Economy of Communion in EA X: Man, the Relational Being

Anthropological foundations

Taking the evolution of managerial theories into account, it clearly emerges how much the anthropological view that human beings have of themselves impresses the theory and practice of management (Argiolas, 2004). Many of the causes bringing about or fueling conflicts and/or cooperation within the organizations and particularly in the firms, can be traced back to the exercise of power and then, in the final analysis, the perspective that human beings take considering the diversity or, better still, the alteration. This point of view deeply affects relational modalities carried out in life together with others.

Man is a Relational Being Capable of sympathy

The meaning of the word other may be understood in a double perspective: anthropological and metaphysical. The other not only in what appears, but also in what is beyond appearance, in his intimate substance, in his ontology, in his penny Wining-being. It is not so easy – and most probably it is impossible – to suggest an unequivocal definition of “person”. Some researchers prefer speaking of the “mystery of the person” (Mounier, 1947) in order to highlight all its amplitude and depth (Sheler, 1970). Aristotle states that “human, in fact, is a social being by his own nature inclined to live together with the others” (Mazzarelli, 1979), and more recently Heschel affirms that “for the man to be means to be together with the other human beings. His existence is co-existence. He can never feel fulfilled or explain his own meaning if this is not shared, if it is not in relation with other human beings.” (Heschel, 1965). Such a perspective seems to be gaining ongoing and increasing interest and space, even within the economic debate, in which the anthropological principles underlying the ontological individualism are questioned by a wider and wider authoritative doctrine (Sen, 1977). It can be noted that also the human being emerging from a complete reading of Smith’s contribution is a relational being, capable of sympathy (Smith, 1966). That is, he is capable “to be in the other’s shoes” or, as Smith himself says, he is endowed with the capacity of being one with the other (Bruni, 1997), in a perspective that goes beyond the altruist – egoist dualism (Bruni and Sugden, 2000).

A Communion  in Unity

“Being in communion, living in communion means to experiment (perceive) that even though we are many (at least two, distinct) we are one (united). So that the other’s joy is mine, his or her pain is mine, the other’s success is mine, his or her failure is mine, what the other does I do (and vice versa, what I do is made by the other) and it is really such that, as an effect of the relation­ship, his or her being is inside me, I take it within me (and vice versa) and that makes us different from what we were before. In this perspective, it is important to specify how conditions of communion can be achieved. Operat­ing for achieving Communion, it is possible to underline three different kinds of Drivers: Pillars of Communion, Instruments (or tools) of Communion, and Aspects (or dimensions) of Communion.”

 

Paul Kisolo: Executive Consultant KARDS

Millicent Agutu: Administrator KARDS

Francis Owino: Administrator REG

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: