Socius and the Neighbor Notes

SOCIUS AND THE NEIGHBOR A. Definition/Comparison SOCIUS  human relationship that you have with an organized group or the person that you can encounter through his/her social function  has a social function 

Approach: works their charity in a direct manner, through a man-toman relationship with others



love

NEIGHBOR  the personal way that you can encounter another as a person, the interpersonal, with varying degrees of intimacy  real attitude of a person and has no social function  in an indirect manner. They can be of the same charity when they work at the same time. Charity must come hand in hand with justice.  justice

B. Application: The Parable “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves, who also stripped and wounded him... and it happened that a priest went down the same way… in like manner a Levite also passed by… but a certain Samaritan being on his journey came near him: and seeing him, was moved with compassion. Which of these three men, in thy opinion, was neighbor to him that fell among the thieves?” (Luke 10:3037) Visitor: Who is my neighbor? How is my brother related to me? Jesus: Which of these men acted like a neighbor? Jesus answered a question with a question, but with a question that has become inverted by means of the corrective virtue of the narrative. Visitor: making a sociological inquiry concerning a certain social object. Definition, observation, explanation. Jesus: neighbor is not a social object but a behavior in the first person. Being a neighbor lies in the habit of making oneself available. “I make myself someone’s neighbor.” In relation to the biblical passage: 

PRIEST and LEVITE o Two men who did not stop

o o o o o 

Defined by their social category Living parable: man as a social function, absorbed in his role Social function occupies them to the point of making unavailable for the surprise of an encounter (neighbor) Institution bars them to open up themselves Refers to categories

SAMARITAN o The man who stopped o Does not form part of a group o Not burdened by his social responsibility o Available for encounter and the presence of others o Direct relationship: man to man o Conduct takes place without mediation of an institution

Who is my neighbor?  

Implied here in the lawyer’s question – desire to hear that not everyone is his neighbor not everyone deserves my charity

 

Jesus response: indirect – in a form of a question Not the one who needs help, but the one who provides it Samaritan proves himself neighborly

-

But there is a problem – we are defined by our roles in society Teacher, student, constituent, taxpayer, voter, rather than a person. Why there is no sociology of a neighbor? 1. Neighbor is the personal way which I encounter another, over and above all social mediation. 2. Significance of this encounter does not depend on any criterion immanent to history.

“Go and do likewise” 

Bible advocates charity: Whatever you do to the least your brothers you do it unto me. o The least are representatives of Christ. o Theological/Christological intention of prophecy

Ricoeur’s modern response to the command “Go and do likewise” 

   

We cannot simply act like the Samaritan did. Those who help the (apparently) stranded by the side of life’s road do so at great risk to their own safety and well-being, and encourage exploitation of benevolence. However, as time passes by, the society gets complicated in terms of relationships and social institutions. Culture aren’t the same yesterday and today. There has to be a balance. Today: society in disorder, society full of plundering.

C. Focus

The focus of this course, as such, will be Ricœur's ethical thought. We will see how he visits the theme of Responsibility of the self, who is considered in relation to another person and involved in particular institutions. It attempts to understand being-with-others-in society. Our life is social in everything. By “everything” we mean everything that is subject to human responsibility. The change from representable solidarity to unrepresentable solidarity—the individual person is coresponsible for all other individual persons ‘in’ the collective person not only as the representative of an office, rank, or any position in social structure but also as unique personal individual and as bearer of individual conscience. D. Socius and neighbor interwined?

1. neighbor relationship via socius     

a social structure or institution may have been the reason why a person comes to my life and becomes my friend (PASSES THROUGH THE SOCIUS RELATIONSHIP) Meeting a close friend via the school, meeting future wife via office my experience with others develops from a condition and function into a higher level of relation that is free from condition and so-to-say from having strings attached has always the potentiality of transcending into a deeper neighbor kind of relationship does not depend on status and function of a person or group.

2. Neighbor within the fringes of the socius  

the relationship between persons or group depends only to their status and function does not tend to develop more than from being connected through functions and institutions



Ex. 2 - classmate-classmate relationship o could be possible without the growth from being a classmate to a friend relationship. o Person’s intention – study o But because of school - came to develop friendships with the most unexpected people o School: didn’t really have that in purpose, but then, unintentionally, the school gave way to us to interact with them. o person decides if he will treat his classmate as mere classmate until the end without having the intention of building a relationship of friendship and brotherhood o status-based and conditional type of relationship. 3. neighbor relationship rises up against the socius relationship o Even the relationship works out in the fringes of the socius, the relationship of the neighbor could still be against the socius in some instance. o corruption issue o student rallyists and adult activists, able to gather, interact, and rise up against a “common enemy,” o If Fr. President will corrupt - will not follow blind obedience and tolerance as long as I have the right and capability to object against unbecoming actions of the president. o would give importance to the relationship of being a neighbor even though it rises against the relationship of the socius. E. Socius and Neighbor – Two Faces of the Same Charity o Socius and neighbor: distinct but interconnected o They make the society alive, humane and in order. o o o o

they can be as ONE to help us to be "FULLY HUMAN". two faces of the same charity my own neighbor might be more dear, but this does not release me from responsibility to all other children. different approaches

o

The neighbor is whom we knew to be the primary mover of such charity, we thought that they are the only one who is capable or who possessed this deed. But we also have to consider that the socius also had their own face of charity and we can see this through their institutions.

o Socius is not negative unless and until it is going over from what is right and just – taking advantage, misuse of authority, and the like. o neighbor relationship is more than just treating the other as a subject. It has to go beyond than that and is a continuing event. o Too much neighbor - may lead us to being too other centered and make us people pleasers o choice and balance o Too much socius - makes us too impersonal when it comes to relating to other people The theme of the neighbor: primarily an appeal to the awakening of consciousness  absurdity of condemning machines, technocracy, administrative apparatus, social security and others.  All technicity has the innocence of the instrument.  The vice of the social existence of modern man does not lie in being against nature: what is lacking is not naturalness, but charity  Condemns a vertical extravagance, tendency of social organisms to absorb and exhaust at their particular level the whole problematic of human relationships. The theme of the neighbor: permanent critique of social bond. o Compared to love of neighbor, social bond is:  never as profound o social mediations will never become equivalent of encounter or immediate presence  or never as comprehensive o group only declares itself against another group and shuts itself off from others Responsibility  

The ultimate meaning of institutions is the service which they render to persons. Responsibility - key to the link between love and justice--two seemingly contrasting values--and consequently between justice and truth.





Justice is genuine only if inspired by a non-partisan interest, if it is a beginning love conceived as responsibility. o For there can be as much love "hidden in the humble abstract services performed by post office and social security officials" as between friends and intimate persons; the "ultimate meaning of institutions is the service which they render to persons.” Love can easily become false charity if the service rendered does not answer to the real demand of justice, or is made an alibi for a lack of justice. o Justice is the minimum of love, and love the maximum of justice. The minimum demanded in justice is the basic dignity of the human person which love enhances. o Justice and love then have a common root in responsibility. o inhumane justice vs. hypocritical charity o charity can be exhibitionism o

The dignity of the human person in turn provides the link of justice to truth. Justice and truth (and love) are grounded on the value of the human person as sacred and inviolable. Truth as a value is a call to bear witness to some light, a vocation to shed light on what is revealed. Insofar as man as man is given the word, he shares in the sacredness of this revelation and the response-ability to bear witness to it. To refuse to testify is to do injustice not only to others in the community, but also, and worse, to oneself. Conclusion It is charity which governs the relationship to the socius and the relationship to the neighbor, giving them a common intention.