As to the source of the concept

Socious modern society

Neighbor Christianity

I. Modern Society as the source of the concept of Socius

for us, here and now, in a world where the differentiation and the organization of social groups
constantly increases.

Why do we say modern society is the source of the Socius and not just society? If you remember our
discussion on Greek society, their professions are not as differentiated compared to our society today.
Naa silay blacksmith, farmer, singer, etc. These jobs are quite self-explanatory. But as there is continuous
technological advances like in our time today, organizations become increasingly complex and this
phenomena gives rise to profession that are differentiated, very specific and sometime obscure.

Ex. Bachelor in Mechatronics, Agricultural Technology, clerk of court

From Business Insider: Snake Milker, chicken sexer,

What does kind of mentality does this situation create? We have people who are quite focused on their
particular profession and not much else. This also creates a sense of division. Compared from the earlier
part of Philippine history, most people worked in agriculture so meron pang sense of unity and there is
dialogue. There is a sense of community. Ngaun, even in a single establishment, there is hierarchy there
is division of work. Jolibee has a manager, a cashier, a busboy, etc. Even in Ateneo the Accountancy people
cannot relate with the studies of Philosophy just as the Philosophy people cannot relate to people from
engineering for example. Modern society is highly compartmentalized in terms of labor.

But aside from labor, the article says:

The socius is the person I attain through his social function: the relation to the socius is a mediate relation:
it attains man in this or that capacity. Roman law, the evolution of modern political institutions, the
administrative experience of the learning states, and the social organization of work, not to mention the
experience of several world wars, have gradually forged a type of human relationship which is always
becoming more extensive, complex and abstract.

Another way we are assign a particular role is through the development of modern political institutions.
The archaic system was there was one nation and there was a king. Today, the government is more
complex by leaps and bounds . We have a President, but the responsibility of the president is separated
through his alter-egos, his secretaries: naay Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Labor, etc. Furthermore,
the Philippines is divided into several regions and further divided into cities and further divided to districts
and to barangays. This division creates a lot of very abstract and complex relationships. What do I mena
by this. Our relationship with our parents for example is something that we can talk about for it is
immediate and concrete. Pero pag tinanung ka how exactly are you related with the Secretayr of
Educaiton in Phillippines? How are you influenced by you district representative? That is quite complex
and very abstract.

The article even says that wars increase the complexity of relationships? Why? Because wars make us
aware that we are not just citizens of the Philippines but we are citizens of the world. We are global
citizens. We have a responsibility to our fellow man, to the Africans, to the Eskimos, everybody basically.
War is one of those events that makes us aware of our responsibility to our fellow human being regardless
of their country. For example, the realization of the world after the reign of Hitler was that religious
discrimination leads to inhuman results and so therefore I have a responsibility as a person of this world
to fight against discrimination.

However, this is another source of abstraction. What really is my role for example to an American Citizen?
What is my relationship with someone from Syria? Again that is abstract and ambiguous dili klaro.

II. Christianity as the source for the concept of Neighbor:

A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves, who also stripped and
wounded him and it happened that a priest went down the same way in like manner a Levite also passed
by but a certain Samaritan being on his journey came near him: and seeing him, was moved with
compassion. Which of these three men, in thy opinion, was neighbor to him that fell among the thieves?
(Luke 10:30-37)

This is not the only part of the Bible that espouses the value of charity. Charity, as taken form the
dictionary means:
generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless:something given to a person or persons in
need; alms:

That is the basic understanding we have of charity. Late ron we will see that the act of chrity is beyond
that but just take note of this feature of the neighbor, its concept comes from Biblical Scripture.

In this part of the article, we can already see the tension between the Socius and the Neighbor. When I
say tension, I mean they are incompatible with each other they are repugnant of each other. They cannot
co-exist.

Question 1: Who is being socius? Who is being the neighbor?

Question 2: What is in the situation of the priest that makes him unavailable as the neighbor?
They are themselves a living parable : the parable of man as a social function, of man absorbed by his role.
They show that the social function occupies them to the point of making unavailable for the surprise of an
encounter. In them, the institution (the ecclesiastical institution, to be precise) bars their access to the
event.:

Question 3: What is in the situation of the Samaritan which makes him available as a neighbor?
For the pious Jew, he is the category of the Stranger; he does not form part of a group. He is the man
without past or authentic tradition: impure in race and in piety; less than a Gentile a relapse. He is the
category of the non-category. He is neither occupied nor pre-occupied by a dint of being occupied. He is
traveling and is not encumbered by his social responsibility, available for encounter and the presence of
others.

Question 4: Do you think the Samaritan would have acted the same if he was preoccupied with his work?

At this portion of the article, the notion seems if the priest or the Levite in the parable had no obligations
for that day, they would have helped the dying man. On the other hand, had the Samaritan been
preoccupied with his work he would not helped the dying man. I have discussed a preview of this when
we discussed about Oriental Philosophy and in particular Confucianist Philosophy. I said before that
Confucianism gives importance to mans role in society; as part of the bigger picture. The disadvantage is
if you are a person who thinks like that, you become inflexible; you do not know how to step outside your
role when the circumstances call for it and that is precisely what happened to the Levite and the preist in
the parable.

As to the nature of the relationship

Socius Man-to-institution

Neighbor Man-to-man

I. Socius as man-to-institution
There is an inherent evil in the institution, taking this word in its most general sense and understanding
thereby all the organized social forms which are the proper object of sociology. It is the evil of
objectification found in all forms of organization. Within the division of labor it takes the subtle form of
the sadness and boredom which gradually work their way into the most fragmented and monotonous
task of industrial labor when it is very specialized.

The kinds of jobs that is created by modern society is highly specialized and abstract. What this creates
are jobs that are fragmented and monotonous. In some of these jobs, the human factor can be removed.
Let us take for example a worker in the Ateneo we are familiar with: the elevator girl. Is the nature of her
work fragmented? Yes. Is it monotonous? It can be monotonous. The article further says:
One might say that the arduous labor which in past times was associated with physical conveyance and with
dangerous and unhealthy work is now found in a psychic frustration which is more insidious than physical
pain.

The dread of people before was to be assigned to a job that was physically challenging but today people
dread even more jobs that are boring, jobs that create frustration to the psyche:

Question 5: Based on the article, what can the elevator girl do to alleviate this problem of boredom?

Question 6: Is boredom inherent to her job?

On the other hand, the complex machinery of distributive justice and of sound security are often imbued
with an inhumane mentality because of their anonymity, as if the vast administering of things to men were
stamped with a foreign and cancerous passion, the passion of an abstract administration.

Suppose you want to help a child through Bantay Bata for example and you give you twenty pesos to the
organization? Do you get to meet the child that you are helping? No. Do you see where exactly does your
money go to? No you do not. Not because we assume that they appropriate the money for their nefarious
schemes but because that is the nature of the instution. Because the machinery of distributive justice is
quite complex. Bantay Bata as an organization, naa nan a silay mga plano, naa na silay mga project. And
once you give the money, your help becomes part of the project although disconnected ka to the people
you are helping,

Question 7: Is there no advantage by helping through the institution?

In a broader sense, distributive justice with all its jurisdictional organs and administrative apparatus is the
privileged way of charity: the vent of the encounter is fleeting and fragile.