus. The former refers to Weber’s analysis of the processes of rationalization, and the latter refers to Nietzsche’s claim that ‘God is Dead’ which implies humans making reality ex nihilo. Both have inspired Taylor’s critique, and provide symbolic explanations for the implications of the framework modernity provides.
The conditioned modern world as described through Plato, Descartes and Locke may resonate with some of Weber’s descriptions on the dynamic of modernity. This dynamic, identified as Entzauberung, normally translated as disenchantment, is constituted of processes that systematize knowledge, instrumentalize thinking, secularize metaphysical concerns, and demystify traditional social bonds.72 These
processes are referred to as processes of rationalization. Whilst Weber praises the achievement of the outcomes of these processes, he does imply that this strips the world of its mysteries and magic, as such leaving it as a meaningless world.73 Taylor draws
upon the idea that disenchantment entails a neutralization of the cosmos, which is an outcome of a long history of tendencies in thought.74 The implication of this view is that
the cosmos no longer provides a meaningful order that defines the good.75 Alongside
functional terms – becomes a domain of possible means as well as potential
instrumental control.76 The neutralization Taylor addresses is achieved through the self
that no longer sees the cosmos as embodying the meaningful order that defines the good for him or her. Rather, this self defines its own good by having grasped the world as mechanistic and instrumental, and as such disengages from the cosmos by demystifying it. An inherent disengagement of the world takes place, which reflects the disenchanting nature that Weber outlines.77
Disenchantment goes hand in hand with understanding that which we objectify as a mere mechanism and as devoid of a spiritual or expressive essence.78 The loss of
common value-orientations present in a meaningful cosmos is apparent in their retreat from the public life, having entered the realm of self-mastery. Specifically, this determines a condition of value relativism’ stemming from the re-evaluation of terms from a first-person perspective of self-mastery. The difference in Weber’s claim, and Taylor is, that unlike Weber, Taylor seems to see a compatibility with a spiritual
framework with secular modernity whereas Weber does not.79 This spiritual framework
– which is often attributed with the element of transcendence – can be said to consist of a form of theological ethics articulating divinity to constitute the moral space in which we live.80 In interpreting it as such, it empowers the intentionality of a moral life, which
is why we can assume that Taylor defends this framework. The pluralistic faith
commitments that arose due to the optionality of these commitments81, led social life to
lack a normative foundation for collective action.82 It is the spiritual framework, which
according to Taylor is wholistic in preceding our engagement with the world. In
disintegrating this wholistic preceding engagement, and as such denying transcendence, it is bound to happen that there will be a break-down of moral standards.83
Taylor’s A Secular Age provides a better understanding of his insights on Weber, and the still possible compatibility of spirituality with secular modernity. The process of disenchantment generates “a world in which the only locus of thoughts, feelings, spiritual élan is what we call minds; the only minds in the cosmos are those of humans (grosso modo, with apologies to possible Martians or extra-terrestrials); and minds are bounded, so that these thoughts, feelings, etc., are situated “within” them”.84
This constitutes the inward reflexive character Taylor described in Sources. The existence of a realm of reason where doubt, argument, and explanations place meaning within the realm of mind negates the existence of enchantment and magic in the world. When the source of exogenous meaning becomes objectified and mechanized, as Weber explained in terms of disenchantment, meaning comes to be centered in the mind. This starts with the disengagement explained in Sources of the Self, which in terms of objectification start and depend on a mind-body distinction.85 Thus, disengagement
occurs when one regards him or herself as master of one’s own meaning through reason. The absence of fear for dependence on the exogenous enables the control and self-direction implied in taking a stance of self-control through reason.
The traditional, mythological, and religious structures set the foundations for the belief in a natural world testified to divine purpose and action where God took a stance as being interwoven in social practices and institutions.86 These foundations were
inherently changed – rather than eradicated – with the introduction of science. The world conceived in terms of naturalistic explanations threatened the necessity of God and divinity, pushing disengagement rather than the engagement with the enchantment of moral forces. This enchantment is negated in the disengaged understanding of the world. Thus, Weber’s disenchantment describes the conditions that result from the philosophical analysis Taylor draws from Plato to Locke, where the complementary
relation between man and its surroundings of pre-modern societies were altered by the externalization of self and the objectification of the world. Weber is thus essential for Taylor in describing and affirming the results of the processes of radical self-mastery.
Another key figure is Nietzsche, who predicted the consequences of the collapse of the meaningful framework centered around traditional explanations of the world. In replacing the view of the world as enchanted with a neutralized view on which subjects can impose their will, modern man replaces the power of God with its self-imposed power. Taylor describes by stating: “it is the sense that all order, all meaning comes from us. (…) A race of humans has arisen which has managed to experience its world entirely as immanent”.87 He is referring to something that is known as the ‘immament
frame’ designating the world that emerged from disenchantment constituting of an order that stands against a transcendental or supernatural one. He describes how meaning comes from within humans, which appears to be haunted by the malaise of
meaninglessness that will be addressed later. Taylor provides a Nietzschean tone of cynicism when saying that “the design of an order of the good of instrumentally rational creatures leaves God no choice, as it were, but to establish laws which he will leave to operate without interference”.88 This may echo Nietzsche’s prophecy of the
metaphorically declared dead God, setting mankind in the godlike position of instrumental control and making.
This godlike attitude can be regarded as resulting from an immanent frame. This is exemplified by Taylor when quoting Nietzsche’s ‘God is dead’ passage of the Gay
Science: “How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the
whole horizon?”89, preceded by the introduction of the madman entering the market
place crying out “I seek God! I seek God! … “I will tell you. We have killed him – you and I”.90 Nietzsche describes that humans in the quest of self-mastery have taken the
place of God as a maker and creator, and thus had to kill God to take his place. In doing so, Nietzsche predicted the arrival of nihilism resulting in a sense of meaninglessness. Having destroyed our moral direction by internalizing the moral sources in ourselves, we have invoked upon us the traumatic experiences of nihilism. Nihilism can be interpreted as the fixation of life-negating values, taking form in different ways: as an event (the death of God), as a sickness (hatred of humans, decadence, loss of values, values losing their values), or as a process that begins with Christianity. It is the prime example of a consequence of the hubristic attempt of self-mastery and rational and instrumental control, since both turn the moral scope around towards oneself. Thus, Nietzsche’s Deus emeritus provides an insight in the traumatic experience of leaving humans with themselves as being their only reference. God’s death symbolizes the death of the enchanted structures that revolved around references outside of human beings, and as such affirms the destructibility of meaning, putting humans at risk of nihilism.
In being released from the meaningful structure of purpose and guidance, one can fall for the trap of confusion and meaninglessness when lacking an all mighty source of meaning and relevance. Modernity, in Taylor’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s claims, sets forth the illusion of human makeability. This implies taking over and ridding an ever-lasting reference to the transcendental realm. In taking over God’s creational powers, humans took autonomous control of what God stood for – in order to control our subjective rights – in the name of instrumental rationality for self-mastery. This paradoxical stance is what Nietzsche clarifies with his prophecy, namely, that even though it might be regarded as a victory of independence, it is at the same time a dark age of disorientation and confusion. The immanent frame carries the ghost of
transcendence, where what used to be the inescapable structure for meaning and purpose, dissolved along with the magic in the world.
Therefore, Weber and Nietzsche both advocate a similar message: meaning and value orientations cannot be products of neutralizing processes in the forms of the approaches of modern thinking. Specifically, entailing that meaning and value
orientation cannot stem from a scientific or empirical stance that is guided by rationality and instrumentality. Both stress the crisis of meaninglessness as coming from the
development of modern thought that constitute modernity. The predicament he regards to come forth from the disenchantment and dead God in modernity is the next concern of this chapter.
1.4. A Narrative of Possibility
There are three points to address in this section: What is the narrative outlined? What critique has Taylor provided? And, what arguments are the malaises that follow from this narrative? From this, it will be possible to move to the next crucial step in Taylor’s account of modernity, namely the modern identity.
The narrative Taylor has outlined depicts a modern culture in which human beings have declared independence of their webs, and have neutralized them.91 Taylor
provides the critique that in having a framework which orientates the good as a self-interpretation, there is still part in humans – as defined in the necessity to define ourselves in terms of our moral orientation – that is situated in the interaction with our webs, and can therefore not be grasped objectively as the methods of science and neutralizing philosophies like empiricism or naturalism dictate.92 We cannot do justice
to morality by disengaging it from its subjects and therefore their environment, and as such making the order of the good arbitrary. Therefore, part of the narrative Taylor
provides for modernity places moral orientation in terms of a world that is shaped by our moral responses93, and in neutralizing them and posing alternatives as options, one
problematizes the orientation of morality and as such of meaning. In other words, Taylor regards modernity as disempowering due to the development of inwardness or internalization, rational mastery, and disengagement.iii These are results that came about
as explained in section 1.2. through Plato, Descartes, and Locke amongst others. The innovations in thought that follow Plato’s self-mastery refashion human beings into a narrative of a modern rationalist discourse. This discourse is marked by a mainstream of instrumental reason94 placing human beings in an objectified realm. The disengaged
subject as articulated by Descartes finds itself in a stance of disengagement and rational control. Parallel to this, a culture of objectification develops the mechanization of the scientific world picture. In objectifying the world, human beings start to deprive it of its normative force, through the instrumental and rational control over it.95
As Taylor remarks, “the move to mechanism neutralizes this whole domain. It no longer sets norms for us – or at least it does not set norms in the traditional way”96,
later contemplating that “what we are called on to do is not to become contemplators of order, but rather to construct a picture of things following canons of rational thinking. (…) Rationality is above all a property of the process of thinking, not the substantive content of thought”.97 The state described by Taylor can best be referred to as
disembedded, indicating the disassociation of humans with a framework in which
different actions and thoughts take place and depend on. It implies that there is a lack of a relational character between humans and their framework. Thus, the conditions of disenchantment and disengagement create a stance of disembeddedness for human
iii One ought not to forget that, paradoxically, Taylor regards modernity to be empowering as well. Taylor’s modesty lies in being neither a knocker nor booster of modernity; he appreciates both its empowerment as well as its disempowerment.
beings which raise the question of how we can relate to moral orientation at all. Specifically, in properly articulating a moral outlook, there is a certain sense of clarity which appear to be necessary to our moral experience.98 Namely, because this vision of
Chapter 2: The Rise of the Modern Identity
Identity in Taylorian terms considers what is right to do, as well as to what it is
good to be.100 Therefore, a person, or an identity, or a self is constituted by taking moral
stances.101 Taylor’s starting point is the idea that human beings act within moral
frameworks which enable them to make qualitative distinctions among goods.102
Meaning, that one acts with a sense of the qualitative distinctions in which some basic evaluative commitments orient the rest of one’s views and choices. These distinctions and commitments are made in relation to others, and therefore, humans are part of a web of interlocution that determines our relations as well as our personal identity.103
Thus, there are several aspects to look at in order to describe the identity that
accompanies a modern narrative. Since the narrative has already been outlined in 1.1., a general idea about the influences of this narrative on an identity will be outlined,
followed by the distinction Taylor draws of the modern identity compared to the identity that preceded it. Lastly, the malaises of modernity, and how the narrative of modernity together with the modern identity have constituted a new horizon for human beings will be explored.
2.1. Identity in a Modern Narrative
In understanding what it is to be a human agent in the modern narrative, Taylor appoints we should look at the composition of the human identity. Specifically, he outlines that this identity is framed through “senses of inwardness, freedom,
individuality, and being embedded in nature which are at home in the modern West”.104
He is referring to the modern West not with the spirit to exclude other regions of the world, but specifically because the pertaining narrative is constituted of mostly a Western canon. Moreover, these are not unique characteristics to the modern era, but
Taylor rather considers them as having emerged from the intellectual and structural trends that had developed as explained in section 1.1.
First of all, Taylor sets out to reconstruct the modern identity from its center of moral thought.105 Particularly, this is related to the idea that humans need to associate
themselves with a moral stance to constitute a self.106 The modern law (and setting of
society) as well as modern morality are essential assets to the self, and are central to the modern Western moral outlook.107 As Taylor puts it, one would need to articulate the
goods that have arisen in the history of the West to understand the modern self, the order it finds itself in and associates itself to, and how this empowers the life of identity.108 A modern variant of identity has developed through Plato’s ideal of the
disengaged self. This self can objectify his or her surroundings, emotions and
inclinations through instrumental rationality.109 Taylor states that “modern culture has
developed conceptions of individualism which picture the human person as, at least potentially, finding his or her own bearings within, declaring independence form the webs of interlocution which have originally formed him/her, or at least neutralizing them”.110 This is a crucial statement that requires further analysis. Modern culture is
said to have developed individualist, autonomous, and neutralized human beings. From this, the following question could arise: how does this influence our lives? To answer this question, a return to the claim that an age of mechanism has developed which neutralizes the surroundings is necessary.111
A general stance of detachment has been developed that no longer embeds human beings in their surroundings, since these surroundings have been neutralized and mechanized. This generates a self that thinks of him or herself as an independent
consciousness that sets the ground for self-control and self-remaking.112 As Taylor
because it pictures the human being from an outsider perspective which is constituted by a first-person stance.113 This means that the reflexivity that came along with an
inward turn of rationalization, and therefore requires to be embedded in one’s self. Therefore, with the general changes of self-understanding due to the change in narrative that is connected with socio-political, economic, or religious practice, a modern identity arose that contributed to the idea of the subject in the modern era.114 The radical
subjectivism and internalization of modern sources that resulted from a narrative that promotes disengaged rational control and self-articulation and reflexivity are the basis of the tension of the intensified sense of inwardness.115
2.2. From Porous to Buffered
In A Secular Age, Taylor defines two concepts that constitute the distinctive selves pertaining to the era prior to the modern age, and the modern age itself. The starting point is the relation of the human being to its surroundings, which as explained, in the modern era the self finds itself disengaged from it. The cosmos, and the place human beings take in it are essential to Taylor’s definition of these two selves. The ‘new’ sense of self came with the rationalization of the world of spirits and powers, since the cosmos’ enchantment turned inward to being one’s own powers of moral ordering.116 This, he called the buffered self. On the other hand, Taylor describes how
the pre-modern world bared meanings in exogenous forces and extra-human and intra-cosmic subjects, setting grounds for the porous self. He takes this enchanted world to be the world of 500 years ago and before.117 His estimation is very rough, since he
compares all pre-modern structures dating up to years BCE. Therefore, having identified a modern buffered self, and a pre-modern porous self, Taylor sets out to analyze the differences.
These differences commence with the distribution of power that things and subjects possess.118 The power to impose meaning on one’s existence is something
witnessed daily. Certain responses are triggered by for instance misfortunes, natural phenomena, or death. However, this compares nothing to how the world used to be charged with meaning in the enchanted world of the porous self. Meaning in the enchanted world is inherent to the object and exists independently of human beings.119
As such, forces of meaning and as such of morals are encountered in one’s surroundings and can be imposed upon us. For the buffered self, all that is not a human being, nor a human expression is considered to be outside of the mind.120 This does not take away
the fact that they might still influence us. Influence is exerted upon thought and body, but still, these influences can rather be seen as taking on functions rather than meanings. As such, meaning is regarded as endogenous for the buffered self.
Taylor contends that, when understanding the world of disenchantment as a product of an atomistic view of the individual mind, one can view and understand the possibility of the world as being enchanted.121 In abstracting from the philosophical
theories that articulate this, he tries to build upon a framework in which this is possible. This is why it is crucial to understand that meaning in the pre-modern world “roams beyond the human sphere”.122 Taylor refers to the phenomena that affects other things
than solely humans, exemplifying cases like “sav[ing] ships from wreck, end hail and lightning”.123 Nowadays one would not categorize these events under the term of magic
powers. Rather, scientific theories have been developed that explain them. The causal power of our charged cosmos incorporates meaning in it, which he contrasts against our “post-Galilean mind-centered disenchantment”.124 It is within this disenchantment
where charged objects are no longer charged since they follow causal laws that are not influenced by a magic of some sort. The boundary between mind and the world is set in
stone in the disenchanted world, whereas this boundary appeared to be blurred – and Taylor would argue it is almost absent – in the enchanted world. He continues his argument in stating that this defines a self that encounters a space defined by such influence, which grew into a space that is defined by what our mind reasons it to be.
The buffered self exists through this atomism in taking distance and disengaging from that which is exogenous to the mind, where purpose and meaning stems from within. In taking this autonomous stance, it is invulnerable to its surroundings, which opens up space in the buffered self to self-control and self-direct it’s life. The frame of immanence that developed in modernity distances itself from the transcendent, which becomes part of the explicable realm. Taylor regards this as the loss of the pre-modern conception that meaning is found in the cosmos, and as such regards the world that follows as meaningless and value-free. The meaning-laden nature of the human identity in the pre-modern world thus has a sharp contrast with the buffered self in the modern era. Taylor stresses that despite the modern tendencies, human beings find themselves embedded in a world (although via other paths than the pre-modern did) that is loaded with cultural and moral significance and provide a foundation for life. He reveals that in disintegrating the moral sources from the human relationship with the world, certain problems will arise on the account of disenchantment. The problems that arose are claimed to be unbeknown in the pre-modern era, and are thus characteristic of modernity, and as such of the modern buffered identity.
2.3. Malaises of Modernity
An account of three malaises is offered by Taylor which he identifies as coming forth from the modern identity and the framework it accompanies. Taylor has
with the processes of secularization. He points out that, whereas it used to be
unthinkable to not believe in a deity like God, today it is unquestionable that that has become an easier and readily available option for us.125 Even though the dynamics have
differed across the globe, the decline of the pre-modern structures that dwelled into the forces of modernity led to a disembedding character of the individual who retreated towards his or her mind. As explained through Nietzsche’s prophecy, man takes over God, and is haunted by his or her own illusion. This entails that religious belief and experience becomes optional.
Taylor’s analysis admits that despite the ‘boosters’, modernity also has
‘knockers’, and it is essential to regard both to not create a reductionist view on history. In light of his project, he undergoes a run-through of some changes that he considered defining for modernity, and thus also constitute the malaises. In Malaise, Taylor
considers modernity to have three malaises. He outlines them as follows: “The first fear is about what we might call a loss of meaning, the fading of moral horizons. The second concerns the eclipse of ends, in face of rampant instrumental reason. And the third is about a loss of freedom”.126 Individualism is the first to be addressed, which in light of
older utilitarian practices, comes with a form of freedom which “break[s] loose from older moral horizons”.127 A possible interpretation is that the hierarchical order and
enchantment of the cosmos locked people into certain roles, where deviation meant – for instance – going to hell. Thus, in discrediting these orders, one achieves the first step towards modern freedom as known today. This discrediting sets people in the position where there is no higher sense of purpose related to the external world, ridding human beings from a greater sense of purpose. Individualism grows since there is a greater emphasis on the self which, as a consequence, flattens the influence of exogenous
sources. Taylor states it is specific of our contemporary culture to be self-absorbed as a consequence to concerns of a permissive, self-centered, and narcissistic society.128
The second point Taylor makes is the role of instrumental reason as a kind of rationality that guides our thinking to maximum efficient and successful decisions.129
Placing this in a disenchanted realm, Taylor makes a humorous claim by stating that “once society no longer has a sacred structure, once social arrangements and modes of action are no longer grounded in the order of things or the will of God, they are in a sense up for grabs”.130 A similar claim is made in Sources and A Secular Age, where
Taylor proclaims upon the claim that in de-charging our environment from meaning and magic, they are issued to be mechanized, instrumentalized, and to be treated as a means for the projections our minds upon the world. A crystal is no longer a healing stone, but rather the bling attribute to our latest fashion show in Paris. Even though it liberates us from the benevolent and malevolent forces one cannot control, and liberates us from vulnerability, the truth is that instrumental reason led to aspirations that would be helpless without it.
The last and shorter point he makes regarding the characteristic changes of modernity is that institutions and structures put weight on the use of instrumental reason which in some cases – especially moral deliberations – may be destructive.131 In
imposing such reasoning on societal decisions, Taylor claims a great loss of freedom comes about due to the increased individual-lifestyle that is encouraged in this thinking. It is the danger of a modern form of despotism which alienates individuals from the public sphere by imposing impersonal mechanisms on a society. In encouraging instrumental reason in a society, a retreat to the private life is encouraged at the same time.
Such are the patterns and consequences of the great transformations of
modernity. Taylor’s attack on atomism, instrumental reason, and their consequences on political liberty are critical to understanding his work. The themes he proposes endow moderns with a sense of agency directed to the self. In having disenchanted the world, the space bounded by moral horizons is rather confined to that of the mind. The main point he makes, is that the identity that develops from modernity as a framework
disables us from dealing with the controversial challenges of modernity.132 In idealizing
the internalization of moral sources, one feeds the self-induced malaise that self-fulfills itself alongside the narrative of modernity.
Thus, Taylor describes the loss that constitutes and develops the malaises of modernity within the immanent frame. The fading of a moral horizon induced by exogenous forces leads to a culture of anthropocentrism predicated on instrumental rationality and inward individuality causing a relativism of freedom of choice on morality. Moral decisions that are open to interpretation, which allow for values to be chosen, will cyclically return as self-defeating in the form of a loss in the moral horizon. This makes it clear that the critique of modernity is not a reductionist critique of
modernity itself. Rather it shows the theory is incomplete. Taylor has stressed factors such as disembeddedness, disengagement, and disenchantment under the rule of self-mastery and instrumental reason. Yet, he acknowledges the double-sided work that these elements set into place. Inquiry continues with the tragedy of modernity. The depleting foundation of moral horizon nourishes meaninglessness and nihilism, placing modern humans in a position where they have tried to rise above the human condition itself. In autonomously choosing meaning and significance, the individual is fueled by the power of freedom, which – metaphorically referencing Icarus – has partially led to
burn human wings. Whilst being embedded in the transformative force of modernity, one is thus embedded in both its striving projects, as well as the backlash of self-defeat.
2.4. Embracing Opposites?
The analysis of modernity and its malaises, and the modern identity call for an opening of what Taylor has described as spirituality. The buffered self is reinforced by its interlock with modern elements such as radical disengagement, instrumental control, and individualization, making the new spiritual quest committed to a more personal and internalized quest that takes place in an immanent frame.133 This contrasts the idea of
there being a supernatural order with a transcendent element which defines the
understanding of the enchanted world and cosmic moral order. Moreover, this reflects the changes of one’s self-understanding and identity and how one could fit in the world we inhabit. Taylor claims this yields our modern picture of the world. Firstly, the world is seen to be part of a natural physical universe governed by natural laws. Secondly, the world has the option of reflecting the will of a creator, yet it does not need a reference to the good in transcendental terms. This leads to the understanding of the immanent frame as it is today, where humans tend to live ‘in their heads’ trusting a disengaged
understanding of the world based on rational maxims and individualized approaches.134
As Taylor expands his theory upon the malaises of modernity, generating a culture of authenticity, humans are thought to be encouraged to develop an identity based on the intellectual and structural developments of modernity. An expressive individualism of enlightenment, or as we often hear it, is a path to ‘finding yourself’ resulted from the encouragement of self-mastery, internalization, and radical
disengagement.135 This specifically has been an attractive element in modernity which
This story is twofold, where on the one hand there are pressing concerns on mental health, and on the other hand a growing trend in spiritual quests. The world statistics show shocking mental health trends that illustrate the growing numbers of disorders in the last decades. The lost sense of purpose and existential meaning is reflected in the following pathological concerns. Estimations show that around 970 million people are suffering from a mental or substance disorder, with the largest being anxiety disorder affecting 4% of the global population.137 Another – contradicting – example is the
Netherlands, placed as the 5th happiest country138 by the United Nations, yet 1.1 million
Dutch citizens have been prescribed with anti-depressants.139 Moreover, it has been
shown that the latest human generations, often referred to as millennials or the iGen, aged between 12-25, have suffered an increase of suicide rates of more than 60% in the United States.140 Furthermore, since the 1960s, an increase in interest for spirituality and
religion trended amongst modern societies. On the one hand, this is shown through the hippie culture that popularized Hindu, Buddhist, occult and pagan traditions of
spirituality, as well as the increased practice of yoga and meditation. On the other hand, an increase in published articles and books on the beneficial impact of Zen Buddhism, spiritual tourism, Eastern religions, and yoga practices amongst others have become prevalent in both popular and academic literature. Both the pathological reports and spiritual searches portray the disembedded meaningless state of the modern self. It is these new forms of thinking in spiritual trends that are attractive for the expressive individualist modern self.
It is theorized that the flexibility and mystic permissiveness of the practiced in some Eastern traditions refreshed the sense of purpose, as well as the close and organic relationship humans are thought to have with the Earth.141 Many are looking for an
