What do you think?
Rate this book
Personalism
This volume, first published a year before Mounier’s death, is his final definition of personalism. It is an eloquent and lucid statement of a perspective in which “man’s supreme adventure is to fight injustice wherever it is found and whatever the consequences” (from the Foreword).
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1949
30 people are currently reading
359 people want to read
About the author
Emmanuel Mounier
72 books20 followersEmmanuel Mounier (1 April 1905 – 22 March 1950) was a French Catholic philosopher and intellectual who founded the personalist movement, emphasizing the inherent dignity and communal vocation of the human person as a spiritual being engaged in the world, and established the journal Espirit as its primary organ.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
January 25, 2024
I don’t mind if you call me old-fashioned when I say that this booklet - published in 1949 in the famous 'Que sais-je' series - captivated me. To me, Mounier’s personalistic philosophy has lost almost nothing of his value. I am particularly charmed by Mounier's constant emphasis on the relational nature of being human: the person as a focal point of relationships, relationships with objects and the world, with him/herself and especially with other people (at different levels); it is precisely in this active interaction that the person finds his essence and existence. I tend to see an affinity here with a way of viewing the world that was developed around the same time, namely that of systems thinking (not the hard version of it, which derailed in rigid cybernetics, but the soft one, such as to be found in Edgar Morin and Francisco Varela). I’m also charmed by Mounier’s pleas for activism and sense of responsibility, especially because he points to the efficiency aspect of it, as well as to the spiritual-transcendent foundation (in which he refers in particular to Christianity).
Of course, I know that some aspects of this book are somewhat dated. Mounier’s philosophy was a reaction to the political-ideological (fascism, communism, imperialism) and economic-social (harsh capitalism, proletarisation, materialism) derailment in the first half of the 20th century. In this sense, his personalism is closely related to existentialism (certainly with that of Albert Camus), which knew a broader diffusion but also disappeared almost completely after the sixties. What followed were the successive waves of structuralism and postmodernism in the cultural sphere, and the advance of technocracy in the political-economical sphere, both with their underlying antihumanism. Maybe I’m naïve, but (re)reading this book, and seeing the way in which Mounier recalibrated humanism in a ‘person’ concept that transcends pure individualism is absolutely refreshing.
Of course, I know that some aspects of this book are somewhat dated. Mounier’s philosophy was a reaction to the political-ideological (fascism, communism, imperialism) and economic-social (harsh capitalism, proletarisation, materialism) derailment in the first half of the 20th century. In this sense, his personalism is closely related to existentialism (certainly with that of Albert Camus), which knew a broader diffusion but also disappeared almost completely after the sixties. What followed were the successive waves of structuralism and postmodernism in the cultural sphere, and the advance of technocracy in the political-economical sphere, both with their underlying antihumanism. Maybe I’m naïve, but (re)reading this book, and seeing the way in which Mounier recalibrated humanism in a ‘person’ concept that transcends pure individualism is absolutely refreshing.
August 15, 2009
Highly rewarding. I'm not keen on the form of the book; I think it's too long and dull to be a manifesto, but too short and vague to be a satisfying treatise. However, it is a good introduction to Mounier's philosophy.
If you're not familiar with personalism, it is one of the chief pillars of contemporary Catholic social thought, as well as having been a seminal influence in the work of Martin Luther King. (In the US, personalism is associated especially with Boston University.) Its key claim is that the person or subject -- free, creative, and spiritual, but also embodied and imperfect -- is both the agent and the goal of human experience. In an ontological sense, according to this view, only persons are real; purely objective matter is dead and opposes the highest development of the universe. Ethically, the highest form of human action is to be personal -- i.e., to engage in the continuous process of becoming personal within a world of other persons. Each person must embrace "the double rigours of transcendence and incarnation" (122) as an integrated subject in whom matter and spirit are inseparable.
With language like this, it should be obvious that Mounier is working within an explicitly Christian framework. He does believe that an atheistic personalism is possible and useful, but he argues in effect that it is unnecessary; the transcendent Person is self-justifying. Mounier sees the incarnate God as simply the natural point of convergence of all the best tendencies of the universe, and is content to leave a defense of the divine existence at that.
Politically and socially, Mounier explicitly advances personalism as an alternative to both liberal individualism and Marxism. The former, he writes, denies the reality of material limitations and often, in practice, the subjectivity of other persons. The latter denies the reality of spirit and, in effect, even the subjectivity of the self. He sees value in each as a corrective to the other, but finds both wrongheaded.
If you're not familiar with personalism, it is one of the chief pillars of contemporary Catholic social thought, as well as having been a seminal influence in the work of Martin Luther King. (In the US, personalism is associated especially with Boston University.) Its key claim is that the person or subject -- free, creative, and spiritual, but also embodied and imperfect -- is both the agent and the goal of human experience. In an ontological sense, according to this view, only persons are real; purely objective matter is dead and opposes the highest development of the universe. Ethically, the highest form of human action is to be personal -- i.e., to engage in the continuous process of becoming personal within a world of other persons. Each person must embrace "the double rigours of transcendence and incarnation" (122) as an integrated subject in whom matter and spirit are inseparable.
With language like this, it should be obvious that Mounier is working within an explicitly Christian framework. He does believe that an atheistic personalism is possible and useful, but he argues in effect that it is unnecessary; the transcendent Person is self-justifying. Mounier sees the incarnate God as simply the natural point of convergence of all the best tendencies of the universe, and is content to leave a defense of the divine existence at that.
Politically and socially, Mounier explicitly advances personalism as an alternative to both liberal individualism and Marxism. The former, he writes, denies the reality of material limitations and often, in practice, the subjectivity of other persons. The latter denies the reality of spirit and, in effect, even the subjectivity of the self. He sees value in each as a corrective to the other, but finds both wrongheaded.
October 20, 2024
J'en ai eu pour mon argent avec "Le personnalisme". Je l'a lu afin de connaitre Emmanuel Mounier qui était le phare intellectuel de Pierre Elliot Trudeau, le grand premier ministre canadien et j'y trouvé effectivement un manifeste démocrate-chrétienne. Pourtant, le livre contient aussi une défense très bien réussie du catholicisme contre ses critiques de Kant, Hegel, Heidegger et Marx.
Le personnalisme de Mounier, c'est le christianisme en action pour promouvoir les libertés des individus et la justice sociale. Selon Mounier, le premier pas est de reconnaitre que individu possède une âme chrétienne: "Or la personne n'est pas un objet. ... C'est un être crée ex nihilo par Dieu avec un destin unique." pp.9- 12
Mounier commence par rappeler le grand apport de la philosophie grecque (Platon et Aristote) qui ont démontré qu'un Dieu unique a crée un univers bon et que les êtres humains possédaient des âmes immortelles. Les deux choses que les Grecs n'ont pas compris ont été, premièrement que chaque personne reçoit une vocation unique de Dieu et, deuxièmement, que l'on peut voir Dieu dans le visage de son prochain.
Mounier souligne qu'il pense très peu de la philosophie de Kant et Hegel ( "les dégradés spiritualistes") qui promouvaient la doctrine que "l'homme vit dans la nature qui n'est une représentation" p 21. Pour Mounier la nature crée par Dieu est "une réalité absolue." p. 21
Mounier est alors un admirateur de Martin Buber. Comme Buber, il croit le fait d'aimer son prochain est la preuve de son existence: " L'acte d'amour est la plus forte certitude de l'homme, le cogito existentiel irréfutable : J'aime, donc l'être est, et la vie vaut (la peine d'être vécue). Il ne me confirme pas seulement par le mouvement dans lequel je le pose, mais par l'être qui m'y donne autrui.." p. 39
Les deux grands ennemis sont Sartre et Heidegger qui croient que l'individu devient forcément l'esclave des autres. "La communication reste pour eux (Sartre et Heidegger) bloquée par le besoin de posséder et de soumettre. Chaque partenaire y est nécessairement, ou tyran, ou esclave. Le regard d'autrui me vole mon univers, la présence d'autrui fige ma liberté, son élection m'entrave. L'amour est une infection mutuelle, un enfer." p. 32
Mounier est plutôt sympathique à Marx qui contrairement à Kant et Hegel n'est pas un "dégradé spiritualiste" dans le sens qui veut trouver une solution à la pauvreté et le manque des libertés des couches populaires de la société humaine. Aux yeux de Mounier, le seul défaut de Marx est qu'il a nié l'existence de l'âme.
D'après Mounier l'engagement politique était nécessaire: "Refuser pour autant l'engagement c'est refuser la condition humaine. p. 97. Seulement un action collective pouvait remédier aux problèmes de la société. "L'effort vers la vérité et la justice est un effort collectif." p. 91
On voit l'influence de Mounier sur Pierre Trudeau aussi dans l'importance qu'Il accorde à la protection des droits et libertés: "D'abord, que la personne doit être protégée contre l'abus de pouvoir, et tout pouvoir non contrôlé tend à l'abus. Cette protection exige un statut publie de la personne et une limitation constitutionnelle des pouvoirs de l'État : équilibre du pouvoir central par les pouvoirs locaux, organisation du recours des citoyens contre l'État, habeas corpus, limitation des pouvoirs de police, indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire." p. 114
Tous ceux qui s'intéressent sur la carrière de Pierre Elliot Trudeau et l'histoire du Parti Libéral du Canada pendant la deuxième moitié du 20e siècle devra lire ce petit livre éloquent.
Le personnalisme de Mounier, c'est le christianisme en action pour promouvoir les libertés des individus et la justice sociale. Selon Mounier, le premier pas est de reconnaitre que individu possède une âme chrétienne: "Or la personne n'est pas un objet. ... C'est un être crée ex nihilo par Dieu avec un destin unique." pp.9- 12
Mounier commence par rappeler le grand apport de la philosophie grecque (Platon et Aristote) qui ont démontré qu'un Dieu unique a crée un univers bon et que les êtres humains possédaient des âmes immortelles. Les deux choses que les Grecs n'ont pas compris ont été, premièrement que chaque personne reçoit une vocation unique de Dieu et, deuxièmement, que l'on peut voir Dieu dans le visage de son prochain.
Mounier souligne qu'il pense très peu de la philosophie de Kant et Hegel ( "les dégradés spiritualistes") qui promouvaient la doctrine que "l'homme vit dans la nature qui n'est une représentation" p 21. Pour Mounier la nature crée par Dieu est "une réalité absolue." p. 21
Mounier est alors un admirateur de Martin Buber. Comme Buber, il croit le fait d'aimer son prochain est la preuve de son existence: " L'acte d'amour est la plus forte certitude de l'homme, le cogito existentiel irréfutable : J'aime, donc l'être est, et la vie vaut (la peine d'être vécue). Il ne me confirme pas seulement par le mouvement dans lequel je le pose, mais par l'être qui m'y donne autrui.." p. 39
Les deux grands ennemis sont Sartre et Heidegger qui croient que l'individu devient forcément l'esclave des autres. "La communication reste pour eux (Sartre et Heidegger) bloquée par le besoin de posséder et de soumettre. Chaque partenaire y est nécessairement, ou tyran, ou esclave. Le regard d'autrui me vole mon univers, la présence d'autrui fige ma liberté, son élection m'entrave. L'amour est une infection mutuelle, un enfer." p. 32
Mounier est plutôt sympathique à Marx qui contrairement à Kant et Hegel n'est pas un "dégradé spiritualiste" dans le sens qui veut trouver une solution à la pauvreté et le manque des libertés des couches populaires de la société humaine. Aux yeux de Mounier, le seul défaut de Marx est qu'il a nié l'existence de l'âme.
D'après Mounier l'engagement politique était nécessaire: "Refuser pour autant l'engagement c'est refuser la condition humaine. p. 97. Seulement un action collective pouvait remédier aux problèmes de la société. "L'effort vers la vérité et la justice est un effort collectif." p. 91
On voit l'influence de Mounier sur Pierre Trudeau aussi dans l'importance qu'Il accorde à la protection des droits et libertés: "D'abord, que la personne doit être protégée contre l'abus de pouvoir, et tout pouvoir non contrôlé tend à l'abus. Cette protection exige un statut publie de la personne et une limitation constitutionnelle des pouvoirs de l'État : équilibre du pouvoir central par les pouvoirs locaux, organisation du recours des citoyens contre l'État, habeas corpus, limitation des pouvoirs de police, indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire." p. 114
Tous ceux qui s'intéressent sur la carrière de Pierre Elliot Trudeau et l'histoire du Parti Libéral du Canada pendant la deuxième moitié du 20e siècle devra lire ce petit livre éloquent.
April 22, 2021
Sorprenentment bo! Realment bonic! Tan de bo el que hi diu fos cert i aplicable!!
April 5, 2011
I came to this book because of my reading about The Catholic Worker and Peter Maurin, who was particularly influenced by Mounier's philosophy. Although I feel a certain affinity for many of the ideas Mounier expresses, I still feel only partly able to explain what "personalism" really means. Here are a couple of broad brush strokes:
-Personalism accepts the existence of persons as the most salient and valued feature of reality. It is fundamentally non-reductionist because no person can be fully characterized by a set of enumerable characteristics.
-Although the term sounds like it could be a synonym for "individualism," it is emphatically not. Mounier's view of the person seems to me to have a deep affinity with the ethics of care developed by Nel Noddings, understanding the person as fundamentally relational as well as unique.
-As such, personalism is staunchly opposed both to communism and to individualist capitalism. For one thing, these two systems work to view the person as pure relation or pure uniqueness, both of which ignore significant aspects of personhood. For another thing, both are fundamentally materialist, and Mounier puts ultimate value on the earthly pursuit of the transcendent.
-Although this book only touches lightly on the subject, there is a strong Christian strand in personalism. There is a natural affinity between the personalist approach and the Christian understanding that God existed in human form. Two of the most well-known adherents of personalist philosophy were Martin Luther King Jr. and Pope John Paul II. I should also say, though, that there are very influential non-Christian personalists, such as Martin Buber.
Ultimately, I think "personalism" may not be well known as a branch of philosophy because it is not at all reducible to a bumper sticker: Mounier values balance in many things, including between relation and individualism, engagement in the world and meditation, valuation of the body and valuation of the transcendent. This can come across as fence-sitting, but it more often just comes across as sensible.
As I said, though, although I have positive feelings about the philosophy, I have mixed feelings about the book. For such an earthy philosophy, his exposition is written on a very theoretical level, almost completely devoid of example--in contrast to Noddings, for example, who clarifies her theoretical positions with a wide variety of concrete examples that seem to give more of a soul to her work.
-Personalism accepts the existence of persons as the most salient and valued feature of reality. It is fundamentally non-reductionist because no person can be fully characterized by a set of enumerable characteristics.
-Although the term sounds like it could be a synonym for "individualism," it is emphatically not. Mounier's view of the person seems to me to have a deep affinity with the ethics of care developed by Nel Noddings, understanding the person as fundamentally relational as well as unique.
-As such, personalism is staunchly opposed both to communism and to individualist capitalism. For one thing, these two systems work to view the person as pure relation or pure uniqueness, both of which ignore significant aspects of personhood. For another thing, both are fundamentally materialist, and Mounier puts ultimate value on the earthly pursuit of the transcendent.
-Although this book only touches lightly on the subject, there is a strong Christian strand in personalism. There is a natural affinity between the personalist approach and the Christian understanding that God existed in human form. Two of the most well-known adherents of personalist philosophy were Martin Luther King Jr. and Pope John Paul II. I should also say, though, that there are very influential non-Christian personalists, such as Martin Buber.
Ultimately, I think "personalism" may not be well known as a branch of philosophy because it is not at all reducible to a bumper sticker: Mounier values balance in many things, including between relation and individualism, engagement in the world and meditation, valuation of the body and valuation of the transcendent. This can come across as fence-sitting, but it more often just comes across as sensible.
As I said, though, although I have positive feelings about the philosophy, I have mixed feelings about the book. For such an earthy philosophy, his exposition is written on a very theoretical level, almost completely devoid of example--in contrast to Noddings, for example, who clarifies her theoretical positions with a wide variety of concrete examples that seem to give more of a soul to her work.
August 21, 2021
My main reason for picking up this book was to get an understanding of the intellectual “anti-conformist” personalist wave of the 20th century, rooted in the Christian tradition, typified by philosophers such as Berdyaev. The chaos and disorder of the 21st century seems all the more necessary to explore the ideas of these intellectuals who sought to “escape” modern conformity and a reactionary return to history which were common sentiments held among Christians today. Thankfully, this book remains highly beneficial for one who seeks a similar path and has encouraged me to continue reading other personalists thinkers.
Part one of this book mostly lays the foundations (“structure” in Mounier’s words) of personalism while tackling modern distorted views rooted in many existential, economic and social philosophies and systems (Nietzsche, Heidegger, Marxism, capitalism, individualism etc.), so Mounier expects the reader to be familiar with many of these ideas he’s critiquing, some of which I wasn’t. Contrary to my expectations, many of his critiques remained very relevant as he was able to address of individualism and capitalism from multiple fronts while simultaneously addressing the common presuppositions held by Marxists who could (and have) made similar critiques (Mounier will often acknowledge Marxists for doing so). However, Mounier’s approach remains Christian, and therefore isn’t simply a work of refutation but mainly a guideline to a Christian personalist worldview. Chapters 2, 3, 5 and 6 are illuminating in this respect.
Part two of this book is mainly aimed at addressing the political, economic and social revolutions of the 20th century, as its title suggests, and was sadly less intrigued by it as it seemed unfinished. There are many dense topics which Mounier tries to briefly tackle and lay a coherent doctrine on the basis of his foundations in “Part One”, which restricts Mounier’s elaboration leaving me scratching my head at times.
Nonetheless, I left the book understanding the main emphasis of the personalist ethos, whether or not personalism can be accurately defined, and its Christian aspirations. However, it’s a short introduction which is still quite dense and almost requires somebody to further read into these philosophers to get its full scope.
Part one of this book mostly lays the foundations (“structure” in Mounier’s words) of personalism while tackling modern distorted views rooted in many existential, economic and social philosophies and systems (Nietzsche, Heidegger, Marxism, capitalism, individualism etc.), so Mounier expects the reader to be familiar with many of these ideas he’s critiquing, some of which I wasn’t. Contrary to my expectations, many of his critiques remained very relevant as he was able to address of individualism and capitalism from multiple fronts while simultaneously addressing the common presuppositions held by Marxists who could (and have) made similar critiques (Mounier will often acknowledge Marxists for doing so). However, Mounier’s approach remains Christian, and therefore isn’t simply a work of refutation but mainly a guideline to a Christian personalist worldview. Chapters 2, 3, 5 and 6 are illuminating in this respect.
Part two of this book is mainly aimed at addressing the political, economic and social revolutions of the 20th century, as its title suggests, and was sadly less intrigued by it as it seemed unfinished. There are many dense topics which Mounier tries to briefly tackle and lay a coherent doctrine on the basis of his foundations in “Part One”, which restricts Mounier’s elaboration leaving me scratching my head at times.
Nonetheless, I left the book understanding the main emphasis of the personalist ethos, whether or not personalism can be accurately defined, and its Christian aspirations. However, it’s a short introduction which is still quite dense and almost requires somebody to further read into these philosophers to get its full scope.
December 10, 2023
3.5-4 Not as dynamic as his Personalist Manifesto, and more academic in jargon, still a clear and helpful volume to understand how personalism threads the needle of many cultural, political, economic, epistemic and ontological questions of the 20th century.
March 18, 2012
I love a practical philosophy. This is a serene, brave, ethical little manifesto about the place and importance of the person. Maybe I just like seeing my own ideas validated by a serious person, but it was a relief to come across this common sense. Mounier traces a path through the inequity and terrors of the world (both natural and man-made), and finds a place for the ephemeral human life. In its briefness, despite all that overwhelms, he sees a creature which can transcend everything, even its own self, by giving it away in a moral life. It was lovely, and it helped.
Read
December 24, 2014"I love; therefore, I am." Precisely.
October 30, 2017
Many of the ideas presented in this book are fascinating and I think... basically correct? But certain paragraphs reflect the author's colonialist (and borderline racist) prejudices.
Nonetheless, still an interesting read.
Nonetheless, still an interesting read.
June 26, 2018
Great book. Mounier’s replacement of Descartes cogito with, “I love, therefore I am,” is brilliant. Great description of personhood.
August 16, 2025
I like Mounier's ideas but the book was very hard to read. Perhaps it was the translator's fault, I cannot tell, but I'll have to re-read it.
September 19, 2012
Written in 1950 (trans. 1952), it's excellent and still timely.
February 21, 2016
Excellent read.
I highly recommend this.
I highly recommend this.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews