This article is a brief exploration of culture through two lenses. First, we will look at theologian Steven Bryan’s description of six possible responses to the challenge of multiple cultures in one sovereign polity. Then, we will discuss sociologist Phillip Rieff’s four stages of human culture.

According to Bryan in his work Cultural Identity and the Purposes of God, there six broad views when it comes to tackling the reality of multiple cultures under one banner. Each of these approaches has a different view as to the role of cultural identities in influence nationhood and vice-versa. These approaches are: (1) Civic nationalism, 2) Globalism, 3) Ethnonationalism, 4) Collective-Protectionism, 5) Ethnic Federalism, and 6) Multiculturalism. 1 These approaches are defined briefly. Civic nationalism holds an individualistic anthropology. Individuals band together to create nations and national cultures. Globalism argues for the creation of global culture and global state based on individual rights. Ethnonationalism views the nation a political manifestation of a culture. Nations are primarily ethnic rather than civic. Each ethnicity ought to have its own political sovereignty. Collective-Protectionism maintains that the state must take an active role in preserving the nations culture at the expense of individual liberty.

Ethnic Federalism advocates for the abandonment of a national culture centered around the state. Instead, the state is viewed as the protector of multiple cultures. Multiculturalism holds that the many cultures in a given polity should all be rightly understood as part of the polity’s culture. Minority cultures should be protected against assimilation intentional or otherwise.

Not all of these views are mutually exclusive, and they unfrequently exist in pure forms in contemporary states. One can see elements of truth in each of these views. Jesus is the particular messiah of Israel. He was a Jewish carpenter and itinerant preacher primarily ministering at first to the “lost sheep of Israel” (Mat. 15:24). However, he is also the Cosmic Christ, the savior of the world. He is king both of Israel (particular) and the Nations (global). The eschatological vision of Revelation and the Old Testament prophets is one of all peoples and tribes worshiping God (Rev. 7:9). These nations are ruled by one King. However, the nations and their rulers still seem to exist (Rev. 21:24). So, in the New Heavens and New Earth, all persons are cosmopolitans. However, each individual remains a part of his tribe. Tribes still exist but exist without tribalism. Differing temperaments placed in differing situations may emphasize different aspects of the solution to the tension inherent in a world of many cultures.

However, in recognizing that are some elements of truth in each view does not mean a devolution in relativism. Clearly, America was founded on Civic Nationalism. Our motto is E Pluribus Unum, “Out of many, one.” Some sense of a national culture is necessary if there is to be cohesion. Some sense of a state and local community culture is also necessary. Texans should be proud Texans. Iowans should be proud Iowans. Both should be proud Americans. In our “out of many, one” mentality, we need to allow the many to still exists even as we are one. This is actually a defensive measure against rampant, subjective multiculturalism. Multiculturalism stems as a solution to combat genuine prejudice, but then it swings the pendulum to far by not allowing one to make value judgements of any culture (except the so-called dominant one, which is often viewed as oppressive).

But Civic Nationalism may not be the end all be all. Gerald McDermott, a conservative American theologian, notes that contemporary Western society tends to downplay the role of heritage. There seems room to allow some identity to be placed in ethnicity so long as it is not a source of racism or disunity. One can be a proud Cherokee or a proud descendent of a specific Scottish clan. One can be a proud Smith or Jones. The list goes on and on. I met a man recently who was a proud Christian, American, and Apache Indian.

Now, let’s combine Bryan’s observations that I have commented on with Philip Rieff’s ideas about culture. Rieff builds upon the work of the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud.

Freud thought that culture was essential the result of groups of people establishing taboos. As Carl Trueman in The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self summarizes, “[C]ultures are primarily defined by what they forbid” (p. 43). Rieff sees four types of men, generally organized by chronological epochs, who interact with and create cultures. (However, As Trueman notes, Rieff’s conception of these four types of men is an oversimplification of history even if they are useful.) First, there is the political man. The political man primarily finds identity by being engaged with the polis or the state. Then there is the religious man who primary finds meaning by engaging in religious and spiritual practices. Next there is the economic man who finds his identity in the work he does or the economic contributions he makes. Lastly, there is the psychological man.

According to Rieff, the psychological man is unique among his four types. The first three types mainly “direct the self outward.” That is, the collective taboos and prohibitions of a culture lead the individual outside of himself in order to find identity. The way of life of these three types of people is collectivistic or communitarian. (There may still be room for the individual, but the individual must be counter-balanced by the community.) Psychological man, on the other hand, is hyper-individualistic. The psychological man finds identity through the “inward quest for personal psychological happiness.” Often times, the psychological man’s quest becomes highly subjective in the sense that the definition of happiness is purely up to the individual and his psyche. While not all psychological men are this way, Trueman (2020) notes heavy correlation between Rieff’s idea of the psychological man and Charles Taylor’s concept of “expressive individualism.” The expressive individualist finds meaning primarily by giving expression to inward mental states – to thoughts, feelings, and desires.

Each of the four types of meaning finding seems to be valid when considered as one part of the whole and not taken too far. Man is political, religious, and economic, and psychological. The balanced person will develop each of these dimensions using them to counterbalance each other. However, the air that the Western man breathes is the air of the psychological man and the expressive individualist. That does not mean that the other three types do not exist; however, caution should be used when conceptualizing oneself as political, religious, or economic for the reason below.

While Trueman does not make this following observation, it seems to the writer that one can be an expressive individualist while still appearing to be a Rieffian political, religious, or ecnomic man. For example, most people know someone who is heavily involved in political campaigning or church organization. However, this person may still be doing the campaigning or church-work out of a sense of expressive individualism. That is, the person is finding primarily meaning by giving expression to their subjectivity. In a culture of the inward, we must recognize the strengths of psychological man while striving to recapture a vision of culture that brings cohesions and unity.

Cohesion and unity. That is something sorely lacking today. Without it, we don’t have culture even if we pretend to be multicultural. There is much work to do. How do we, in an era of the psychological man, explore the approaches Steven Bryan lists that will work in our context and promote human flourishing? It seems that to return to a sense of Civic Nationalism while pushing forward to establish valid secondary ethnic identities also requires that our expressive individualism be stunted. At the very least, we can use the categories laid out by Bryan and Rieff to further the very pressing conversation we need to be having.

Mitchell D. Cochran is a family life educator, a financial coach, and a board certified Christian counselor. He is the cofounder of Hope Initiative Consulting, LLC. and is currently attending Kairos University for his Th.D. (Doctor of Theology) in theological anthropology. Mitchell and his wife, Katherine, live in Colorado.