Written by: Christy Flanagan-Feddon
Christy Flanagan-Feddon (Ph.D. in Religion from Florida State University) is a Lecturer at the University of Central Florida. Her teaching and research interests relate to the points of intersection between the areas of religion and identity, culture, ethics, and philosophy.
For the last six weeks, the world has been ablaze with the news that Donald J. Trump has been elected the 45th President of the United States. Feature news stories and social media are fixated on pondering the future implications of a Trump presidency. One common criticism from women that frequently cuts across political lines and religious affiliations, and is offered particularly by mothers of young daughters, is a concern about the role model that a President Trump will be for young women. We’ve all heard the sound bites from his Playboy interview, the conversation with Billy Bush, statements in the media about women, and so on. I am also the mother of two young children, a boy and a girl, and it is of the utmost priority to me that we teach them both how to treat women with respect and expect to be treated, respectively.
So I get the worry.
I also have many concerns about a Trump presidency, namely the impact on the environment, healthcare and issues of tolerance and diversity, among others – but the impact on my daughter and her self-identity is not one of them.
Let me tell you why.
The issue relates to the extent to which idealized external figures or influences are constitutive of human self-identity. This relates not only to how we view ourselves as individuals, but also to how we view other human beings as well. I think that 19th-century philosopher, Ludwig Feuerbach, has much to contribute to this conversation with his thoughts on religion, self-consciousness, and idolatry.
Feuerbach is probably most known for his projection theory discussed in the Essence of Christianity. He explained that in Christian practice believers conceive of God by projecting an idealized version of human traits. Where human beings display wisdom, love, temperance in limited and imperfect forms, God represents these traits absolutely. In this regard, he presented an ambivalent view of religion: insofar as religious consciousness relates to a reflection on the potential of human self-identity it was positive, but it was also negative in that the emphasis on the idealized God human beings alienated themselves from their own inherent source of goodness, believing that good comes only from the ideal God and not as the own traits of our human nature. In Feuerbach’s view, this has the consequence of human beings denying the value of our own essence, rendering us passive to the idealized God and believing that goodness comes only from this being. He relates this to problems of not only human self-identity but also religious violence. More on this in a moment.
In the 20th century, some authors appropriated versions of Feuerbach’s projection theory in relationship to issues of religious identity and gender. In Sexes and Genealogies, Luce Irigaray argued that we need to posit a vision of a God with female predicates in order to help women establish a robust female self-identity in religious consciousness. This line of thinking also relates to the aforementioned concerns about the impact of the Trump presidency on women: that the positive self-identity of our young girls is dependent upon a President who affirms such views in his words and actions.
Irigaray’s model is helpful in the sense that it forces us to expand paradigms of the divine and acknowledge the importance of language and symbolism in both religious consciousness and society in general. However, I’ve argued in other forums that this model misappropriates the most important aspects of Feuerbach’s understanding of human self-consciousness. He explains how we come to understand that our identity is not only comprised of what exists in the present state but also what is abstract or possible (for example, we might say, “I’m really mad right now, but I really should think about this situation from her point of view”). In his view, when we think about the ideal God in religious consciousness, we are also thinking about the best version of human nature. We need to do this in order to grow and become the best possible versions of ourselves. It’s also an activity that binds us to other human beings both morally and socially as we collectively think about the potential of the human species.
However, Feuerbach is worried that we have lost the idea that these assertions about God really begin as self-assertions about the potential of our nature. It is on this point that Feuerbach is the most ambiguous: is he saying that “God” is nothing more than a psychological projection, or that this is what we do when we make assertions about God? This is a complex question that I do not have the space to tackle here, but at the very least Feuerbach is speaking within the inherent limits placed on knowledge and language after Kant. Namely, I do not have knowledge of the speculative realm outside of my observation, so I can only make reference to what I see in this horizon. In spite of his many criticisms of religion, Feuerbach believed that it was in religious consciousness that we most essentially engaged in fundamental deliberations about the nature of selfhood and the human species.
The question therefore is how do I perceive this God to which I relate in order to contemplate my potential and the potential of the human species? In Feuerbach’s view, too often we forget the fact that the contemplation of self and God is inherently relational and an extension of the complexity of our own self-consciousness. We become passive in the process, believing that our worth can only be given to us by an external source. We become alienated from our own inherent goodness and this causes a number of dangerous psychological and social effects. Not only does this alienate ourselves from our own sense of goodness, damaging our sense of self-worth, but also from the goodness we perceive in other human beings, establishing an inherent sense of competition and divisiveness.
If I am fixated on the external God and goodness only comes from this being, what happens when our definitions of God differ? According to Feuerbach, this creates a “partisanship” that cultivates a culture of religious intolerance and even violence. It’s also the inevitable and ironic fate of many understandings of religion: in their emphasis on the speculative and non-natural, they become fixated on their own sense of truth at the cost of all others. In his own words, “faith gives man a peculiar sense of their own dignity and importance. The believer finds himself distinguished above other men, exalted above the natural man.” In this hyper-exaltation, believers worship their own worshiping, they have no sense of intrinsic worth so they become fixated on a sense of worth gained through the ideal object. Sadly, they collapse into a type of idolatry themselves.
And it is on the issue of idolatry that brings us full circle. I began this discussion with a consideration of the concern about the external influence of our future President on our children’s identities, which led us to Feuerbach, the consideration of human self-consciousness and how its misunderstandings relate to concerns of idolatry. Yet I would argue that it is, in fact, a kind of idolatry itself that gave rise to this specific issue in the first place. Merriam-Webster gives us two definitions of idolatry: 1) the worship of a physical object as a God; and 2) the immoderate attachment or devotion to something.
Much has been written about the underlying reasons for the Trump victory and there is no need to rehash those claims here. However, it does seem to be well established that in spite of a general view that many believed Hillary Clinton demonstrated the competence to be President, she failed to carry the needed votes of Americans living in rural areas. Generally speaking, this constituency was disenchanted by Washington, felt that their needs were underrepresented in politics and their plight ignored. Simply put, they felt alienated by the standard political process and were undeterred by Trump’s seeming shortcomings – in fact, some of these traits even further cemented his “outsider” reputation and gave him more validity.
If such political assessments are in fact accurate, then Merriam-Webster’s second definition above rings true here. In a situation where a group of people feel not only unheard but powerless, Trump speaks their language and embodies their hopes. He will build the wall, apparently without cost to us. He will personally control who is entering our country. He will make the necessary deals and in fact “Make America Great Again.” It does not matter if these proposals end up being implausible or even potentially unreasonable. For these voters, these are needs that must be fulfilled even if it is at the cost of creating a more divisive and fractured union. The system is broken and he will make it right. This is a partisanship that suits not only the political definition of idolatry, but also Feuerbach’s.
So what do we tell our children regarding how to view themselves in light of our President-elect? The same things we would tell them anyway: that they are loved and their opinions are valuable, that identity and self-worth comes from within (as people made in the image of God) and is never ultimately defined by another (lest we project our own images as idols). We will tell them to respect and care for others, even in disagreement. We will encourage critical thinking and seek to cultivate the confidence they need to think for themselves. If we wish for something to change, then we must consider how we can ourselves effect that change rather than believe someone or something will do it for us.
Both history and religion have surely taught us one thing—and that is to beware of false idols.