Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person Quarter 2 – Module 3: The Human

Person In Society

Market, State, and Lifeworld

In the Social theory of Jurgen Habermas, society is composed of 3 main spheres:
1. Social system of money (economic)
2. Social system of power (political)
3. The lifeworld.
In actual societies, these spheres take the form of economic system (the market),
political system (the state) and our everyday world of communicative relations (family, school,
religious communities, civil society).
Each sphere calls for different interactions. In the market and the state, relationships
are more of transactional, and so individuals view each other as means for a particular goal or
end. In the market, we pay someone in return for goods that we need to have and own. In the
political system, some individuals control others’ actions in order to ensure that peace and
order is maintained. In both cases, the relationship between persons cannot be purely
intersubjective. At least one participant in a transactional relationship gets to be objectified for
the attainment of a certain end.
Furthermore, transactional relationships are neutral to the affective aspect of
relationship. For example, in the market, you can complain about their services without
regarding one’s emotions. Customers always have the right to complain and demand for
efficient and fast services. However, lifeworld is significantly different from social systems.
When we are at home, or in the immediate community, we naturally assume that all who are
part of the community are persons, and must be consciously recognized and treated as such.
This is a presupposition of communicative action that others are treated as subjects and no one
can take on the role of a calculative and strategic observer while simultaneously in
communication with another. Lifeworlds thrive on mutual recognition. The social interaction in
the lifeworld is marked by cooperative communication. We connect with one another through
shared understanding of what is good and valuable for us, not through the use of threats over
others, nor because of a material interest over monetary reward. Through communication, we
generate and develop our culture, form and improve our norms such as laws and policies and
socialize with others as we simultaneously develop our personal identities.
A. Social Interaction and the development of societies
According to Habermas, social interactions as a species helped developed two important
realms: a.) social systems, b.) the realm of the lifeworld. Together, social systems and
the lifeworld make up a society. Habermas argues in his analysis of societies throughout
different periods in history, that all societies consist of social systems and lifeworlds.
What makes each society different is marked by the varying relationships between
social systems and the lifeworld.
The development of society depends on these two elements: material and symbolic
reproduction, just as a person needs physical and spiritual nourishment. Material
reproduction refers to the utilization and distribution of society’s resources for the
physical survival and welfare of all individual members. It is facilitated by the function of
social systems. While, symbolic reproduction refers to the transmission and renewal of
cultural knowledge, the establishment of solidarity and cooperation and the formation
of identities of person through socialization.

Historical development of societies and the development of individual consciousness

1. Tribal and Feudal Society
 Material reproduction (hunting and gathering, agricultural) was not clearly
defined from culture, norms and the self-understanding of individual members.
 Tribal leaders have the powers in distribution of material resources in society so
as in Feudal society. Monarchs rule in the society with absolute power. –
  Tribals and monarchs had control over the social systems of economy and
politics. At the same time, they had control over the symbolic reproduction of
society. They hold central roles in the performance of rites. Their word is law,
which means that they get to decide on the norms that should prevail in a
society without having to deal with resistance from the people. Individual
members of a tribal or feudal society had little understanding of individual rights.
Their lives were defined by their loyal service to the tribal leader or the monarch.
Their sense of self-worth was anchored on the honor they would bring to the
absolute ruler of their society.
2. Modern Industrialized Society

 There is a development of trade and the emergence of capitalist system of

economy –
 Tribal leaders and monarchs no longer held a monopoly over material resources
in society.
 Markets gained independence from political control.
 Political systems gradually recognized the rights of individuals and redistribution
of wealth in societies.
 Monarchial and tribal powers were no longer absolute.
 The lifeworld became more and more distinguished from the social systems.
Culture, social values and personal identities were no longer merely dictated or
imposed on individual members of societies by a dominant power. The absence
of an overarching dominant power enabled the awareness of a person’s own
individuality and autonomy. Individuals now, had a fuller understanding that
cultures, norms and personal identities did not have a fixed status. That is, they
can be reexamined, criticized, revised or newly created by the individual
themselves through their own cooperative efforts.
Mechanical and Organic Solidarity: The Province and the City
Rural – those who grew up in rural communities would say that the model of society
they live in still has traces of feudalism. As such, the kind solidarity that mobilizes community
members follows Durkheim’s mechanistic model. There is a stronger sense of collectivism
among community members, and this can be seen in traditional practices such as in weddings,
or in the communal support of bereaved families. Community disputes, even those that involve
crimes against individual persons, are settled through community rituals of healing. People can
easily identify themselves with a collective identity. A rural community’s peace and harmony is
of central importance. This is why people avoid confrontation and disputes. The authority of
elders holds the bond of community members together. Community children refer to elders as
auntie or uncle, even if they are blood related.
Urban – the situation is significantly different in urban communities that are more
industrialized rather than feudalistic. The solidarity that connects individuals is organic and
contractual. There is a stronger sense of individualism among urban dwellers who live close to
each other yet remain strangers to one another. Individuals are so conscious of their rights, so
much that the meaning of trust in societies of this type refers to anything backed by a legal
guarantee (my private space and property vs yours). Work relations are defined by market
norms such as efficiency and functionality (the weight of seniority is weakened). What binds
members of urban communities together are mostly legal arrangement.
B. The Harmony between Individualism and Collectivism
Individualism vs. Collectivism
Individualism is how we describe a society that champions the freedom of
individual persons. It gives primacy to the protection and recognition of individual
freedoms. Any arrangements in society must, first of all, ensure that the rights and
freedoms of persons are not infringed upon. An individualistic society, however,
encourages selfishness, in so far as the concern of members are confined within their
self-interests. Individualistic societies tend to view solidarity movements as the
“sacrifice” of one’s freedom, and the call for unity as plaque with obstruction to one’s
own development.
Collectivism is observed in societies that give priority to unity over the
recognition of one’s individual freedom. This is generally observed in traditional
societies, where norms and authorities are pre-established rather than signed up for
through a social contract or agreement. In our current setting, collectivism is observed
to be more apparent in rural agricultural and tribal communities rather than in industrial
urban areas. Collectivism, however, discourages individual’s dissenting voices, and as
such, curtails critical thinking. For instance, traditional communities often meet critical
questions with suspicion and antagonism, rather than welcome them for the sake of
growth and development. It is often said that choosing between individualism and
collectivism leaves us with a dilemma, which literally means “two horns” because both
are partly favorable and partly a hindrance to something good.
Martin Buber (1878-1965) and his reflections on the I-Thou relationship points
out that we do not need to choose one over the other. It is not a matter of choosing
between individual freedom and collective unity, but a matter of valuing the in -
between – the relationship between persons. “Relation is the true starting point for
personal integration and wholeness and for the transformation of society’ and this
relation is best initiated, developed and preserved through genuine dialogue. In this in -
between, both the individual and the collectivity are upheld.
On the one hand, an individual cannot be an individual without the collectivity.
Buber asserts that the human person is a being “between man and man.” We become
human through these interpersonal relations. Developmentally, we can see this in how
we have been formed from stage of infancy throughout adulthood. We are here
because of those relationships that surround us and enabled our growth and
development. Our sense of identity is largely formed by those who have been in close
relationships with us. Our earliest descriptions of ourselves as individuals were based on
who we are in relation to others (I am the daughter of…..). is it possible to have an
identity or an individuality without being related to another person? Even the fictional
character of Tarzan isolated in the jungle only began to identity himself as a human
being when he came face-to-face with another human being. As the social philosopher,
Jurgen Habermas, would say in support of Buber’s point here, individuality is formed
through intersubjectivity processes. As such, one need not choose individuality over the
collective intersubjective world.
On the other hand, a collectivity cannot be formed without the cooperative
accomplishments of individuals. This means that for some form of stability to take place
within a community, individuals should be able to maintain a certain level of freedom to
explore, develop and exercise their individuality. . Collectivities can find stability not
through the silencing of the voice of individuals, but by providing channels for
cooperative dialogue.