The Ineffable Self: An Eastern Orthodox Perspective on Gender and the Body

Ancient Wisdom for Modern Struggles Part II

In recent decades, the topic of gender identity has sparked significant debate and division, particularly within Christian communities in the Anglo-American world. Many mainline Protestant churches have experienced splits over differing perspectives on gay marriage and questions of gender. Conservatives often try to uphold what they call "biblical morality," while the LGBTQ+ community adopts the language of “social justice,” leading to polarizing rhetoric. This dynamic makes it challenging to maintain traditional views on morality without being labeled as ignorant or unfeeling.

Given this contentious landscape, presenting an Eastern Orthodox perspective on gender and the body is fraught with difficulties. The theoretical basis for the LGBTQ+ movement typically has little patience for religious opinions—especially those based on “tradition” like that of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, my hope is to articulate why Eastern Orthodox Christianity diverges from much of Western Christendom and offers a unique message of hope for those suffering from gender dysphoria.

Understanding the Modern Self

To understand contemporary debates about gender, we need to grasp the modern concept of self, particularly through Charles Taylor’s idea of the expressive individual. This concept is shaped by the unspoken norms, values, and beliefs of our culture—what Taylor calls the "social imaginary."^¹

The modern self is a departure from every understanding of self that preceded modernity. Previously, identities were largely shaped by external factors such as family, religion, and societal roles. In traditional societies, a person’s identity was given by their place within the family, their community, and their religious commitments. These external factors provided a framework for understanding oneself and one's purpose.

In contrast, the modern self is characterized by the belief that our identity emerges from within. This shift means that our values, beliefs, and understanding of who we are come from our "inner depths.” Instead of looking outward to societal norms or divine commandments, we look inward to our intuitive emotional core to find guidance for our actions and self-understanding.

This inward focus is so pronounced that it often overrides external realities. For example, some people today are drawn inwardly to identify with an animal. Despite the biological reality of their human bodies, they may identify more strongly with this animal than their own body.² This extreme example highlights the broader trend where internal feelings and intuitions are considered the most decisive factors in determining one's identity.

This is why someone suffering from gender dysphoria can say, "I am a woman trapped in a man's body," and have that statement be widely intelligible.³ As Carl Truman notes in his recent book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, this phenomenon is a relatively new development in history. The statement is intelligible because we have come to see our inner intuitions and feelings as the core of our identity. Thus, if my inner intuition or feelings tell me that I am really a woman trapped in a man’s body, this makes sense to us. Our locus of identity is inward, in our "inner depths” and our self or who I should become emerges from within. My only moral duty is to be authentic to the image of myself I perceive as being me "inside." Even if what I perceive myself as being inside contradicts my biology or what I see in the mirror, this must be my true self.

What is often left unexamined by our society is the material used by this sort of inner direction to guide us and form an image of our true self. For instance, it is rarely considered by individuals that the image of self they identify with, that they feel they must realize, is but an idea in their mind—and even more importantly, an idea constructed by the various selves portrayed in the media and advertisements. These constructed selves, which companies or ideologies promise will emerge from buying their products, wearing their clothes, putting on their makeup, or being the type of man they represent as “man” or the type of woman they represent as “woman,” are often unrealistic and idealized. Just think of the idealized feminine invented by the mad men of the early to mid-20th century and perfected in fashion magazines, or the formulation of the “rugged individual” as the ideal of masculinity in the movies.

Before moving on, it is important to draw out three key aspects of the modern expressive individual:

1. Inward Self as Moral Guide: Our inner self is seen as the guide for moral action, leading to the self being a product of intuition.

2. Inward Image Over Material Reality: Our inward image of self, not material reality, guides our journey to self-realization or creation.

3. Closed Circuit of Identity: One’s identity or self is a composite of inner desires, mental self-images, and intuition, heavily influenced by external images from the media and consumer culture.

These three features not only explain the framework within which gender dysphoria is intelligible, but they also leave one extraordinarily vulnerable to deception. The expressive individual emphasizes personal authenticity but overlooks the socially constructed nature of what it grows attached to and perceives as its “self.”

Judith Butler's Theory of Gender Performativity

Moving from the inward focus of the modern self to the outward influences on identity, Judith Butler's theory of gender performativity presents a significant departure from traditional understandings of gender as an innate and fixed aspect of identity. In her seminal work Gender Trouble, Butler argues, “gender proves to be performance—that is, constituting the identity it is purported to be. In this sense, gender is always a doing, though not a doing by a subject who might be said to pre-exist the deed (25).” This suggests that gender identity is not something one is born with but rather something that is continuously enacted through behavior and societal norms.

Further elaborating on this concept, Butler states, “When we say that gender is performed, we usually mean that we've taken on a role; we're acting in some way... To say that gender is performative is a little different, because for something to be performative means that it produces a series of effects. We act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman... We act as if that being of a man or that being of a woman is actually an internal reality or something that's simply true about us, a fact about us. Actually, it's a phenomenon that is being produced all the time and reproduced all the time, so to say gender is performative is to say that nobody really is a gender from the start.”⁴

Thus, Butler perceives gender as constructed through a set of acts that comply with dominant societal norms. She is not suggesting that gender is a kind of performance that an individual can simply end; rather, this performance is continuous and largely out of an individual's control. The performance produces the individual, not the other way around. Butler approvingly quotes Nietzsche’s assertion that “there is no 'being' behind doing... 'the doer' is merely a fiction added to the deed – the deed is everything.”⁵ All this points to the idea that gender is not an unchangeable internal reality but a series of socially constructed acts and behaviors.

For Butler, we are inscribed in an ever-unfolding and changing societal text, which prescribes the meanings, intelligibility, and value of one’s behavior, appearance, and affectations before one cites them in their expression of gender—their performativity. This approach aligns with Marxist critical theory and post-structuralist thought, focusing on the outward style of oneself as influenced by societal structures, thus leading to a problematic understanding from a psychological standpoint. This perspective shifts the focus from fulfilling expected norms to being expected to thwart and transgress them, with little sense of interiority or the truth of the expressive individual.

One significant critique of Butler's theory is its tendency to negate the material reality of the body. In Assuming a Body: Transgender and Rhetorics of Materiality (2010), Gayle Salamon examines the affinity between trans studies and feminist and queer theories of gender.⁶ Salamon identifies three key objections that trans writers have to social construction theories like Butler’s:

1. Simplicity vs. Complexity: Social construction theories can oversimplify the complex nature of gendered embodiment.

2. Dismissal of Bodily Materiality: These theories often ignore or dismiss the reality and significance of bodily materiality.

3. Lack of Room for Bodily Resignification or Resistance: They offer little room for the bodily agency necessary for resignification or resistance.

Butler’s framework, by focusing on the performative aspects of gender, tends to overlook the materiality of the body, which is a crucial aspect of many individuals' lived experiences. This can be particularly problematic for transgender individuals who experience a profound dissonance between their experienced gender and their physical bodies. The material body is not merely a passive surface on which societal norms are inscribed but an active participant in one’s sense of self and identity.

Additionally, Butler’s emphasis on the external social construction of gender can neglect the internal psychological dimensions of identity. While her theory seeks to undermine rigid gender norms, it also risks erasing the personal and often deeply felt experiences of gender that are not solely the product of societal constructs.

The Vision of the Ineffable Self

Both the modern expressive individual and Butler’s performative theory emphasize different aspects of identity formation—internal intuition versus external performance. However, both approaches can leave individuals vulnerable to societal pressures and internal conflicts. This is where the Eastern Orthodox perspective offers a profound alternative, centering on an ineffable self that transcends both internal feelings and external societal constructs.⁷

The Eastern Orthodox perspective offers a fundamentally different understanding of identity. Central to this perspective is the notion of the indefinable self, which transcends any societal constructs or external definitions. Gregory of Nyssa, a key figure in Eastern Orthodox thought, encapsulates this idea in his assertion: “But since the nature of our intellect, which is in accordance with the image of the Creator, evades knowledge, it has an accurate likeness to the transcendent one, figuring by its own unknowability the incomprehensible nature.”⁸

Thus, our self is indefinable because being made according to the image of God means for one to have “depths” (so to speak) that are more profound than those of the psychosomatic self. Within us, we could say, is a depth that reaches all the way to God; not only does He lie beyond us, but also within. As much as we reach beyond ourselves and ecstatically reach for God, we are drawn deeper within ourselves. As Gregory Nazianzus says, “God is to the soul what the soul is to the body.”⁹ To bring this back into conversation with the expressive individual, we could say that our core is deeper than our feelings, and the locus of our being is deeper than the socially constructed selves or images we are fed constantly by the media and even those standing around us.

Eastern Orthodoxy provides the means of encountering these depths through the practice of Watchfulness. This spiritual discipline teaches us to observe and disengage from the thoughts and images that arise in our minds. One might state that we require images and concepts to map out the world within which we perceive ourselves as living in and use them to understand ourselves. However, these images are seen in Eastern Orthodox spirituality as simply the means by which we are drawn into becoming “impassioned” or “passive” to the demands encased within the thoughts which play out on the TV Screen of our mind. It is through the practice of watchfulness or that one becomes capable of acquiring stillness and apatheia. This stillness is linked by Hesychios the Priest with the capacity to stop thoughts before we identify with them and are thenceforth made passive to their designs.¹⁰ Moreover, the sense of apatheia here is not to be apathetic and uncaring about others but rather represents one as no longer being affected by or made passive to the various programs and channels which appear on the TV Screen of one’s mind. Thus apatheia, as Rowan Williams, an expert scholar of Eastern Orthodox spirituality, has put it in his recent book Passions of the Soul: “The state of apatheia is an anticipation of the resurrection… inseparable from love… the essence of Christian liberty (XIV).” Williams then goes on to quote Diadochos of Photike’s vivid illustration of the nature of apatheia:

“If, then, a man begins to make progress in keeping the commandments and calls ceaselessly on the Lord Jesus, the fire of God’s grace spreads even to the heart’s more outward organs of perception, consciously burning up the tares in the field of the soul. As a result, the demonic attacks [passionate thoughts] cannot penetrate to the depths of the soul, but can prick only that part of it which is subject to passion. When the ascetic has finally acquired all the virtues—and in particular the total shedding of possessions – then grace illuminates his whole being with a deeper awareness (XV).”¹¹^[xi]

This awareness, Williams notes, is much of the point of the practice of watchfulness or wakefulness as he calls it. It is to be able to not be concerned about our ego or acquisitiveness but rather to be able to attend to the present and those around us freely so as to serve them and others.

Thus this practice of watchfulness, inseparable from prayer or practicing the presence of God, offers a notion of how one can disengage from being socially determined or defined by understandings of gender which are less than what constitutes a true human being.

Explicating the Practice of Watchfulness

To better conceptualize an Eastern Orthodox understanding of our relationship with our thoughts, consider the metaphor of a television screen. Just as a TV displays a continuous stream of channels, each broadcasting different content, our minds present a continuous stream of thoughts, images, and impulses. Importantly, while we have control over which television channel to watch, we do not control which channels are available or what broadcasts might appear unexpectedly. Similarly, thoughts and images pop into our minds, often unbidden and sometimes unwelcome, influenced by a myriad of external and internal factors.

The crux of this metaphor lies in our engagement with these mental "programs." Much like becoming absorbed in a television show, we can become engrossed by our thoughts. Engaging with a thought—allowing it to play out on the screen of our mind—is akin to the "suspension of disbelief" in watching cinema, where we momentarily accept the reality of what is on screen. However, this engagement can lead us to become captive to the desires, anxieties, or frustrations depicted in our mental “programs.”

This is why disengaging from one’s thoughts—understanding that they are not the totality of ourselves nor do they need to determine our desires, mood, or attitude toward others—has been seen as an essential spiritual exercise in a number of spiritual traditions. In Eastern Christianity, this spiritual exercise is called Watchfulness or nepsis. By practicing watchfulness, we can begin to see our thoughts and feelings as transient, socially constructed programs that do not define our true self. This awareness allows us to detach from the socially constructed identities imposed on us by external influences.

One approach to developing this awareness is through mindful observation, where several times a day, we pause to observe our current thoughts as if they were programs on a TV. By noting their content without engaging or judging them, we can simply let them pass. Another method involves focusing on the sensation of breathing whenever we find ourselves becoming too absorbed in our thoughts. This helps detach from mental noise and centers our mind.

Prayer is another vital component. By making a habit of calling on the Name of God, by saying “Lord, Jesus Christ have mercy on me,” we practice the presence of God. It is ultimately this presence which silences thoughts and allows us to enter into the brilliant and tranquil Ocean of God within all of us. St. Hesychios the Priest emphasizes this by stating, “If we have not attained prayer that is free from thoughts, we have no weapon to fight with.”¹²

Lastly, daily reflection can be immensely beneficial. At the end of the day, spending a few minutes reflecting on the thoughts that dominated our mind helps us recognize patterns and triggers. By considering how these thoughts may not necessarily define or reflect our true self, we move closer to detaching from socially constructed images and identities imposed upon us and move closer to the ineffable self that lies beyond societal constructs.

Conclusion

The Eastern Orthodox perspective provides a holistic understanding of identity that transcends societal constructs and emphasizes the ineffable nature of the self. The Orthodox Church sees humanity as made in the image of God and thus as destined to become divine. This view asserts that one's being cannot be circumscribed by simplistic concepts, especially those as artificial as gender. While we are given a share of the divine, as Gregory of Nyssa suggests with our indefinable intellect or soul, we are also given a particular body. This body cannot be removed from the process of becoming divine. To alter our bodies to serve a concept less than the ineffable image of God as it shows through our given form is to render us less than who we really are and to see our body as less than it is—the vehicle within which we are to work out our salvation on this earth.

By embracing the practices of watchfulness and spiritual exercises, individuals can discover their true, divine identity beyond the confines of modern identity discourse. This detachment from the societal script allows us to realize a self that exists beyond citation and socially constructed roles, offering a path to true freedom and authenticity.

1. See: Taylor, Charles. Sources of Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Harvard University Press, 1996. Also see: Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Harvard University Press, 2007. Just as important for our conversation is: Trueman, C. R. (2020). The Rise and Triumph of the Modern self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution. Crossway, 2020. I am reading Taylor through the lens, at least partially, of Trueman.

2. See the TV show Glow and this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom

3. See Trueman.

4. Judith Butler (6 June 2011). Judith Butler: Your Behavior Creates Your Gender (video). Big Think. Retrieved 1 May 2023 – via YouTube

5. Butler, Judith(2006). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. p.25. Also see:Nietzche. GM (1887): I, §13

6. Salamon, Gayle (2010). Assuming a body: transgender and rhetorics of materiality. New York, NY: Columbia Univ. Press. pp. 69–94

7. This is also clear with with Maximus the Confessor in his Ambiggua and Chapters on Theology and Chapters on Love. We are to become by Grace what the Uncreated (God) is by nature in all but essence, and thus in a sense, become “Uncreated.” For a phenomenological argument that the indefinability of self is a negative certainty see: Marion, Jean-Luc. Negative Certainties. Marion draws on the fathers for this argument.

8. Behr, J. (2023). Gregory of Nyssa: on the Human Image of God. Oxford University Press. p.188-89.

9. Gregory Nazianzius. Oration 2:17.

10. “On Watchfulness and Holiness.” The Philokalia The Complete Text Complied by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St Makarios of Corinth, One, Faber and Faber, New York, 1979.

11. Ibid. Also see: Aimilianos, and Maximos Constas. The Mystical Marriage: Spiritual Life According to St. Maximos the Confessor. Newrome Press, 2018. Maximus the Confessor’s own writing can also be found in Volume Two of the Philokalia. He is given more space in the text than any other writer.

12. Hesychios the Priest. p. 165.