The Rudolf Steiner Archive

14. Individuality and Genus

[ 1 ] The view that man is predisposed to a complete, self-contained, free individuality is apparently contradicted by the facts that he appears as a member within a natural whole (race, tribe, people, family, male and female sex), and that he acts within a whole (state, church and so on). He bears the general characteristics of the community to which he belongs and gives his actions a content determined by the place he occupies within a majority.

[ 2 ] Is individuality still possible at all? Can the human being itself be regarded as a whole in itself when it grows out of a whole and integrates itself into a whole?

[ 3 ] The member of a whole is determined by the whole in terms of its characteristics and functions. A tribe is a whole, and all the people belonging to it have the characteristics that are determined by the nature of the tribe. How the individual is constituted and how he acts is determined by the character of the tribe. This gives the physiognomy and actions of the individual something generic. If we ask why this or that is so or so in a person, we are referred from the individual to the genus. This explains to us why something about him appears in the form we observe.

[ 4 ] Humans, however, free themselves from this generic quality. For the human generic, correctly experienced by man, is nothing that restricts his freedom, nor should it be through artificial events. Man develops qualities and functions in himself, the reason for which we can only seek in himself. The generic serves him only as a means of expressing his particular nature. It uses the peculiarities given to it by nature as a basis and gives it the form appropriate to its own nature. We now search in vain for the reason for the expression of this being in the laws of the species. We are dealing with an individual that can only be explained by itself. If a person has penetrated to this detachment from the generic, and we still want to explain everything about him from the character of the genus, then we have no organ for the individual.

[ 5 ] It is impossible to fully understand a person if one bases one's judgment on a generic concept. The most stubborn way of judging according to genus is when it comes to a person's sex. The man almost always sees too much of the general character of the other sex in the woman, the woman in the man, and too little of the individual. In practical life this is less harmful to men than to women. The social position of women is usually so unworthy because in many points, where it should be, it is not conditioned by the individual peculiarities of the individual woman, but by the general ideas which are formed of the natural task and needs of women. The man's activity in life is determined by his individual abilities and inclinations, that of the woman should be determined solely by the fact that she is a woman. The woman should be the slave of the generic, the general feminine. As long as men debate whether a woman's "natural disposition" makes her suitable for this or that profession, the so-called woman question cannot leave its most elementary stage. What a woman can want according to her nature is left to the woman to judge. If it is true that women are only fit for the occupation that now belongs to them, then they will hardly be able to achieve another one of their own accord, but they must be able to decide for themselves what is in accordance with their nature. To those who fear that our social conditions will be shaken by the fact that women are not taken as generic human beings but as individuals, it must be replied that social conditions in which half of humanity has a degrading existence are in great need of improvement. ^{1In response to the above remarks, it was objected to me as soon as this book was published (1894) that within the generic, women can already live out their individual lives as they wish, far more freely than men, who are already de-individualized by school and then by war and work. I know that this objection will perhaps be raised even more strongly today. But I must leave the sentences here and would like to hope that there are also readers who understand how strongly such an objection violates the concept of freedom that is developed in this writing, and who judge my above sentences by something other than the de-individualization of man through school and profession.}

[ 6 ] Those who judge men by generic characters come just to the limit above which they begin to be beings whose activity is based on free self-determination. What lies below this limit can of course be the subject of scientific consideration. Racial, tribal, ethnic and sexual characteristics are the content of special sciences. Only people who wanted to live solely as specimens of the species could coincide with a general picture that comes about through such scientific observation. But all these sciences cannot penetrate to the particular content of the individual. Where the realm of freedom (of thought and action) begins, the determination of the individual according to the laws of the species ends. The conceptual content that man must bring into connection with perception through thinking in order to take possession of the full reality (cf. p.88ff.) cannot be fixed once and for all and left to mankind ready-made. The individual must gain his concepts through his own intuition. How the individual is to think cannot be derived from any generic concept. Only the individual is decisive for this. Nor is it possible to determine from general human characters what concrete goals the individual wants to set before his will. Whoever wants to understand the individual must penetrate into his or her particular nature and not stop at typical peculiarities. In this sense, every single person is a problem. And all science that deals with abstract thoughts and generic concepts is only a preparation for the knowledge that comes to us when a human individuality tells us its way of looking at the world, and for the other knowledge that we gain from the content of its will. Where we have the feeling that we are dealing with something in a human being that is free from typical ways of thinking and generic volition, we must stop using any concepts from our spirit if we want to understand his essence. Recognition consists in the connection of the concept with perception through thinking. With all other objects the observer must gain the concepts through his intuition; in understanding a free individuality it is only a matter of taking its concepts, according to which it determines itself, purely (without mixing them with its own conceptual content) into our mind. People who immediately interfere with their own concepts in every judgment of another can never arrive at an understanding of an individuality. Just as free individuality frees itself from the peculiarities of the genus, so cognition must free itself from the way in which the generic is understood

[ 7 ] Only to the degree to which man has freed himself from the generic in the manner indicated can he be considered a free spirit within a human community. No human being is completely a species, no one is completely an individual. But every human being gradually detaches a greater or lesser sphere of his being from the generic nature of animal life, as well as from the commandments of human authorities that govern him.

[ 8 ] For the part for which man cannot conquer such freedom, however, he forms a member within the natural and spiritual organism. In this respect, he lives as he imitates others or as they command him to. Only that part of his actions which springs from his intuitions has an ethical value in the true sense. And whatever moral instincts he has in himself through the inheritance of social instincts becomes ethical through the fact that he incorporates them into his intuitions. All moral activity of mankind springs from individual ethical intuitions and their absorption into human communities. One can also say that the moral life of mankind is the sum total of the moral imaginative products of free human individuals. This is the result of monism.