1 ) If we define sociology as the scientific discipline of human relationships within organized groups. so it would look that there is no sociology of the neighbour. This survey flows from the amazement engendered by such a statement. It is of import for contemplation to prehend upon this surprise and intensify it into a positive speculation situated between a sociology of human relationships and a divinity of charity. If there is no sociology of the neighbour. possibly a sociology which has recognized its bounds. in confrontation with a divinity of charity. becomes changed in its undertaking. that is to state in its purpose and pretense. If there is no sociology of the neighbour. possibly there is a sociology which starts out from the frontier of the neighbour. ( 1 ) The Level of Astonishment
2 ) First. allow us regenerate our amazement by plunging our contemplation one time more in the freshness of parable and prognostication:
“A certain adult male went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. and fell among stealers. who besides stripped and wounded him… . And it happened that a priest went down the same way… . In similar mode a Levite besides passed by… . But a certain Samaritan being on his journey came near him ; and seeing him. was moved with compassion… . which of these three work forces. in thy sentiment. was neighbor to him that fell among the stealers? ”
3 ) A alone narrative and a inquiry at the terminal. Such is the Biblical nourishment of contemplation and speculation.
4 ) What is at first surprising is that Jesus answers a inquiry with a inquiry. but with a inquiry that has become inverted by agencies of the disciplinary virtuousness of the narrative. The visitant asked: Who is my neighbour? How is my brother related to me? Jesus returns the inquiry in these footings: Which of these work forces has acted like a neighbour?
5 ) The visitant was doing a sociological enquiry refering a certain societal object. a possible sociological class susceptible of definition. observation. and account. Jesus answered that the neighbour is non a societal object but a behaviour in the first individual. Bing a neighbour lies in the wont of doing oneself available. This is why the neighbour is the topic of the narrative: one time upon a clip there was a adult male who became the neighbour of a alien beaten by stealers. The narrative relates a series of events ; a concatenation of unsuccessful brushs and a successful brush. And the narrative of the successful brush turns into a bid: “Go and do similarly. ” The fable has turned the narrative into a form for action.
6 ) Therefore there is no sociology of the neighbour. The scientific discipline of the neighbour is thwarted by the practice of the neighbour. One does non hold a neighbour ; I make myself someone’s neighbour.
7 ) There is still another beginning for our amazement: the point of the fable is that the event of the brush makes one individual present to another. It is striking that the two work forces who do non halt are defined by their societal class: the priest and the Levite. They are themselves a populating parable: the fable of adult male as a societal map. of adult male absorbed by his function. They show that the societal map occupies them to the point of doing them unavailable for the surprise of an brush. In them. the establishment ( the ecclesiastical establishment. to be precise ) bars their entree to the event.
In a manner the Samaritan is besides a class ; but here he is a class for the others. For the pious Jew he is the class of the Stranger ; he does non organize portion of a group. He is the adult male without a yesteryear or reliable traditions ; impure in race and in piousness ; less than a heathen ; a backsliding. He is the class of the n• n-category. He is neither occupied nor preoccupied by dint of being occupied: he is going and is non encumbered by his societal duty. ready to alter his path and invent an unanticipated behaviour. available for brush and the presence of others. The behavior that he invents is the direct relationship of “man to adult male. ” His behavior is of the nature of an event. for it takes topographic point without the mediation of an establishment. Merely as the Samaritan is a individual through his capacity for brush. all his “compassion” is a gesture over and above functions. personages. and maps. It innovates a hyper-sociological mutualness between one individual and another.
8 ) Astonishment is born of parable and is reborn of prognostication: And the Son of adult male shall come in his glory…And he
shall put the sheep on his right and the caprine animals on his left. Then the King shall state to them that shall be on his right: Come. ye blessed of my Father…For I was
hungry. and you gave me to eat ; I was thirsty. and you
gave me to drink… Then shall the merely reply him.
stating: Lord. when did we see thee hungry. and fed thee.
thirsty. and gave thee imbibe? … And the male monarch. answering.
shall state to them: Amons I say to you. every bit long as you did
it to one of the least of my brethren. you did it to me.
Then he shall state to them that shall be on his left… . 2
9 ) The parable related an brush in the present. the prognostication relates an event at the terminal of history which. in retrospect, unfolds the significance of all the brushs in history. For prophecy bears upon and unveils the significance of brushs. brushs similar to those of the Samaritan and the alien overpowered by stealers: To give to eat and to imbibe. to take in the alien. to dress the bare, attention for the sick. and visit those in prison. these are so many basic and simple gestures that are feebly formulated by the societal establishment ; therein adult male is shown to be tormented by restricting state of affairss. socially stripped. reduced to the hurt of the mere human status. The object of this aboriginal behaviour is called one of the “least” the adult male who has no taking function in history.
He is simply the excess supplying the sum of enduring necessary to the magnificence of the true “historic” events. He is the anon. carrier of the train. without whom the great alpinist would neglect to accomplish celebrity. He is the private first category without whom the great generals would lose their shots of mastermind every bit good as their tragic mistakes. He is the labourer making humdrum and insistent work without which the great powers could non build modern industrial equipment. He is the “displaced individual. ” a pure victim of great struggles and great revolutions. The significance of history. at least such as it is deciphered by the histrions themselves. comes through the of import events and work forces. The “least” are all those who are non captured within this significance of history.
But there is another significance that reassembles all the minute encounters left unaccounted for by the history of the greats ; there is another history. a history of Acts of the Apostless. events. personal compassions. woven into the history of constructions. comings. and establishments. But this significance and this history are hidden. That is the point of the prognostication: the “least” were representative of Christ. and neither the merely nor the unfair knew it ; the last twenty-four hours astonishes them: Godhead. when did we see thee hungry and thirsty? 10 ) Therefore the compassion of the Samaritan has a profound. surpassing significance. The practical purpose of the parable–“Go and make likewise”–is all of a sudden illuminated by the theological or instead Christological purpose of the prognostication.
The significance of compassion in the present is inhabited by a transcendent. eschatological significance. 11 ) It may be seen in what sense. so. in what double sense. a sociology of the neighbour is shut out. First. in the sense that the neighbour is the individual manner in which I encounter another. over and above all societal mediation. Second. in the sense that the significance of this brush does non depend on any standard immanent to history and can non be decidedly recognized by the histrions themselves but will be discovered on the last twenty-four hours. like the mode in which I shall hold encountered Christ without cognizing it. ( 2 ) The Level of Reflection
12 ) Having reached this point. where. so it seems. the veracity of scriptural divinity ought to take us. we shall turn back and inquire ourselves what this means for us. here and now. in a universe where the distinction and organisation of societal groups invariably increases. It would look that we do non populate in the universe of the “neighbor” but in that of the “socius. ” The socius is the individual I attain through his societal map ; the relation to the socius is a mediate relation ; it attains adult male in this or that capacity… . Roman jurisprudence. the development of modern political establishments. the administrative experience of big provinces. and the societal organisation of work. non to advert the experience of several universe wars. have bit by bit forged a type of homo relationship which is ever going more extended. complex. and abstract.
It is merely natural that such be the instance ; for the kernel of adult male lies in interrupting off from nature and come ining into the “civil” province. which was propounded in the 18th century. There is nil new or harmful in that. With the visual aspect of adult male comes linguistic communication. tools. and establishments. From this point of view there is no inquiry of an indispensable difference between a alleged natural societal being and an unreal societal being. but lone inquiries of a difference in grade. We have simply become more sensitive to the advancement of societal “mediations” because it has accelerated. Further. the sudden visual aspect of the multitudes in history has provoked a demand for goods. comfort. security. and civilization which. given the present province of personal businesss. requires stiff planning and a societal engineering. Naturally. this may frequently remind us of the anon. and cold organisation of an ground forces out in the field.
13 ) Contemporary adult male besides asks: who is my neighbour?
Is it non necessary for us to come back from amazement to critical uncertainty and to reason that the immediate brush of a adult male. an brush which would do me the neighbour of this concrete adult male. is a myth in comparing to life in society? Is it non the dream of a manner of human relationship other than the existent manner?
14 ) Such a myth refering societal relationships is what gives rise to the two contrary attitudes which we are now traveling to analyze and which it will be necessary to put side by side.
15 ) On the one manus. the subject of the neighbour may nurture a radically anti-modern attitude: the Gospel would wholly reprobate the modern universe ; it would denounce it as a universe without the neighbour. the dehumanised universe of abstract. anon. and distant relationships. Harmonizing to a certain signifier of Christian eschatologism. the universe of the “socius” manifests itself merely in the monstrous associations found in mills. military cantonments. prisons. and concentration cantonments.
From this point of position the dream of the neighbour must seek its representations on the peripheries of history. fall back on little. non-technical and “prophetic” communities. and await the suicide of this universe whose ain self-destruction will incur the wrath of God.
16 ) One must take between the neighbour and the socius. This pick besides pertains. although in an reverse sense. to those work forces who have chosen the function of the socius and who simply see in the fable of the good Samaritan. and in the prognostication of the Last Judgment. manifestations of a backward outlook. They regard the class of the neighbour as outdated. The undistinguished play of the parable would sufficiently demo this: it takes its point of going from a society in upset. a society full of looting.
The rabbi who relates the fabrication does non lift to the criterion of a socio-economic analysis of the causes of the upset ; he sticks to the peculiar and the causeless ; the colourful narrative has a thought-content which remains at the prescientific phase. Consequently. the moral of the narrative leads the compassionate action of merely work forces astray and into a spread order which perpetuates human development. The prolongation of mendicants is non merely the consequence but possibly besides the first presupposition of the Gospel morality of single compassion. For if there were no mendicants what would go of charity?
But we work forces of today are processing toward the twenty-four hours when world. in emerging from its prehistoric culture. will no longer cognize hungriness. thirst. imprisonment. and possibly non even the bad luck of decease. From this point of position. the parable and the prognostication will hold lost all significance. for the work forces of the hereafter will no longer understand the images upon which parable and prognostication are based.
17 ) These two readings agree on one indispensable point: the socius is the adult male of history. the neighbour the adult male of regret. of dreams. and myths.
( 3 ) The Level of Meditation
18 ) The phenomenon of amazement was linked to an stray significance: the brush. the event of the encountering of the neighbour. By taking clasp of this stray significance. contemplation has undertaken an ideological work on it wherein the Event has become a theory of the event. and the brush a warhorse against historical and societal factors. And since the analysis of the socius has been carried out in the same systematic spirit. we have arrived at the false option between the socius and the neighbour. Our speculation must now see in deepness the whole interplay of resistances and interconnectednesss and thereby try to grok the socius and the neighbour together as the two dimensions of the same history. the two faces of the same charity.
IT is with the same emotion that I love my kids and take an active involvement in juvenile delinquency. The first love is intimate and subjective albeit sole ; the 2nd is abstract but has a wider range. I am non discharged of all duty to other kids by merely loving my ain. I can non get away others for although I do non love them as my ain or as persons. still I love them in a certain corporate and statistical mode.
19 ) The chief undertaking of lucubrating a “theology of the neighbour. ” which is the ultimate end of this preparatory survey on the socius and the neighbour. lies in trying from the really get downing to go cognizant of its full range.
By this job of range or scope. I understand the concern to rediscover. or at least invariably to seek out the integrity of purpose underlying the diverseness of my dealingss to others. It is the same charity which gives intending to the societal establishment and to the event of the brush. The barbarous resistance between community and society. between personal and administrative or institutional relationships. can merely be one phase of contemplation. So we shall hold to find why this phase is necessary. indispensable. and ne’er done away with in our human history. But first we must demo to what extent this phase is delusory when it is privileged and cut off from the entire dialectic of the Kingdom of God.
20 ) When I cut down the divinity of the neighbour to a divinity of the brush. I miss the cardinal significance of the Lordship of God over history. It is this theological subject which gives to the subject of charity all the extension and comprehensiveness of which it is capable. We shall soon see that. in return. the subject of charity gives to the subject of the Lordship of God over history its strength and its purpose. For the minute. nevertheless. we must reachieve this extension that destroys a contemplation fascinated by resistances. quandary. and deadlocks.
21 ) The Gospel prepares us in many ways for this recapturing of the range of the subject of charity. It does this by agencies of a speculation on history: besides the representation of the Person. embodied in the good Samaritan. it besides gives us the representation of “Nations. ” that of the “magistrate. ” of “Caesar. ” which refer to the State.
The episode affecting the coin bearing the image of Caesar: “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. ” and the episode of Jesus before Pilate: “You would hold no power over me if it were non given to you from above. ” allow us to comprehend this other signifier of the love of God in the establishment and by agencies of this particular prestigiousness of the establishment that is “authority. ” For authorization. even when it comes from below. as a consequence of elected procedures or otherwise. is in another sense still moved by charity under the signifier of justness: “For the magistrate is God’s curate for thy Good… . governing justly… when he dependably fulfills his responsibility. ” 3 This text does non recommend the spirit of subordination but chiefly the acknowledgment that the relation of “authority” to “fear” is one of the dimensions of charity. the dimension which St. Paul calls justness. Justice is the dynamism of order. and order the signifier of justness. This dialectic of justness and order enters in bend into the great dialectic of history which is moved by the charity of God.
22 ) It is of the nature of this dialectic to look broken. The figure of the neighbour as individual and the figure of the neighbour as magistrate ( for Caesar is besides my neighbour ) are two partial and nonreversible representations of the authorities of history by charity.
23 ) Hence. the growing of the Kingdom of God develops amid the agony of contradictions: in our single and corporate lives. there is a ageless argument between “direct” or person-to-person relationships and “indirect” relationships within the context of establishments. This argument is one facet of this historical agony.
24 ) This is what is non understood by the “reactionary” reading of the relationships between the socius and the neighbour. When the subject of the neighbour is cut off from the societal context wherein it finds its historical impact. it turns to sterile sorrow and becomes the victim of some atrocious leaning for revenging catastrophe. It is much more necessary to stay attentive to the historical range of charity and to spot the whole wealth of the dialectic of the socius and the neighbour. At times the personal relationship to the neighbour passes through the relationship to the socius ; sometimes it is elaborated on the peripheries of it ; and at other times it rises up against the relationship to the socius.
25 ) Indeed. really frequently the indirect path via the establishment is the normal procedure of friendly relationship ; letters. agencies of transit. and all the techniques used in human relationships bring work forces together. In a broader sense. distributive justness with all its jurisdictional variety meats and administrative setup is the privileged manner of charity: the event of the brush is fliting and fragile. Equally shortly as it is consolidated into a lasting and stable relationship. it is already an establishment. There are really few pure events. and they can non be retained nor even calculate and organized without a minimal grade of institutionalization. We must take our analysis one measure further.
The object of charity rather frequently appears merely when I attain. in the other adult male. a c• omon status which takes on the signifier of a corporate bad luck: rewards. colonial development. racial favoritism. Then my neighbour is concrete in the plural and abstract in the singular: charity reaches its object merely by encompassing a certain agony organic structure. This is something that the Grecian Fathers had frequently recognized. St. Gregory. in peculiar. looks upon work forces as a “we” and humanity as a “pleroma. ” Therefore it is non necessary to envelop oneself within the missive of the fable of the good Samaritan. nor to enforce upon it a personalist anarchism. The fable does non alleviate me of the duty of replying this inquiry: what does the construct of “neighbor” mean in the present state of affairs? This may be to warrant an establishment. amend an establishment. or knock an establishment.
26 ) At other times. it is true. the relationship to the neighbour is worked out merely marginally. that is to state in the interstices of the relationships to the socius. This is mostly the significance of the “private” as opposed to the “public” or the “social. ” every bit good as the significance of “leisure” as opposed to “work. ” It is besides true that in a universe where work is more and more divided. and in this sense more abstract. we are forced to look outside of the context of work and societal duties for the heat and familiarity of reliable personal exchanges and existent brushs. Hence. we look to the private kingdom for what we can non happen in the societal kingdom. This is true. But the connexion between the private and the public kingdom all the better stresses the relationship between the neighbour and the socius. Indeed. there is no private life unless it is protected by a public order.
The household place has no familiarity unless shielded by legality. a province of peaceableness based on jurisprudence and force. and in ownership of a lower limit of comfort which is assured by the division of labour. commercial exchanges. societal justness. and civic rights. The abstract is what protects the concrete. the societal establishes the private. Therefore. it is illusive to seek to alter all human relationships into a sort of Communion. Love and friendly relationship are rare relationships which jumping up within the context of more abstract and anon. relationships. These relationships are more extended than intensive and constitute in some manner the societal cloth of the more intimate exchanges of private live.
27 ) The resistance of the neighbour to the socius is hence merely one of the possibilities of the historical dialectic of charity. It may be the most dramatic and dramatic possibility. but it is non the most meaningful one.
28 ) It is now possible to talk of the unreplaceable significance of all these dissentious state of affairss which “eschatologism” isolates and which “progressivism” misunderstands.
29 ) There is an built-in immorality in the establishment. taking this universe in its most general sense and understanding thereby all the organized societal signifiers which are the proper object of sociology. It is the immorality of “objectification” found in all signifiers of organisation. Within the division of labour it takes the elusive signifier of the unhappiness and ennui which bit by bit work their manner into the most “fragmented” and humdrum undertakings of industrial labour when it is really specialised. One might state that the backbreaking labour which in past times was associated with physical conveyance and with unsafe and unhealthy work is now found in a psychic defeat which is more insidious than physical hurting.
On the other manus. the complex machinery of distributive justness and of societal security are frequently imbued with an inhumane outlook because of their namelessness. as if the huge administering of things to work forces were stamped with a foreign and cancerous passion. the passion of an abstract disposal. Last. every establishment tends to develop the passions for power in work forces who dispose of s• me signifier of equipment ( stuff or societal ) . Whenever an oligarchy is established. be it technocratical. political. military. or ecclesiastical. it tends to do this equipment a agency of domination and non one of service. We see these passions spring up every twenty-four hours right under our eyes. and there is no demand to name the great perversions of powerful oligarchies. Within the centre of the most peaceable and harmless establishments lies the animal. stubbornness. the inclination to tyrannise the populace. and the abstract justness of bureaucratism.
30 ) The subject of the neighbour is chiefly an entreaty to the waking up of consciousness. It would be absurd to reprobate machines. technocracy. administrative setup. societal security. etc. Technical processs and. in general. all “technicity. ” have the artlessness of the instrument. The construct of the neighbour is an invitation to locate immorality within the specific passions that are connected to the human employment of instruments. It is an invitation to interrupt manner from the old doctrines of nature and to originate a strictly internal review of man’s “artificial” being. The frailty of the societal being of modern adult male does non lie in being against nature ; what is missing is non naturalness. but charity.
Consequently. unfavorable judgment goes wholly astray when it attacks the giantism of industrial. societal. or political machinery. as if there were a “human scale” inscribed within man’s nature. This was the semblance of the Greeks who attached the stigma of blameworthiness to the colza of nature ( Xerxes crossing a span across the Bosporus. enforcing “a yoke on the sea” and piercing Mount Athos. as is witnessed in Aeschylus’ Persians ) . We are in demand of a review other than this thought of Greek “measure” which opposes the great planning researches of modern societal life. Man’s proficient. societal. and political experience can non be limited in its extension. for the subject of the neighbour does non reprobate any horizontal extravagancy or growing in these countries. If a peculiar organisation has overextended itself. this is an mistake and non a mistake within the ethical kingdom.
In this case. what is called for is a strictly matter-of-fact review of the advantages and disadvantages of giantism. The optimal dimension of an endeavor. of a complex industry. a sector of province planning. a political entity. etc. . has to make with strictly “technical” standards. non “ethical” criterions. The subject of the neighbour instead condemns a perpendicular extravagancy. that is. the inclination of societal beings to absorb and wash up at their peculiar degree the whole problematic of human relationships. The extravagancy of the societal kingdom as such prevarications in what we earlier called “the objectification” of adult male within the abstract and anon. relationships of economic. societal. and political life. The societal kingdom tends to barricade entree to the personal and to conceal the enigma of interhuman relationships. to dissimulate the motion of charity behind which stands the Son of Man.
31 ) Therefore the deepness of human relationships frequently appears merely through the failures within the societal kingdom: there is a technocratic or institutional sleep. in the sense in which Kant radius of a dogmatic sleep. from which adult male is awakened merely when he is socially stripped. be it by war. revolution. or great historical catastrophes. When these occur. there arises the unsettling presence of adult male to adult male. Indeed. the glorification of such ruptures prevarications in their giving rise to new types of establishments. Thus the speculations of the Stoic sage. and those of the first Christians on adult male as a citizen of the universe have been both the consequence of a certain incohesiveness of the political consciousness after the failure of the Greek metropolis. and the cause of a widening of historical position: the resistance between the citizen and the slave. between the Hellene and the savage. the metropolis and the folk. is upset by Christian brotherhood and the secular citizenship of Stoicism. And this disconcerting permits a new revolution of the societal bond and its stabilisation at a new degree in mediaeval Christendom.
32 ) The subject of the neighbour hence effects the lasting review of the societal bond: in comparing to love of neighbour. the societal bond is ne’er as profound or as comprehensive. It is ne’er every bit profound because societal mediations will ne’er go the equivalent of brush or immediate presence. It is ne’er every bit comprehensive because the group merely asserts itself against another group and shuts itself off from others. The neighbour fulfills the double demand of closeness and distance. Such was the Samaritan: nigh because he approached. distant because he remained the non-Judaean who one twenty-four hours picked up an injured alien along the main road.
33 ) We must ne’er lose sight. nevertheless. of the fact that personal relationships are besides the victim of passions. possibly the most ferocious. dissimulated. and punic of all passions. After all. what have three centuries of businessperson civilisation made of the construct of charity? Charity may be nil more than an alibi for justness. And so the protest of the “private” against the “social” is ne’er wholly guiltless. The “private” has its ain peculiar immorality when it opposes itself to the “social” and reprobate its abstraction and namelessness. True charity is frequently scoffed at double by inhumane “justice” and by hypocritical “charity. ” The dialectic of the neighbour and the socius is all the more kinky in so far as relationships to others. under one signifier or another. are themselves more corrupted. Therefore. all that we truly possess are the tattered pieces of true charity.
34 ) Has our speculation retained something of our initial province of amazement? I believe so. The neighbour. we said. is characterized by the personal mode in which he encounters another independently of any societal mediation. The significance of the brush does non come from any standard immanent to history. This was our get downing point and now we shall return to it.
35 ) The ultimate significance of establishments is the service which they render to individuals. If no 1 draws net income from them they are useless. But this ultimate significance remains concealed. No 1 can measure the personal benefits produced by establishments ; charity is non needfully present wherever it is exhibited ; it is besides hidden in the low. abstract services performed by station offices and societal security functionaries ; rather frequently it is the concealed significance of the societal kingdom. It seems to me that the eschatological Judgment means that we “shall be judged” on what we have done to individuals. even without cognizing it. by moving through the media of the most abstract establishments. and that it is finally the impact of our love on single individuals which will be judged. That is what remains amazing. For we do non cognize when we influence individuals. We may believe we have exercised this immediate love within direct relationships between adult male and adult male. whereas our
charity was frequently merely a signifier of exhibitionism. Likewise. we may believe we have no influence on individuals in the indirect relationships of work. political relations. etc. . and possibly here excessively we are deluded. The standard of human relationships consists in cognizing whether we influence people. But we have neither the right nor the power to use this standard. In peculiar. we do non hold the right to use the eschatological standard as a procedure enabling us to favor direct relationships at the disbursal of indirect and abstract relationships. For in world. through them we besides exercise a sort of charity with respect to individuals. But we are non needfully cognizant of this. Therefore so long as the sociological head covering has non fallen. we remain within history. that is. within the argument between the socius and the neighbour. without cognizing whether charity is here or at that place.
36 ) We must, therefore, state that history, with its dialectic of the neighbour and the socius, supports the range of charity. But in the last analysis, it is charity which governs the relationship to the socius and the relationship to the neighbour, giving them a common purpose. For the divinity of charity could non hold less extension than the divinity of history.
But in the last analysis, it is charity which governs the relationship to the socius and the relationship to the neighbour, giving them a common purpose. For the divinity of charity could non hold less extension than the divinity of history.