Dr. Charlton has written an insightful post that emphasizes a self-evident truth that civilizations and societies (and to a great extent, organized Christianity) have all conspired to deny—Every person is unique - a plain fact of experience, contradicted by nearly-all theories (including religions).
Rather than excerpting excellent points from the post, I will focus on a comment Bruce left in response to Laeth:
The fact that "civilization" (i.e. all large scale human societies) can only operate on the basis of denial of uniqueness is an intrinsic evil - something we therefore need to recognize and repent -- even though we cannot - this side of salvation - eliminate it.
Such depersonalized thinking is something that - no doubt - we must be ready to set-aside permanently in ourselves and agree to eliminate forever; in order to want to choose salvation.
Bruce’s mention of depersonalized thinking reminded me of Berdyaev’s insistence on the ultimate significance of what he termed personality, which I equate with the True Self or Primal Self.
In Slavery and Freedom, Berdyaev went to great lengths to explain what personality is and why it is crucial:
The entire world is nothing in comparison with human personality, with the unique person of a man, with his unique fate.
The secret of the existence of personality lies in its absolute irreplaceability, its happening but once, its uniqueness, its incomparability.
As Bruce points out in his post, the uniqueness of each being in Creation is an undeniable reality, yet the operation of civilization/society precludes recognizing this reality, at least in practice.
That civilization/society can only (apparently) function when the uniqueness of personality is denied leads to a pressing and unavoidable choice.
Should the supremacy of society over personality be considered something inherently good or evil?
Bruce lands on the side of considering it an intrinsic evil—a state of affairs that cannot be resolved this side of salvation; however, the fact that it is apparently unresolvable on this side of salvation is not reason enough to declare it good on this side of salvation.
Quite the contrary. As Bruce notes, the supremacy of society over personality is an intrinsic evil that must be recognized as such and repented if we ever hope to set aside and eliminate permanently on the other side of salvation.
Berdyaev also regards the supremacy of society over personality as, at best, a “necessary evil” that poses the risk of being an enslaving force that can, and often does, lead to spiritual death. Unlike most traditional Christian philosophers and theologians, Berdyaev does not consider civilization, society, or even religion itself to be superior to personality.
Personality is a subject, and not an object among other objects, and it has its roots in the inward scheme of existence, that is, in the spiritual world, the world of freedom. Society, on the other hand, is an object.
From the existential point of view, society is a part of personality; it is its social side, just as the cosmos is a part of personality, its cosmic side. Personality is not an object among other objects and not a thing among other things.
It is a subject among subjects, and the turning of it into an object or a thing means death.
A bit later in Slavery and Freedom, Berdyaev states:
Personality is the absolute existential center. Personality determines itself from within, outside the whole object world, and only determination from within and arising out of freedom is personality.
Personality as an existential center presupposes the capacity to feel suffering and joy. Nothing in the object world, nation, state, or society, or social institution, or church, possesses this capacity.
Berdyaev then outlines how and why personality is not defined by its relation to society:
... personality is defined above all not by its relation to society and the cosmos, not by its relation to the world which is enslaved by objectivization, but by its relation to God, and from this hidden and cherished inward relation it draws strength for its free relation to the world and to man.
Nor by external society/civilization obligations:
Personality is bound up with the consciousness of vocation. Every man ought to be conscious of that vocation, which is independent of the extent of his gifts. It is a vocation in an individually unrepeatable form to give an answer to the call of God and to put one's gifts to creative use.
Personality that is conscious of itself listens to the inward voice and obeys that only. It is not submissive to outside voices.
The greatest among men have always listened exclusively to the inward voice and have refused to conform so far as the world is concerned.
For Berdyaev, personality transcends all this-worldly considerations:
Personality in man is not determined by heredity, biology, and society; it is freedom in man, it is the possibility of victory over the world of determination.
Many traditionally/conventionally minded Christians might interpret the above to mean that Berdyaev (and Bruce and I) advocate for solipsism, but Berdyaev dismisses these concerns by stressing the communal aspect of personality:
Personality is communal; it presupposes communion with others and community with others. The profound contradiction and difficulty of human life are due to this communality.
In a nutshell, Berdyaev regards society/civilization in their past and current forms as objectifying forces:
In objectivization, we may find only symbols, but not basic realities. The objective spirit is only a symbol of spirit. The spirit is real. Culture and social life are symbolic. There is never reality in an object: in an object, there is only a symbol of reality. Reality itself is always in the subject....
The idea that reality is social, through and through, top to bottom, is only really “real” through the supremacy of personality over society—through the spiritual communion and relationships established and nurtured by persons through love, not through relations dictating by an objectifying, depersonalizing force that denies the uniqueness of personality as a spiritual and existential center in its own right..
The supremacy of society over personality remains, sadly, at the core of much Christian thinking and provides the basis for reactionary thought. The bulk of such thinking stems from an earlier mode of religious consciousness with assumptions that regarded this-worldly society as part and parcel of the celestial hierarchy and the heavens.
Valuing society over personality is the hallmark of reactionary thinkers like de Maistre and de Bonald, who regarded society organically, as an organism of which a person was merely a part. For de Maistre and de Bonald, a society/civilization that denied personality was inherently good, and they regarded persons hierarchically rather than personally.
Within such assumptions, the body as a whole is worth more than any of its individual parts. Thus, part of the body’s function involved ensuring that all the individual parts were working properly, even when or especially when the uniqueness or personality of the individual parts threatened the whole.
Reaction may have served some positive purpose in the past, but its assertion of the supremacy of society over personality is no longer simply unviable—it may prove to be spiritually lethal. After all, Auguste Comte was a reactionary in his own right. Like de Maistre and de Bonald, Comte also believed in the supremacy of society over personality. The only real difference between the three reactionary thinkers is that Comte favored the establishment of a secular, scientific elite rather than a religious elite to rule over personality.
Believing in the supremacy of society over personality from a Christian perspective entails believing in the rule of an authoritarian God presiding over a hierarchical Creation that denies the uniqueness of its beings and values the hierarchy over such personal uniqueness. It entails believing that heaven is run the way Christendom was run in the Middle Ages.
I do not believe heaven is run that way, even though the world once was. I also do not believe that returning to some Christendom mode of governance would do much to improve things because it would merely be another version of supremacy of society.
Moreover, I believe that any Christian who assumes heaven is run the way Christendom once was may have a difficult time recognizing and repenting the evil inherent in believing in the supremacy of society over personality, to the point that it may act as a formidable obstacle to salvation.
Rather than excerpting excellent points from the post, I will focus on a comment Bruce left in response to Laeth:
The fact that "civilization" (i.e. all large scale human societies) can only operate on the basis of denial of uniqueness is an intrinsic evil - something we therefore need to recognize and repent -- even though we cannot - this side of salvation - eliminate it.
Such depersonalized thinking is something that - no doubt - we must be ready to set-aside permanently in ourselves and agree to eliminate forever; in order to want to choose salvation.
Bruce’s mention of depersonalized thinking reminded me of Berdyaev’s insistence on the ultimate significance of what he termed personality, which I equate with the True Self or Primal Self.
In Slavery and Freedom, Berdyaev went to great lengths to explain what personality is and why it is crucial:
The entire world is nothing in comparison with human personality, with the unique person of a man, with his unique fate.
The secret of the existence of personality lies in its absolute irreplaceability, its happening but once, its uniqueness, its incomparability.
As Bruce points out in his post, the uniqueness of each being in Creation is an undeniable reality, yet the operation of civilization/society precludes recognizing this reality, at least in practice.
That civilization/society can only (apparently) function when the uniqueness of personality is denied leads to a pressing and unavoidable choice.
Should the supremacy of society over personality be considered something inherently good or evil?
Bruce lands on the side of considering it an intrinsic evil—a state of affairs that cannot be resolved this side of salvation; however, the fact that it is apparently unresolvable on this side of salvation is not reason enough to declare it good on this side of salvation.
Quite the contrary. As Bruce notes, the supremacy of society over personality is an intrinsic evil that must be recognized as such and repented if we ever hope to set aside and eliminate permanently on the other side of salvation.
Berdyaev also regards the supremacy of society over personality as, at best, a “necessary evil” that poses the risk of being an enslaving force that can, and often does, lead to spiritual death. Unlike most traditional Christian philosophers and theologians, Berdyaev does not consider civilization, society, or even religion itself to be superior to personality.
Personality is a subject, and not an object among other objects, and it has its roots in the inward scheme of existence, that is, in the spiritual world, the world of freedom. Society, on the other hand, is an object.
From the existential point of view, society is a part of personality; it is its social side, just as the cosmos is a part of personality, its cosmic side. Personality is not an object among other objects and not a thing among other things.
It is a subject among subjects, and the turning of it into an object or a thing means death.
A bit later in Slavery and Freedom, Berdyaev states:
Personality is the absolute existential center. Personality determines itself from within, outside the whole object world, and only determination from within and arising out of freedom is personality.
Personality as an existential center presupposes the capacity to feel suffering and joy. Nothing in the object world, nation, state, or society, or social institution, or church, possesses this capacity.
Berdyaev then outlines how and why personality is not defined by its relation to society:
... personality is defined above all not by its relation to society and the cosmos, not by its relation to the world which is enslaved by objectivization, but by its relation to God, and from this hidden and cherished inward relation it draws strength for its free relation to the world and to man.
Nor by external society/civilization obligations:
Personality is bound up with the consciousness of vocation. Every man ought to be conscious of that vocation, which is independent of the extent of his gifts. It is a vocation in an individually unrepeatable form to give an answer to the call of God and to put one's gifts to creative use.
Personality that is conscious of itself listens to the inward voice and obeys that only. It is not submissive to outside voices.
The greatest among men have always listened exclusively to the inward voice and have refused to conform so far as the world is concerned.
For Berdyaev, personality transcends all this-worldly considerations:
Personality in man is not determined by heredity, biology, and society; it is freedom in man, it is the possibility of victory over the world of determination.
Many traditionally/conventionally minded Christians might interpret the above to mean that Berdyaev (and Bruce and I) advocate for solipsism, but Berdyaev dismisses these concerns by stressing the communal aspect of personality:
Personality is communal; it presupposes communion with others and community with others. The profound contradiction and difficulty of human life are due to this communality.
In a nutshell, Berdyaev regards society/civilization in their past and current forms as objectifying forces:
In objectivization, we may find only symbols, but not basic realities. The objective spirit is only a symbol of spirit. The spirit is real. Culture and social life are symbolic. There is never reality in an object: in an object, there is only a symbol of reality. Reality itself is always in the subject....
The idea that reality is social, through and through, top to bottom, is only really “real” through the supremacy of personality over society—through the spiritual communion and relationships established and nurtured by persons through love, not through relations dictating by an objectifying, depersonalizing force that denies the uniqueness of personality as a spiritual and existential center in its own right..
The supremacy of society over personality remains, sadly, at the core of much Christian thinking and provides the basis for reactionary thought. The bulk of such thinking stems from an earlier mode of religious consciousness with assumptions that regarded this-worldly society as part and parcel of the celestial hierarchy and the heavens.
Valuing society over personality is the hallmark of reactionary thinkers like de Maistre and de Bonald, who regarded society organically, as an organism of which a person was merely a part. For de Maistre and de Bonald, a society/civilization that denied personality was inherently good, and they regarded persons hierarchically rather than personally.
Within such assumptions, the body as a whole is worth more than any of its individual parts. Thus, part of the body’s function involved ensuring that all the individual parts were working properly, even when or especially when the uniqueness or personality of the individual parts threatened the whole.
Reaction may have served some positive purpose in the past, but its assertion of the supremacy of society over personality is no longer simply unviable—it may prove to be spiritually lethal. After all, Auguste Comte was a reactionary in his own right. Like de Maistre and de Bonald, Comte also believed in the supremacy of society over personality. The only real difference between the three reactionary thinkers is that Comte favored the establishment of a secular, scientific elite rather than a religious elite to rule over personality.
Believing in the supremacy of society over personality from a Christian perspective entails believing in the rule of an authoritarian God presiding over a hierarchical Creation that denies the uniqueness of its beings and values the hierarchy over such personal uniqueness. It entails believing that heaven is run the way Christendom was run in the Middle Ages.
I do not believe heaven is run that way, even though the world once was. I also do not believe that returning to some Christendom mode of governance would do much to improve things because it would merely be another version of supremacy of society.
Moreover, I believe that any Christian who assumes heaven is run the way Christendom once was may have a difficult time recognizing and repenting the evil inherent in believing in the supremacy of society over personality, to the point that it may act as a formidable obstacle to salvation.
RSS Feed
