PREFACE

In retrospect, it appears that the constant, pervasive theme of the last half century has been the progressive discovery and emancipation of the person in society.

In the 1940s World War II constituted an unprecedented human effort to break free from the repressive, depersonalizing and dehumanizing forces of Fascism.

In the 1950s this was followed by an end to subordinate colonial status for other parts of the world.

In the 1960s Vatican II's reformulation in terms of the person of the self-understanding of the church was followed by an analogous, if more raucous, call for reshaping society by the students and workers in the streets of Paris.

The 1970s were characterized by the call for civil and minority rights and by a pervasive effort to expand participation in decision-making--whether in school, church, government or industry.

The 1980s concluded in Central and Eastern Europe with a velvet revolution which matched the overthrow of totalitarian Fascism by a dramatic rejection of communism.

To achieve a deeper understanding of this dynamism of our times with a view to rediscovering the nature and place of the person in society and to making it possible creatively to rebuild social life for the XXIst century, a cross-cultural and interdisciplinary team of scholars joined in an extended project of cooperative research. The present volume is the result of their work.

To develop a vision of the place of the person in future social life required four steps which constitute the four parts of this volume. The first looks at the notion of the person (Part I), followed by studies on the problem of the place the person in society (Part II). These two sections constitute an analysis of the the person-society problem in our time. To respond it is necessary to uncover the experience of the multiple cultural traditions and their resources of humane understanding (Part III), and to bring these forward for the task of social reconstruction (Part IV).

Part I, concerning the person, it begins with a study by G. McLean which analyzes the evolution of the notion of person through time from that of a particular role to that of a self-conscious and free subject. The person is seen as developing through a process coordination of values and virtues in a life that is correlatively and indivisibly both personal and communitary. G. Nodia shows how this process has received vital coordinates and impetus from modern enlightenment values and relates the present dilemma to the failure of philosophy adequately to ground and integrate these. This points to the need both for a deeper personal center and for a correlative absolute or transcendent; both of these must be protected from being discounted or reduced through human limitations. J. Anderson focuses upon the recent dilemmas of the contemporary mind as it searches adequately to conceptualize the related forms and structure, and shows how these very dilemmas point to the deeper reality of the person as unique and free.

Part II which concerns the relation of person and society begins with J. Kromkowski's statement of the present challenge, namely, how to recover from the consequences of the privatization of life suggested by Voltaire in his acerbic critique of all social institutions and forms. Is it possible to keep such new sensibility to personal freedom from becoming self-centered and even solipsistic? R. Graham suggests a positive response by examining cross-cultural studies of personal development. These show person and development to be oriented essentially beyond an earlier mere avoidance of personal reprimand and pain, through a sense of equality or fairness in social interchange, to an open and creative pattern of social concern predicated upon transcending values and principles. This overall process can be described as the personal assimilation and redefinition of the social values of one's culture.

There are, however, serious problems in this relation of person to society, as is pointed out by the following three chapters. The first by P. Peachey shows how modern sociological thought, reflecting broader sensibilities, has tended to substitute the more subtle communitary sense of the person by a rather abstract, formal and rigid sense of social structure, thereby transforming an open and creative self into a closed and empty ego. He suggests that the real sense of person lies precisely in its openness to the transcendent in terms of which the self precedes even its own self-consciousness. This is illustrated in two critiques of the ideologies of this half century. B. Kuzmickas, presently Second Vice President of Lithuania, shows the oppressive character of a Marxian ideological society, pointing thereby to the priority of personality as value oriented and free over role, of person over citizen, and of society over state. S. Schneck analyzes M. Scheler's critique of the formalistic character of liberalism reducing persons to individuals whose motivation is limited to needs and utility.

From this there emerges the depth of the contemporary crises, namely, that in the present half century as the importance of the person has come to be felt more acutely the enlightenment mode of scientific clarification and the resulting technically rationalized structures of society have progressively eroded the very reality of the person, eviscerating personal life itself. Indeed, it is perhaps more true to say that it is this evisceration which, by brutal negation, has made manifest the radical importance of the personal life it has destroyed. Paul Tillich would describe this as a borderline situation similar to that in war time when a bombardment, having eliminated sports, business and art by forcing the person to confront the basic fact of life opens attention to the previously obscured question of the radical meaning of human life and meaning. From this emerges the need to rediscover a sense of the person which is not a mere function of society but a being in one's own right, essentially, open responsive and creative in relation to one's environing nature and community of persons. This points to a double search: toward the past and toward the future.

Part III looks for the contribution which tradition can make. If as a person I am truly open to society then I can expect that the tradition, which has emerged from the experience of society over the ages, will have something to say to me about what it is to be a person in community. How this can be understood, drawn upon and applied in our day is the subject of the study of hermeneutics and tradition by G. McLean.

The following three studies concern the concrete sense of person and community in African cultures. The first, by I.M. Onyeocha reflects the deep sense of frustration generated by the destructive impact of colonialism on a people and their social interaction. The paper of Atomate Epas-Ngan looks richly into the communitary character of African culture with the expectation that this can be realized in modern form through evolving African socialist political structures. Valuing the tradition no less, K. Wambari holds a more sober assessment of present structures, seeing liberation as having achieved thus far only national freedom and statehood. Future progress will depend upon the emergence of a stronger sense of the person while retaining its sense of being as active member of the community.

The Chinese tradition, as presented by Yang Fenggang, shows considerable tension between the classical Confucian, Daoist and Buddhist traditions with their emphasis upon harmony on the one hand, and on the other, efforts since 1911 toward liberation. The reconciliation of freedom with responsibility in theory and practice constitutes a central continuing challenge. The study of Turkish culture by O. Bilen manifests something of the same dilemma. This is illustrated by the impact of modern transformation upon the self-understanding and the social perception of the role of the intellectual as keeper of the tradition.

From Part III two things become apparent. The first is that the tradition has rich, essential and indeed indispensable resources regarding the dignity and social character of the person which are essential for any response to the contemporary problems of person and society seen in Part II. The second is the extent of the challenge involved in translating these cultural resources into terms which are viable and creative for our times.

The response to that challenge is the focus of Part IV. The effort there has three steps. The first is to attempt to build the relation between person and society not simply upon abstract principles or common ideals, but upon the mutual engagement to which persons are called in their life in the physical world, namely, upon labor. This is studied by two authors: A Davidov, presently Vice President of the dissident Socialist Party of Bulgaria, builds upon the humanist phase of Marx; John Farrelly of De Salles School of Theology draws upon the Encyclical Laborem Exercens of Pope John Paul II. That is perhaps most surprising is the degree of convergence between the two. Both stress the importance of founding the life of the person in his or her engagement in transforming their environment, and both show how this is essentially a social action. In this way both attempt to bridge the division of person and society which would make one of these either of first and the other second. The person is essentially social because as body and mind the person is one who sustains him or herself by work. This is the concrete realization of their sociality. Work then is a process of humanization and in this light property and its uses receive their proper destiny.

The difficulty comes, of course, when the national ideal of efficiency overshadows the personal and social character of work, or when management by state or private industry becomes exploitive and destructive of the environment, the physical life, the human dignity or the social freedom of the persons and societies involved. The papers of Nodia and Kuzmickas spoke strongly to the destructive reality of this threat. By opening the horizons in ways that transcend what man can do to man the paper of J. Farrelly provided foundations for human dignity and for the requisite social interaction in order that labor be able to exercise its truly humanizing role. The sobering paper of D. Hoge shows, however, that the tradition of scriptural texts alone cannot fulfill this function. Indeed, their literal reading can and has been used as justification for attacking and suppressing nature. It is important then that the tradition be read creatively, that new and even more enlightened question be asked and that its deeper sense be plummed and unfolded in new ways. This work was described in Chapter I by G. McLean regarding the application of tradition. What has been discovered and roundly affirmed in the past must live in new ways in our day as a basis for human progress.

The second step in Part IV is to consider how this sense of persona nd society can be articulated for the actual development of the person. This is a matter of education and the paper of A. Carandang provides an overall schema for integrating the multiple dimensions to be considered. But if education requires a theoretical understanding of the person, it is above all a challenging social process. The study by T. Ready looks at this challenge at one of its most extreme points, namely, the education of children who come recently from another culture, often are economically disadvantaged and who must establish some stable basis for learning and growing in a new environment often without the support of their traditional extended family. His work of isolating the factors of successful education under these extreme conditions identifies as well the key factors for the relation: person-society.

The third step in Part IV is to take the experience of this relation beyond the school to the international community. The study by P. Murray in the laboratory situation constituted by the development of an international agency (FAO) makes it possible to distinguish different dimensions of the relation: person-society and to identify their proper characteristics. On the one hand, the persons in the agency need to work in terms of rational, legal structures which are technical in character and to function impersonally. On the other hand, they need to employ all the riches of their own personal heritage, with its cultural and religious resources, in order to make the structures work as modes of engaging and coordinating persons for social rather than merely selfish goals.

From this there emerges a multilevel topography of the requirements of effective social cooperation at a high level of international and intercultural collaboration. The technical and impersonal structures were found to function only when suffused by the humanizing and enlivening content of the multiple cultural traditions. Rather than being impediments to the rationalization of human interaction, cultural traditions appear to bring to life and fruition what would otherwise be deadening bureaucratic structure. In some, what is most deeply personal becomes the keys, rather than obstacles, to social collaboration.

In conclusion, J. Donders works through and beyond the dilemmas of modern scientific theory. His resulting sense of transcendence turns out in its basis to be not about an absolute Other, but about ourselves: as trinitarian theology becomes high anthropology. The ordering and interrelations of persons turns out to be more deeply a koinonia or permanent process of active reciprocity. Rather than an hierarchical ordering of persons, this emerges as a perichoresis, a `carol' or circle-dance, in which persons and societies are destined to relate and thereby to find their real selves--to live and to live more fully.

The task is not completed. The last fifty years appear to have removed many oppressive barriers to personal and social life, and the task of reconstructing these in new ways lies ahead. This volume has identified the project and the resources; it has pointed to multiple levels at which the processes of renewing the life of person and society are underway. It is intended as a contribution to the great work of human reconstruction that lies ahead.