DWMS FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY

THE SOCIUS AND THE NEIGHBOR:

“MY AUTHENTIC RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS”

______________________

A Term Paper

Presented to the

Faculty of Philosophy

Divine Word Mission Seminary

Quezon City

______________________

In Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirement on

Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur

______________________

Rev. Fr. Felix Baghi, SVD, Ph.D.

Professor

______________________

Rian Vincent A. Nebab

March 5, 2018
I. Introduction
 DWMS FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY

Paul Ricoeur is one of the most distinguished philosopher when we talk about Philosophy
of Hermeneutics. His main query or philosophical theme: the meaning of life. This query finds
its way to view man as a subject and never as a means. Indeed, many great Philosophers would
argue that when man relates himself to others, he must do it by means of building up mutual
relation with the people around him. Immanuel Kant in his notion of categorical imperative,
suggests that, “you should act according to the maxim of your will but at the same time it would
become universal law.” This means that we should act morally to the extent that I will be
acknowledged as a universal moral law, like, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc… These
kinds of treatments or also known as the 7 corporal works of mercy can be distinguished as the
highest form of charity. Nonetheless, Ricoeur is not fully satisfied with this form of charity and
he may argue that those who can keep up with this charitable works are only for those who are
wealthy, those who have labels in the society. Even though, there are institutions like orphanages
that take care of the homeless children, one may argue that what they give to those who are in
need comes from donations which is usually given by the wealthy people of society. This abrupt
and common experiences could be modified by intensive study of Ricoeur which connotes a
large amount of time to have a better view of authentic relationship with others disregarding the
labels and statuses that lives up until now. He presented the notion of the neighbor which
surpasses the social functions because he believes that as a man that dwells in the world must be
aware that he become fully human by relating himself with the others in an unconditional way of
caring.

Ricoeur’s book “history and truth” is endowed with complex arguments, and technical
use of terms are so difficult to decipher. The naiveté of the new reader makes it hard to grasp and
understand Ricoeur’s manuscripts, those who are new to him have to reread the pages many
times in order to have a better understanding and insight to ponder on. This paper limits itself on
Ricoeur’s notion of the “socius and the neighbor” to have a clear view on the said topic. The
writer’s reference will only be Ricoeur’s book, titled, History and Truth so that he will not be
confused and bewildered. Entertaining other books beside this on-hand book is difficult for the
writer because it would consume his time and other requirements would be cut on the picture.
Needless to say, this book is enough to ponder on and the result of reflection would be
 DWMS FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY

intensified through his own experiences and world views about relating himself to other people.
This notion of Ricoeur would help us to be fully human in a sense that we become fully aware of
the others and act in accordance with our conscience.

According to Aristotle, “men by nature are political being.” Human relates themselves to
the things outside them. This relationship was build due to man’s craving for social affirmation,
in a sense that he dwells in a world wherein he encounters other human beings. This encounter is
a mundane experience; where ever man goes, he always finds someone or some people who
walks alongside with him. Although he does not know that person but out of respect, he should
treat him the way that he takes care of himself because it is the right or just thing to do. To do
what is just to others is to protect and respect his dignity. This dignity is inherent to all people
because men by nature are searching for the meaning of his own existence which is to live a
worthy life. But what does it mean to live with others? What are the actions must be done
towards the others? In order to have an authentic answer, let us look on the parable of the good
Samaritan which Ricoeur explains explicitly. He shows that we must treat each other with equal
treatment no matter what our social status is. To have a better understanding, there is a need to
examine the parable meticulously.

It is about a traveler who is stripped of clothing, beaten, and left

half dead alongside the road. First a priest and then a Levite comes
by, but both avoid the man. Finally, a Samaritan happens upon the
traveler. Samaritans and Jews generally despised each other, but
the Samaritan helps the injured man. Jesus is described as telling
the parable in response to the question from a lawyer, "And who is
my neighbor?"1

This parable allows us to deliberate intimately on the event because nowadays the same situation
is rampant. Although it is not literally similar, but the event takes place in various forms and our
approach must be similar to the treatment given by the Samaritan. The question: “Who is my
neighbor?” depicts about man’s insensitivity and carelessness towards other people. This
question is alluded in the discussion of Ricoeur that there are two kinds of charity that can be
seen in the socius and neighbor. Before expanding the argument, the writer wants to emphasize
1

Luke 10: 25- 37

 DWMS FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY

that there are differences between the two, and the one that is authentic in its own way is the
notion of the neighbor. Ricoeur asserts that man is in a situation wherein he must practice the
moral virtues that he learned from his home, tradition, and school wherein his knowledge of
knowing the good and avoiding the evil is enhanced. Man learned how to express his feelings
through communication, and this learning paved the way on how he reveals himself to others.

In queue with Ricoeur, he presented two ways of relationship with others, namely, the
socius and the neighbor. Riceour asserts that man has multi-faceted identity. One aspect of our
individuality doesn’t change or is stable and the other one is bound to change, which therefore
makes man identity constructive. Thus, the essential factor to have an authentic relationship with
others is to know thy self intensely. Indeed, in our subject course philosophy of Paul Ricoeur, we
discussed the concept of the self. It was stated that, “Humanity is not a given reality, but it is a
project or possibility of meaning that each of us constantly undertake.” Meaning, man is never
fully complete, and the life of a man is a journey towards becoming because man as thrown in
the world was born meaningless and he fully participates in the project of building a city wherein
the concept of egoism is removed. Man’s journey towards the possibility always conveys the
drastic reality: the joy of the yes and the sadness of the finite. This drastic reality is constituted in
two ideas, namely, one is freedom that is equivalent to “the joy of the yes,” and the other one is
the reality of being finitude which is equivalent to “the sadness of finite.” After having a
rigorous study of one’s self, man now can extend himself to enter a relationship with others
because there is an assurance that he can be a great conductor of building a mutuality with the
others. This sociological study of Ricoeur contributes to the query of human relationship and
promotes the idea of sociology of the neighbor which he believes that it is thwarted by the praxis
of neighbor, that someone makes himself a neighbor to the other.2

II. The Socius

Paul Ricoeur, History and Truth, trans. Charles A. Kelbley (Evanston: Northwestern University Press,
1965), 99.
 DWMS FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY

In accord with the parable of the good Samaritan, “it is striking that the two men who do
not stop are defined by their social category: the priest and the Levite.” 3 Their social function
disregarded their relationship to the one who was beaten because they need to attend to their own
business putting a blindfold just to take another path. If we look deeper on it, we may find it
absurd because when we let our conscience act, it is more important to take care first of the
beaten Jew before anything else. Thus, this prospect prompts man to ask the question: spite of
their social status, why they did not help the beaten Jew? In regards with what Ricoeur
assimilates that when charity takes place, the division between man and other man are negated in
a sense that it conveys his absolute consciousness that charity is beyond phenomena and leads to
the favor of the Transcendent, which is the omnibenevolent God. According to him, Socius is the
human relationship that you have with an organized group or the person that you can encounter
through his social function.4 This is kind of relationship is the idea that man acts in accord to his
label in the society and because of his position, he is obliged to comply to the description of his
position thus, amounting to social function. For a better understanding, let us look on this
example, I relate myself to Bro. Romy because he is one of the most sought professor of our
prestigious school and at the same time, our Dean of studies. Bro. Romy, as a dean, I acquaint
myself to him and make a relationship out of it. Thus, I relate to him based on his function and
status in our school. In summary, his function as the dean is the mediate relationship I have with
him. Putting it to Ricoeur’s words, Bro. Romy cannot escape others, for although he doesn’t
know me fully, still he relates himself in a “certain collective and statistical manner.5

The Socius cannot escape his responsibility to function accordingly because he has a duty
to fulfill. For Ricoeur, this relationship is the lower kind of relationship that man has because to
become socius have different category of charity, and we can see this through their institution.
Institution was formed by a group of people and their function is to render service to the people
and build a relationship around them. Thus, the obesity of social function lies an inherent evil. 6
3

Ibid.
4

Ibid., 101.
5

Ibid., 103.
6

Ibid., 106.
 DWMS FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY

The organized social form objectifies the activity of labor which could mean that the laborer is
treated as simply a means to reach the objective of the institution. This evil that can be found in
social institution has the tendency to reign tyranny to the public and would disregard the Human
rights of a person. A dictator can please himself by taking for granted the subtle labor activity of
the employees who seek for a fair wage to suffice their need. This kind of relationship would be
reduced to simply, master-servant relationship and the one who is underprivileged is the one who
works to serve the leader. This incident could be seen in the military fields, concentration camps,
and other institutions who exercise the legibility of the administration. What is negated in this
kind of relationship is the very idea of the neighbor. But if we take this relationship in an
inverted way, we could find that in this kind of relationship emanated the revelation of the
neighbor. The best example of this is the service rendered by Jesus who says: If you want to be a
king, you must be the servant of all. This concept of service participates in the communion of
social being wherein there is a turning, from master-servant to man-man rapport. Thus, if the
idea of Socius is determined by indirect relationship and can extend itself through continuous
process of relating oneself to the other. It is a relationship that develops into higher degree of
affiliation. To suppose that the socius can be posited to the idea of neighbor engages in deep
conversion and paradigm shift of subjective individual. The retrospect of social life bears
institution or state that controls and preserves peace and justice. This could be seen in the
uniformed personnel of the government unit that states, “We serve and protect.” But for Ricoeur,
to relate oneself because of social function is not a genuine relationship and would encumber the
one who wishes to build a genuine relationship, which is to be authentic in its own way. This
problematic relationship emanated because “of the social realm as such lies in what we earlier
called, “objectification” of man within the abstract and anonymous relationships of economic,
social, and political life.”7

III. The Neighbor

Ibid., 109.
 DWMS FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY

When we hear the word, “neighbor” we mundanely associate it with our relationship to
other persons. Typically, our neighbor is just our fellow citizen or the ones who live near another
which basically means that their houses or specific residences are close to each other. With this
notion of neighbor, we could have a clue that neighbor always support each other because when
there is war between neighbors it consequently follows the destruction of humanity. This
destruction doesn’t literally mean the annihilation of humanity rather the degradation of peace
that is inherent in human nature. Peace constitute the foundation of neighbor’s mutual
relationship because it unifies two parties that have various characteristics or personality. The
essential part that stimulates the relationship between two parties is knowing thy self. As
Socrates puts it, “the unexamined life is not worth living,” and it is important to know first our
very own existence and relate it with others whose existence coincides with the place where you
reside. “Being a neighbor lies in the habit of making oneself available.” 8 Making oneself
available means opening yourself to someone even without the assurance of building mutuality
to others; it is a personal and direct encounter to another person. Going back to the parable of the
good Samaritan, the Samaritan is considered as the neighbor of the beaten Jew because he
approaches the stranger and attends to the needs of the Jew. He shows compassion which “is a
gesture over and above roles, personages, and functions.” 9 In other words, by attending to the
needs of the least is an authentic relationship with the others and signifies that although he is not
functioned to approach the need of other person, by showing sincere concern to the others,
innovates and promotes equality and safeguard the subjectivity of the man. This treatment is
favorable to Ricoeur because he finds that when we show care to the stranger in an unexpected
encounter makes man a fully human. Hence, the neighbor is the immediate relationship with
others.

“The concept of neighbor is an invitation to situate evil within the specific passions that are
connected to the human employment of instrument.”10 Thus, it exercises an exemplified way of

Ibid., 99.
9

Ibid., 99-100.
10

Ibid., 107.
 DWMS FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY

charity because when man relates himself to others by viewing the vibrant essence of neighbor
there is a big tendency of unconditional concern that addresses the need of the other. Needless to
say, this kind of relationship towards others shows profoundness and intimacy. There is a need
for us to treat each other as neighbors because it is where authenticity takes place and the
mutuality that resides immanently within us, unfolds itself through relating oneself with the
others. There is a saying that goes like this: “man cannot live alone in an island,” which supposes
that human existence is socially liable and there must be a unifying factor that preserve the unity
of social beings which man coined as charity. By giving unconditionally, without expecting any
rewards, is a pedagogy that we must acquire and practice it through our actions. Charity does not
only limit itself on the idea of giving something which is material in nature, rather it is an open-
ended inquiry of promulgating an authentic interpersonal interface. By putting substantial to the
relationship as neighbor, it was said that man acts according to his will and that it is directed
towards the end of his existence. The eschatological doctrine of the church is a way to determine
our actions and approaches towards the other because as part of the creation of God, we believe
in the prophecy,
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him,
then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered
all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth
his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the
goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye
gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I
was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the
righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed
thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee
in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came
unto thee?  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have
done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from
me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I
was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no
drink11
Thus, it shows that one must act accordingly in order to have a wonderful life after death here on
earth. The significance of this prophecy conveys that the fact of death is real and is inevitable to
conceive and there is only one thing to do, which is to accept the reality of death.

11

Matthew 25: 31- 42.

 DWMS FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY

IV. Conclusion

The socius and the neighbor both display a relationship between human beings. Man
cannot instinctively denounce the existence of socius because man needs a governing state to
secure the right and preserve the peace in a nation. Whereas the concept of neighbor is a radical
relationship that enables man to have an authentic relationship with others. By opening himself
to the society, he could be either a socius being or a neighbor to the others. There is no way to
choose and to enclose ourselves either one of the two attitudes because they are simply: “the two
faces of charity.”12 Moreover, the socius and the neighbor lattice each other. Ricoeur asserts that,
“at times the personal relationship to the neighbor passes through the relationship to the socius;
sometimes it is elaborated on the fringes of it; and at other times it rises up against the
relationship to the socius.”13

First, the personal relationship of the neighbor passes through the relationship of the
socius in a way that 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.
This is a socius kind of relationship that my ground of relationship is based on labels and
functions. This is a shallow kind of relationship that, if the labels and functions will be set aside
or be taken away, definitely there is no ground. However, the beautiful side of a socius
relationship is that it has always the potentiality of transcending into a deeper neighbor kind of
relationship. Hence, the neighbor is the relationship that does not depend on status and function
of a person or group. It is more of a personal way relationship that goes beyond the level of the
socius. Second, the personal relationship of the neighbor occasionally works out in the fringes of
the socius. This means that the relationship between persons or group depends only to their status
and function. Unlike in the relationship of the neighbor that passes through relationship of the
socius, this one does not tend to develop more than from being connected through functions and
institutions. This kind of relationship only works in the fringes of the socius because of its social

12

Ibid., 109.
13

Ibid., 105.
 DWMS FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY

function that obliged him to do so and act accordingly to the description of his position. Lastly,
the personal way of relationship of the neighbor sometimes rises against the socius relationship
wherein the fringes of the relationship of the socius is not totally obliterated.   This is where the
relationship of the neighbor rises against the relationship of the socius. Take for example, the
context inside the classroom, I always relate myself to our class beadle and by correcting his
wrongdoings even though he is the class beadle, I show my explicit concern to him. His being a
brother to me, which is coined as neighbor, is more important rather than his position in the
class. Thus, I would give priority always for the good of my brother than tolerating him because
of his being class beadle. Henceforth, I would give importance to the relationship of being a
neighbor even though it rises against the relationship of the socius. Moreover, the positions,
functions, and labels are totally indisputable.

Taking to account what was said above, we also have to consider, however, that the
human encounter is also about the person who recognizes the subjectivity of the other. The
human encounter is an escapable reality that life thrusts at man. In fact, it happens to anyone of
us in our daily life. This encounter reflects the relationships found in every society. It is
inevitable not to conceive the reality of oppression, exploitation, the poor, the stranger, who are
weak and vulnerable, who are tormented by limiting situations, socially stripped, reduced to
distress of the mere human condition and a pure victim of great conflicts and great revolutions. 14
Going back to the parable of the good Samaritan, as in the personhood of the beaten Jew
represents the permeable condition of suffering thus, as a person who is by nature ethical, must
never excludes to help the one who suffers from unjust persecution. The neighbor relationship
was executed by the Samaritan thus, it is a presentation of a successful encounter in an
unexpected way. As a final point, the socius and the neighbor are two dimensions of relating
with others. This shows how human relationship goes in today’s society. As man continues to
live, he realizes more and more that he is socially inclined, and that all activities of one’s
existence are not merely for the self alone but are all-compassing acts which all human beings
are magnetized by the web of inter-relations of all beings.

14

Ibid., 100.