A Modern Psychology at Odds with Agency and the Self

Psychology, a science that explores the unconscious and conscious mind as well as human behavior, has extended its influence beyond science—it has strongly influenced modern culture’s understanding of selfhood, responsibility, and personal development. While psychological theories are often regarded as rational alternatives to religious moral frameworks, they ironically function as a secular religion, complete with rituals of self-examination, confessional therapy sessions, and an elite class of interpreters (therapists). This paper will argue some modern psychological movements have in a sense eroded the very foundation of identity, leading to a type of cultural and societal decline rooted, to significant extent, in the rejection of human agency.

A serious but often overlooked consequence of turning from religion and solely to psychology is the displacement of human agency from the center of identity, leading to a dramatic distortion of selfhood. Selfhood is not something that can be wholly chosen by an individual, nor is it entirely dictated by external forces (see, e.g., Augustine, 1998, Confessions). Instead, selfhood emerges from an ongoing negotiation of a sort between the self, the surrounding world, and moral law. A person reflects internally, recognizing their inclinations, values, and aspirations, and then presents themselves to society. This presentation always takes place in a social environment—it is met with recognition, resistance, reinterpretation or modification from family, peers, and the broader community. Through this back-and-forth, selfhood takes form and deepens in meaning, shaped by both internal convictions and external realities.

However, when neither the individual nor the community acknowledges a moral reality, such as the centrality or efficacy of agency, this process collapses, and selfhood becomes estranged from truth. Neither the individual nor society take responsibility for which aspects of the inner self should be cultivated and which should not be. Instead of selfhood being developed through responsible choices, it becomes dictated by unchecked inclinations, lacking a moral anchor. This is where false identities emerge—not as the product of genuine self-discovery, but as the result of an environment that refuses to acknowledge a moral reality, being agency. When both the self and society refuse to acknowledge this reality, identity ceases to be something shaped by a responsible agency and becomes a matter of simple self-declaration. The failure to distinguish between inclination and identity leads individuals to believe that their subjective feelings are absolute and unquestionable rather than something to be examined and, if necessary, redirected (see, e.g., MacIntyre, 1981,  After Virtue).

For agency to function, individuals must do more than recognize their inclinations; they must decide whether to accept or reject them in pursuit of a meaningful identity (see, e.g., Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:14-16, Peterson, 1999, Maps of Meaning). Likewise, society must participate in this process—not by blindly affirming every self-perception but by providing the necessary boundaries that help individuals shape their identity responsibly. A person who encounters an inclination that does not align with who they seek to become must exercise agency—not to surrender to that inclination, but to choose a path that aligns with their higher goals and values. Selfhood is not about indulgence of every desire but about the disciplined act of shaping oneself in accordance with truth.

The increasing reliance on psychological explanations for personal failure has contributed to a societal trend where victimhood is rewarded over resilience. This trend is powered by a fallacious understanding that we are not fundamentally agents (see, e.g., Williams, 1998, Turning Freud Upside Down). Instead of encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their futures, this model allows them to attribute personal failures to their past, attempting, erroneously, to exempt themselves from the effort required to grow and mature.

In essence, general modern psychology does not call individuals to a higher standard nor to a higher purpose, but instead asks them to merely understand themselves, as if this understanding alone will free them from the consequences of their situation. While self-awareness is valuable, it is not an end in itself; finding meaning requires action, discipline, and personal accountability—qualities that are undermined when psychology prioritizes introspection to such a degree that agency and moral development are discarded.

In conclusion, modern psychology’s deterministic models diminish some essential aspects of selfhood: identity, responsibility, resilience, self-governance and community. At its core, selfhood is not a passive state but an active process of becoming—one that requires both individual agency and communal reinforcement. When both the individual and society refuse to acknowledge a moral reality, selfhood becomes detached from truth, and victimhood can replace growth. If we are to resist this cultural drift, we must reaffirm the reality of a central moral law in our humanity and recognize that selfhood is consequently defined by agency rather than internal experience.

References

Augustine. (1998). Confessions (H. Chadwick, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published ca. 400)

MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press.

Peterson, J. B. (1999). Maps of meaning: The architecture of belief. Routledge.

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. (1981). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Williams, R. (Ed.). (1998). Turning Freud upside down: Gospel perspectives on psychotherapy’s fundamental problems. Brigham Young University Press.