The Human Person in

Society
 Society is defined in manifold ways as there are many
sociologists. Anthony (2007), a famous contemporary
sociologist, defines it as “a system of iGiddens
nterrelationships that connects individuals together”
 As a system of interrelationships, the society is not just a
random grouping of individuals but individuals in
concrete and definite social relations. Here, each social
relation forms part of the whole, which is necessary for
the operation, maintenance, and success of the
society.
 A social theory that conceives society in this manner is
called Systems theory. Systems theory views society as
constituted by four important sub-systems, namely:
economy, governance, law, and domestic institutions.
 Systems theory projects an image of society formed
and maintained by consensus as opposed to conflict
and domination. The latter—conflict theory—believes
that power or coercion holds the society together.
 Do human actions shape social structures or the other
way around? What holds the society together? Is it
consensus or domination? How does the person
position herself in the global processes of social
transformation? How are men and women integrated
or excluded in socio-political and economic
developments? How are the private sphere influenced
by the public?
 These issues make the study of the human person in the society more
demanding. Ideally, they should be included in any discussion about the
person in the society. However, it is not possible to do this in this chapter;
hence, we will focus only on two topics, namely, the person as a historical
being and as a political being. It is hoped, however, that even with this
delimitation, this part will still deliver its content standard. The first part
discusses the shift in the understanding of the person in philosophy from
being ahistorical to historical. The sociological view of the person aims to
show that the notion of the person’s historical situatedness is taken and
pushed to its limit and thereby completing its initial impetus in philosophy.
The second part intends to show that the person’s involvement in politics is
an imperative in political life. This will be elucidated by discussing the
philosophical anarchist and the deliberative politics positions.
The Person as Historical
Being
 Philosophy privileges a view that reason is able to go beyond the world
and see it from afar. This view has an enormous consequence not only to
philosophy but also to the understanding of the human person.
 Rather than looking at the human person as a historical being, philosophy
posits a timeless essence possessed by the person. As a result, it postulates
that the person’s being is ahistorically given. Contrary to philosophy,
sociology understands the person as a social and historical being.
 Concerned with looking at social phenomena, like politics, religion and
economics and their corresponding social behaviors, sociology tends to
understand that human beings are influenced, if not shaped, by their
socio-cultural and historical.
 It is not uncommon to ask: what makes a person, a person? Or what
makes me, me?
 In philosophy, these questions are traditionally answered as: the human
being is a rational animal. Her rationality makes her who she is. Her
rationality separates her from her nearest family—the brutes. If not for her
rationality, she will wander in the wild like the brutes. Like the brutes, she will
have no culture and no civilization.
 Reason is so essential because it endowed humans with intelligence. With
intelligence humans are able to weigh right from wrong, just from unjust,
good from evil. Through intelligence, the person’s freedom—that is, her
ability to choose or not to choose or to do or not do—is directed to that
which is noble, good, and true. Through intelligence, she does not just
choose but make the right choice. Thus, intelligence liberates humans from
their biological desires. Unlike other animals, the human person is not
ultimately determined by instincts. Indeed, intelligence makes her a
human being.
 Understanding the person this way is a staple of the Platonic-Aristotelian-
Enlightenment tradition, which implies that for a very long time, the West
regarded the cognitive faculty of the person as her most important
possession. But this does not mean that it is not left unquestioned. Not until
Nietzsche, a famous German philosopher, turns Western philosophy upside
down.
The Person as a Political
Being
 The philosophical and sociological understanding of the person extends to
the debate in political theory, for instance, between liberalism and
communitarianism or between the philosophes, a group of thinkers in
18th century France who believed on the supremacy of reason, and their
conservative critics or between “transcendental institutionalism” and
contextualism—or “realization-focused comparison” approach to justice
 In the debate between liberalism and communitarianism is an underlying
presupposition of the person. The former contends that individuals are
isolated beings, while the latter claims that human beings are primordially
social. The former also believes that individuals have inherent rights that
cannot be jeopardized in favor of the social life, while the latter believes
that the social order, customs, and traditions are more primal in regulating
or shaping the lives of individuals. The liberalism-communitarianism
controversy is reminiscent of the tension between the philosophes and
their conservative critics
 Like the liberal and communitarian debate, the “transcendental
institutionalism” and contextualism debate is grounded on a fundamental
understanding of the person. “Transcendental institutionalism”
 It is important to note, however, that whether or not one
adheres to liberalism or communitarianism, to
the philosophes or the conservative, or to
transcendental institutionalism or to contextualism, is not
an issue here. Those viewpoints only serve as blueprints
for political actions or as guides or frameworks by which
we could improve our political and social
arrangements.
 Philosophical anarchism is a political position which argues that the person
does not have a moral duty to obey the law—a moral duty to obey the
law means that the person obeys the law because it requires it. There are
two versions of this position, the a priori and a posteriori philosophical
anarchism.