What Is a Person?

It's More Than Being an Individual

File this under shameless re-cycling and self-promotion. I was working on a piece about my life in the library but the events of my present life kept interrupting. Next week, I hope. In lieu of a new piece, I am presenting here the text of a presentation I made to the Seattle Doxacon in 2014. (Yes: I would probably explain things in a different manner today.) At the time I was still emerging from over a decade of adhering to Eastern Orthodoxy—this presentation shows that and tries to build a bridge between East and West. I have used some of this material in other published pieces, including at 1P5.

Geek Anthropology: A Person is One Who Says Yes to Others

* “The creature is a perpetual question addressed to God” (Hans Urs von Balthasar).

Synopsis: Using Zamyatin’s dystopian science fiction novel We, I will first look at the concept of a person as someone who says yes to another. I will contrast this with Rand’s Anthem and her view of the individual as one who lives primarily for him/herself. To gain some insight into these competing views I will examine the seminal writing of Dostoevsky, particularly Notes From Underground. To help properly interpret Dostoevsky I will turn to Berdyaev. Before concluding by examining this stream of anthropology as treated by Zizioulas, I will take a brief excursus into Herbert’s Dune to consider a third possible way to situate humans. I will also make use of insights from Vladimir Lossky.

*The Geek Universe, Persons, and the Organization of Society

On both page and screen, science fiction and fantasy writers present often-competing versions of what it means to be a person. Can an alien, or a robot, or an entire world be a person? These are questions tantalizing geeks in recent decades. As Christian geeks, we are most concerned with an anthropology specifically referring to human beings. We tend to look not at component parts of the human being, but at ontology, his or her “isness.” We also look at human beings in their relationship to others. Science fiction provides us with several frameworks for considering human relationships and the organization of society.

*At the end of “Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan,” the (half-human) Spock makes a choice to sacrifice himself in order to save the Enterprise and its crew (

). He and his friend Kirk speak just before Spock’s death about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few or the one. However, this seemingly collectivist stance is balanced by the scene of the crew commemorating the death of Spock and Kirk eulogizing his best friend—clearly this is a universe in which both the community and the individual matter. Remember, Star Trek is set in the context of a ship’s crew needing to work together as a whole to face challenges; however, we also see individuals and families.

But *Star Trek offers us an alternative vision of being in the Borg Collective (

) in which nearly all individuality is subsumed into the collective and the hive-like entity is paramount. There are many other variations on these themes in the geek universe. Star Wars, for instance, uses individuals (human, humanoid, android) in greater and lesser degrees of alliance working in a universe held together by a vague and impersonal “Force.” Roughly speaking, then, we are presented with two forms of anthropology: individual and collective.

Another approach to this question comes from my first stint in graduate school (the 1980s). Then *the debate was over structure versus agency. Structure was a Marxist concept, and involved groups and networks and organization. It meant that the individual had little volition; rather, people were subject to vast forces of history, culture, and ways of thinking. There were no heroes or “great men” in the structural view. In contrast to that view, the agency explanation was that great figures (think Napoleon, Alexander the Great, or Ronald Reagan) arose in every age and made heroic decisions touching the lives of myriads of people. Heroes went beyond the prevailing zeitgeist. Note that neither structure nor agency favors the life of the family or persons. Both approaches consign the “little people” to a life of following either impersonal forces or the whims of the leader.

*Zamyatin and We

As a Russian thinker alive at the onset of the Bolshevik Revolution, Yevgeny Zamyatin had life and death reasons to ponder anthropology and the organization of society. Zamyatin, the son of an Orthodox priest, had long been thinking about those questions. The result was a brilliant *exploration of personhood in a future totalitarian society: We. Writing shortly after the Bolshevik takeover, Zamyatin posited a future world where a technocratic society has instituted a rational form of collective life where food, clothing, sex, work, and time are all tightly regulated by the collective state. This society exists in a sterile city protected from nature and the remaining (primitive) humans by an enclosing wall. The protagonist (D-503) is a gifted engineer and lead builder of a space ship that will allow this society to spread its truths to other planets. D-503 appears to be a scrupulously logical and mathematical type; however, he also has a poetic and sensuous side. His world is upset when he meets a bold, mysterious woman: I-330. His deepening involvement with her takes him farther and farther from the truths he thinks he knows, even outside the wall and amongst the primitive people. By saying yes to her he becomes more fully alive, even to the extent of betraying society’s values and breaking its laws. The doctor’s diagnosis? “Apparently, you have developed a soul” (89). In the meantime he has also said yes to O-90, his state-sanctioned sex partner and the maternal counterpart to I-330. His yes to her is for her to become pregnant with his child, even though such an act is punishable by her death. In the end he helps O escape outside the wall carrying their unborn child. D cannot live with the chaos of freedom resulting from his yes and submits to a lobotomy-like operation. As the novel ends, he is a more pliant member of society, but we are left with an ambiguous conclusion as the forces of nature and the primitive people may be toppling the city society.

Zamyatin’s novel influenced subsequent writers such as Ayn Rand and George Orwell. In later years he was expelled from the Soviet Union and died in France before the Second World War. *His contemporary and fellow exile, the Russian religious philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev, wrote about similar themes in his Slavery and Freedom, first published in 1943. * “Freedom is a difficult thing,” Berdyaev writes. “It is easier to remain in slavery” (247). Zamyatin’s protagonist experiences disruption within himself by saying yes to the unruly and unpredictable as represented by I-330. The diagnosis of D-503’s newborn soul shows him to be a person or personality. Berdyaev asserts: “Personality is effort and conflict, the conquest of self and of the world, victory over slavery, it is emancipation” (24). D-503’s struggle is the struggle of a human being in a totalitarian, collectivist state. While he has individual characteristics, they are subordinated to the needs of the state, the “We.” His yes to both I-330 and O-90 challenges the status quo. According to Berdyaev: “The real ‘we’, that is, the community of people, communion in freedom, in love and mercy, has never been able to enslave man, on the contrary it is the realization of the fullness of the life of personality, its transcension towards another” (104). Sadly for D-503 (and many in the real world throughout history) freedom is too full of fear and uncertainty. “In his helplessness and dereliction man naturally seeks safety in communities,” writes Berdyaev (200).

*Rand and Anthem

We turn to another Russian writer from the same period who, like Zamyatin and Berdyaev, was able to reach the West. Ayn Rand, like the author of We, grew up with religion (Judaism in her case). Unlike Zamyatin, Rand became a devoted atheist. Influenced by We, she too thought about the person and society under totalitarianism, but came to different conclusions in her early novel: Anthem. The world of Anthem is if anything more collectivist and totalitarian than We, but also much more primitive and quasi-religious. (Keep in mind that Rand’s book came out about 15 years later than Zamyatin’s, at a time when the Bolshevik era had transitioned into the early years of the reign of Stalin.) Rand’s protagonist is named Equality 7-2521. Despite his intellectual promise he has been designated as a street sweeper, in part because of his rebellious nature. While performing his duties he discovers technology from a previous age. His experiments lead him to re-discover electrical light, making him a new Prometheus. He also spots and meets an attractive female, Liberty 5-3000. Accused of being an evildoer, Equality flees into the forest. Eventually Liberty joins him and they begin a new life with new names. Liberty is not his equal—she is drawn to him by his demigod characteristics. Equality says no to society and yes only to himself. * “And here, over the portals of my fort, I shall cut in the stone the word which is to be my beacon and my banner. The word which will not die, should we all perish in battle. The word which can never die on this earth, for it is the heart of it and meaning and the glory. The sacred word: EGO” (122-123).

Rand further developed her philosophy of ego into what she called “objectivism.” (I think it is worth pondering that Rand came to the U.S., not France, like most of the other writers and thinkers referred to in this presentation. While France had its atheists and materialists, the U.S. was and is more conducive to her teachings than elsewhere in the world.) Zamyatin’s protagonist is a builder from the start, and his world values technology; Rand’s protagonist hopes to build and only becomes a builder through the force of his own will. Interestingly, *both Zamyatin and Rand make frequent use of religious imagery—here are two examples. Zamyatin: “Well, then—about Unanimity Day, this great holiday. I have always loved it, since childhood. It seems to me that to us it has a meaning similar to that of ‘Easter’ to the ancients” (136). Rand: “We had heard of Saints. There are the Saints of Labor, and the Saints of the Councils, and the Saints of the Great Rebirth. But we had never seen a Saint nor what the likeness of a Saint should be” (52).

*Berdyaev had a response to her thinking. “There is something lacking in the humanity of the egocentric man. He loves abstractions which nourish his egoism. He does not love living concrete people” (43). Rand’s Equality 7-2521 is persecuted by the ruling authorities: he is reviled (79-80), threatened with burning at the stake (80), and anathematized (82). “‘What is not done collectively cannot be good,’ said [one of the Council members] International 1-5537” (81). This makes perfect sense to Berdyaev: “The individualist isolates himself and asserts himself in his attitude to the universe; he accepts the universe solely as violence offered to himself” (135).

Rand’s views have remained influential, especially in North America. [Note: the following is meant to be humorous—I have no animus toward Canadians!] Now, I understand that at this conference there are a number of people from the nation to our north. Ladies and gentlemen, I say to you that your land has long harbored some of the chief purveyors of Rand’s Objectivism, spread by an institution more than 40 years in duration and popular around the world. I am referring, of course, to that *Toronto-based power trio, Rush:

Notice in particular these lyrics from their song, “Anthem.” “Live for yourself, there’s no one else more worth living for. Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more.” And: “Well I know they’ve always told you selfishness was wrong.” There are other examples from throughout their musical corpus, such as the well-known “Tom Sawyer.” (*There is also this reference from “Dirty Dancing” about Rand’s writing:

)

*Dostoevsky and the Underground

Both Zamyatin and Rand drew from the well of Russian literature, which of course means we cannot avoid looking at Fyodor Dostoevsky. In Notes From Underground Dostoevsky’s Underground Man tries to assert his individual personhood during a time of stratified conformity. In tsarist 19^th Century Russia, this character seeks to protect himself by saying NO to others; the one time he says YES he quickly recants. *This Underground Man is a partial prototype for both Zamyatin and Rand. He senses his innate personhood, but cannot bring it to fruition. He is snared in the paralyzing web of self-consciousness: “How can a man of consciousness have the slightest respect for himself” (16)? He goes on to say: “I’ve never been able to start or finish anything” (18). Zamyatin’s protagonist gets caught in some of the same self-doubting, but Rand’s hero almost always seems quite sure of himself, especially once his egotism is fully unleashed. However, D-503 does say yes to others, whereas Equality 7-2521 only says yes to his own ego. The Underground Man falls prey to social ambition and envy earlier in his life, then briefly opens his heart to a prostitute, inviting her to come live with him. “‘Here’s my address, Liza, come to me.’ ‘I will…’ she whispered resolutely, still without raising her head’” (104). But when she arrives he perversely realizes the burden of sharing life with another person and rejects her with great cruelty. He says to her: “‘I’ll tell you why you came, my dear. You came because of the pathetic words I used with you then. So you went all soft, and you wanted more ‘pathetic words.’ Know, then, know that I was laughing at you that time’” (121). The realization of his turn away from personhood haunts him for years after: “We’re stillborn, and have long ceased to be born of living fathers, and we like this more and more. We’re acquiring a taste for it” (130).

*According to biographer Anne C. Heller, Rand respected “Dostoevsky, whose mystical point of view she said she rejected but whose brilliant integration of plot, theme, and ‘philosophy of mind’ she learned from and found exciting. [Rand] later said ‘Dostoevsky was the world’s best interpreter of the psychology of evil’” (39). *Zamyatin has his engineer-mathematician protagonist directly reference Dostoevsky when D-503 is clashing with his poet friend, R-13 (who may be an allusion to Pushkin): “‘Fortunately, the antediluvian ages of all those Shakespeares and Dostoevskys, or whatever you call them, are gone,’ I said, deliberately loudly” (43).

*The Lens of Berdyaev

Berdyaev considered that “Dostoievsky [sic] was more than anything else an anthropologist” (Dostoevsky 45). In Berdyaev’s analysis, Dostoevsky rejects both the collective and radical individualism as inimical to personhood: “Everything is allowable when it is a question of the unbounded freedom of the superman (extreme individualism), or of the unbounded equality of all (extreme collectivism)” (100). In other words, freedom is pregnant with the possibility of salvation or destruction. Love is the testing ground for this idea in Dostoevsky’s works: “Real love is what one bears toward another; debauchery is love and affirmation of self, conducing to the ruin of self” (123). Thus, according to Berdyaev, Dostoevsky would not be a fan of Rand’s Anthem: “Self-will and self-sufficiency always beget depravity” (124).

*Berdyaev thought Dostoevsky open to change in society, but always in the context of freedom. “Dostoievsky was the herald of the spirit of revolution on its way to accomplishment; he expresses nothing in his work but the impassioned and tumultuous dynamism of human nature. Man in that mood tears himself away from the social order, stops obeying the rules, and enters a universe in another dimension” (20). Nonetheless, every man who cuts himself off from society sooner or later needs to be united again by saying yes. Think of Raskolnikov at the end of Crime and Punishment in exile in Siberia but with the hope of a new life represented by the presence of Sonia bringing him the Gospel. Berdyaev sees Notes From Underground as the pivotal book in the trajectory of Dostoevsky’s thinking and writing: “[U]nderworld [sic] man and his astounding dialectic of irrational liberty represent a moment on the tragic road whereon mankind tries out and experiences freedom; for freedom is the supreme good: man cannot renounce it without renouncing himself and ceasing to be a man” (56). *Both Zamyatin and Rand explored concepts of freedom in the face of a collectivist mindset. Zamyatin’s examination of freedom revealed an ambivalence, while Rand’s answer was a man-god not unlike that of the nihilists in Dostoevsky’s Demons. D-503 can only solve his dilemma by submitting to the excision of his imagination, while Equality 7-2521 tears himself away from society in order to create and master his own world, free of obligations to others. * Neither one is truly free (nor is the Underground Man): “No man who is divided can be free, and a man who cannot make the free act of choosing the object of his love is condemned to this division,” writes Berdyaev (81).

*Herbert’s Dune and Mystical Ecology

Tacoma native son Frank Herbert offered a startling alternative vision of the universe, one mainly derived from ecology but with elements of mysticism and human free will. Observing how Dune’s protagonist Paul Muad’dib Atreides and his Fremen allies had toppled the Empire at the end of the novel, one is tempted to think Herbert favors agency over structure. After all, Paul’s mother Jessica defied her Bene Gesserit overseers and Paul has defied many strictures and laws of seemingly immutable destiny to ascend to the role of emperor and prophet. The two subsequent books in Herbert’s original trilogy show that he did not dismiss structure: webs of time and space and culture tangle up Paul and his heirs, forcing them into choices not completely their own. “There is no escape,” said Paul Muad’Dib Atreides, “we pay for the violence of our ancestors” (146).

But the fact remains that Dune’s anthropology still has elements we have already considered: Jessica’s yes to her husband’s desire and need for a (male) heir and Paul’s yes to Chani as an embrace of both she and her Fremen culture are crucial elements in the arc of the story. Herbert’s unique contribution to this realm of anthropology is his reliance on ecology as an important determinative and explanatory element. *Herbert (well-known for his ecological experiments in real life), speaking through the character of planetologist Kynes, says: “Beyond a critical point within a finite space, freedom diminishes as numbers increase. This is as true of humans in the finite space of a planetary ecosystem as it is of gas molecules in a sealed flask. The human question is not how many can possibly survive within the system, but what kind of existence is possible for those who do survive” (493). In the third book of the trilogy, Children of Dune, Herbert has Paul’s son, Leto, begin to live symbiotically with the proto-worms of Arrakis. That step will help train his descendants. “We’ll be an ecosystem in miniature,” Leto says. “You see, whatever system animals choose to survive by must be based on the pattern of interlocking communities, interdependence, working together in the common design which is the system” (406).

*Personhood in Lossky and Zizioulas

Vladimir Lossky was an important Orthodox theologian of the 20^th Century. Metropolitan John D. Zizioulas is considered by many in both the East and the West to be a top scholar and thinker about anthropology and ecclesiology. *Together they provide a foundation for the premise of this presentation: a person is one who says yes to the other. Lossky writes: “The human hypostasis can only reveal itself by renouncing its own will, because the latter determines us and subjects us to natural necessity” (126). Thus Rand’s man-god or new Prometheus (also the subtitle of Shelley’s Frankenstein, incidentally) is never fully human because he will not renounce his will. Zamyatin’s more conflicted protagonist experiences the thrill of surrendering his will but ultimately discards his will instead of voluntarily surrendering it—he too is not fully a person. Zizioulas expands on this theme: “True being comes only from the free person, from the person who loves freely—that is, who freely affirms his being, his identity, by means of an event of communion with other persons” (18). Communion requires saying yes.

*Conclusion

*Fulton J. Sheen, writing during the Cold War, discerned the societal and spiritual consequences of rising individualism in our culture. * “As persons surrender a sense of responsibility to God, to the state, to family and to their vocation in life, they dissolve into atoms; atoms exist only for themselves. To say we live in the atomic age may be a more unfortunate characterization than we know; for if we are nothing but atomic individuals, then we are ready either to be split or fissioned mentally, or else collectivized into a socialistic dictatorship. The latter is nothing but the forcible organization of the chaos created by a conflict of individual egotism” (213-214). Sheen correctly interpreted the signs of the times, foreseeing that a godless society reliant on science for guidance would be a society adrift, prone to either individualism or collectivism—in either case soul-crushing and dehumanizing.

Fortunately, traditional thinkers have put forward other options for society. Two concepts from that school of thought are solidarity and subsidiarity. Solidarity means that society in all its aspects must share common goals and work together toward them. Subsidiarity means that decision-making should be done at the lowest level possible and closest to those affected by the decisions. Or, as Berdyaev puts it in Slavery and Freedom: “The state exists for man and not man for the state” (150).

Zamyatin showed us a quasi-religious technocratic state perhaps not unlike what would have occurred in an alternate universe in which the French Revolution had developed organically over the course of centuries. His characters live in a world protected from nature and have mostly given up their ability to say yes except in a pro forma way. The system is undermined when a significant individual develops (albeit briefly) into a person with a soul by saying yes to passionate freedom. Rand proffers a hero who is more of a rebel who realizes his individuality but not his personhood. He is somewhat of a genius whose brilliance is unrecognized because of the obstinate quasi-religion of the oppressive and traditional society in which he lives. Both novels’ protagonists have an immediate ancestor in Dostoevsky’s Underground Man, who says no to an oppressive society that mocks and emasculates him. When he allows himself to be vulnerable to a woman and says yes to her, he then realizes that she has had pity on him, and in his pride perversely drives her away, thereby eliminating his opportunity to move closer to personhood. Great thinkers of both East and West teach that an individual is not fully a person and that communion with others—and God—is the mark of a person. Free will exercised in a narcissistic way will keep the individual from reaching his or her potential and can lead one to hell and eternal separation from God.

*To guide us we have an example of one who said yes: Mary, the Theotokos and Blessed Virgin Mother. *Her threefold affirmation can be a model for us: ecce, fiat, magnificat. Here I am; yes; thanks be to You, O God. Mary said yes to God, confirming her personhood. Thereafter she had both joys and sorrows, going before us in faith and showing us the path to God and fullness of life. She was not an individual but a person fully reflecting God’s image. Her yes reversed Eve’s greedy taking of the fruit and subsequent breaking of communion with Adam and God. Adam and Eve’s sin broke apart what God had made and wrought isolation and alienation throughout creation. Mary, our “Champion Leader,” always goes before us, teaching us how to be fully persons as God intended. To live otherwise is to live as frustrated individuals.

*Or, in the words of Three Dog Night:

Works Cited

Berdyaev, Nicholas. Dostoevsky. Trans. Donald Attwater. Cleveland: Meridian, 1968.

Berdyaev, Nicolas. Slavery and Freedom. Trans. R.M. French. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1944.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Notes From Underground. Trans. Rochard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. New York: Vintage, 1993.

Heller, Anne C. Ayn Rand and the World She Made. New York: Anchor, 2009.

Herbert, Frank. Children of Dune. New York: Berkeley Medallion, 1977.

Herbert, Frank. Dune. New York: Berkeley Medallion, 1977.

Lossky, Vladimir. Orthodox Theology. Trans. Ian and Ihita Kesarcodi-Watson. Crestwood, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001.

Rand, Ayn. Anthem. New York: Signet, 1946.

Sheen, Fulton J. Guide to Contentment. Canfield, OH: Alba House, 1996.

von Balthasar, Hans Urs. Prayer. Trans. Graham Harrison. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986.

Zamyatin, Yevgeny. We. Trans. Mirra Ginsburg. New York: Harper Voyager, 2012.

Zizioulas, John D. Being As Communion. Crestwood: SVS Press, 1997.

Post Script, 2026: I am convicted by my own words. I have chances to say yes to others, but don’t. Friendship is something I don’t quite grasp. I believe there are studies showing men really struggle with friendship. It is certainly true for me: growing up in a small town I had friends, but those bonds broke down in the years after school due to distance, divergence in priorities, betrayals, etc. I am curious about the experiences of others: is it possible to make new friends in later life? What does that relationship look like? I confess I really don’t know how to be a friend, especially with other men. We introverts find friendship—indeed all human interactions—tiring. (Susan Cain’s book explains this.) Autism does not make things easier either. Comments welcome.

Despite how it might appear from the essay, I would not call myself a personalist. I am more concerned with the common good.

******

Books recently completed:

• De Mattei, A Cardinal for the Ages (About Merry Del Val);

• Edwin O’Connor, The Last Hurah;

• Mother St. Paul, Mater Christi: Meditations on Our Lady.

You can Buy Greg a Coffee at this link. I donate funds from here to an orphanage in India run by the Consoling Sisters. Money earned from my Crisis articles goes to a great Catholic school for boys in Kentucky, St. Andrew’s Academy.

I have two self-published books available on Amazon; both are in verse: Against the Alchemists, which is a loosely-linked catechism in verse; and, A Verse Companion to Romano Guardini’s Sacred Signs, a sort of commentary on Guardini’s wonderful little book on many aspects of the liturgy and worship.