Acceptance

Life — defined for the purposes of this article as the sustained existence of the individual — precedes any roles or duties. They flow from it, are informed by it, can even be a necessary part of it, but are not its essence.

The significance of individual personhood, as disconnected from social roles, is a relatively recent development in the history of humanity. In ancient literature, the social opinion of others and the role one takes in the world inform the existence of the individual. Achilles' extraordinary anger results from others' refusal to take his extraordinary qualities seriously. Beowulf fights for, and from within, his community. Aeneas carries his household gods, his father, and his son across the sea not for his own personal glory, but so that his personal glory can serve his family and race. The word "person" itself comes from the Latin persona, a stage mask, a role. For the ancient world, the person was the roles he played.

Philosophically, one reason this began to change was the arguments of the early Christian Church Fathers about the nature of the Trinity — if the person is nothing but his role, then having "three persons in one God" means "one God with three roles." The Fathers rejected this as the heresy of modalism, condemned finally by the Council of Nicaea. From the struggle to explain how the Three Persons of God are distinct came the idea that the person had ontological meaning prior to the role he played.

In the words of John Zizioulas: "Uniqueness is something absolute for the person. The person is so absolute in its uniqueness that it does not permit itself to be regarded as an arithmetical concept, to be set alongside other beings, to be combined with other objects or to be used as a means, even for the most sacred goal. The goal is the person itself…" (Being as Communion, 47).

This took a while to take hold. The ancient concept of personhood as connected to social roles persisted and shaped society until the Renaissance. The Christian knights of Arthur's Round Table seek heroism through the random quests they encounter in everyday life, failing as often as they succeed, ultimately focused on their individual salvation. In the Renaissance, this idea burst out into full color — Martin Luther and his emphasis on the individual acceptance of grace alone; Pico della Mirandola's belief in the capacity to choose as indicative of dignity; da Vinci's glorious emphasis on the human body in art.

Unfortunately, the results of extreme individualism can lead to extreme fragmentation — totalitarianism, nihilism, solipsism, religious sectarianism — as the individual's glorious self-identification still depends on choosing one or the other of a set of perceived goods. He can and does choose, but he is still incapable by definition of creating himself.

Are roles important? Yes, but I would change the term to "responsibilities." What's the difference? A role is external; a responsibility is internal. In a role, one's freedom is tied up from the start; in a responsibility, one's freedom is freely given. In the words of a wise woman I know, there are two sets of chains in every life: those tying us to God and those keeping us from going to Him. One needs to be released, and one needs to be tightened. But often both will feel like chains.

Life is about persons. A social role has to do with you bumping up against your social surroundings. A responsibility has to do with you bumping up against another person. But existence comes first. First and foremost: how are you bumping up against yourself? Are you friends with yourself? Do you enjoy your own company? Are you happy? Are you, in the last analysis, yourself? Once the answers to all of those questions can be "yes," the responsibilities come naturally.

Human life is a patchwork of things you expect and things you don't, things you want and things you shrink from, all stitched together by intentional choice. That takes a lot more dignity, humility, and bravery than a social role.