Man: noun
From the above definitions, googled from dictionary.com, the various meanings of the word “man” can be grouped broadly into two categories: 1) the singular—an adult male person, and 2) the collective—the human race. For thousands of years this one word has been used with both meanings and the correct understanding has been drawn from the context in which the word has been placed. For example, “Man does not live by bread alone” is understood in the universal, collective sense and “The dog bit the man” is understood in the singular, specific sense. The specific meaning, being finite and irreducible, can be understood to be a natural sense of the word and the collective meaning, being general and conceptual can be understood to be a spiritual sense. These two senses, natural and spiritual, ought not to be opposed, but rather, harmonious.
In recent years the use of the word “man” in its universal sense has fallen into disfavour and has been dethroned, as it were, from its place of honour in our vocabulary. Why? Because of the selective application by many today of the singular meaning of ‘man’ over and against its collective meaning.
But why should this be?
For the sake of simplicity, throughout the remainder of this article the word ‘man’ (all lowercase letters) will refer to ‘a male of the species’ and ‘Man’ (with uppercase M) will refer to ‘the human race, mankind.’
Ostensibly the good intention behind the selective and preferred use is for the sake of “gender equity” and “inclusiveness.” Yet does this simple three lettered word, m-a-n, actually exclude? It may appear to do so, but only when looked at literally and only if the understanding of the reader willfully excludes the collective sense.
The Writings teach about the many falsities that arise when The Word (Sacred Scripture) is understood only according to its literal sense. Here we observe this same phenomenon in our everyday speech. Clearly there is a distinction between the word ‘man’ as meaning one particular male human being and Man in the universal sense. The first meaning is natural, literal, and singular. The second meaning is universal, spiritual, and general. Each has its use. Both are legitimate.
But if human beings choose to use only the most singular meaning, the general meaning will over time, inevitably become lost. Nowadays the application of the general sense of the word is becoming scarce due to the disdain that is thrown upon it. Increasingly the use of “Man” in the universal sense has become socially stigmatized with the result that the more socially acceptable, yet awkward alternatives such as “people,” “persons,” “humankind,” “men and women,” or even “all of us” and “we” are required to be substituted.
In Matthew 4:4 we read, “Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” Today this becomes reduced to, “We do not live by bread alone.” This example may seem harmless enough but how far must we go in the substitution of the word? Quoting from Shakespeare’s Hamlet we read, “What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel.” Should we also “improve” Shakespeare’s words to, “What a piece of work is people”? Or perhaps the more ego-centric “What a piece of work are we”? Immediately the beauty of this line is destroyed with the tampering of this noble and poetic word. Herein lays the insidious problem of literalism—the desire to apply and understand only the most basic meaning, to the exclusion of a higher sense.
We often hear about ancient ways and knowledges becoming lost and forgotten. This arises not only from the actual loss of the material forms of the written word (i.e., books, scrolls, parchments) but also by the degradation of the meaning of words through purposeful lack of use. The history of human civilization is intimately tied up in its language. The layering of the meaning of words gives light and texture, form and substance to human lexis and imbues it with spirit and life and so to combat this loss we must strive to honour and preserve the integrity of words. “Man” in the universal sense is a noble, wise, and beautiful word precisely because of its relationship to ‘man’ in the singular sense. “Man” in the universal meaning is more abstract and to understand the concept of “Man” requires a higher level of cognitive thinking. In Arcana Coelestia 6653 we read, “the reason why truths are spoken of abstractedly is that spirits and angels so think and speak, for in this way they comprehend a subject in a universal manner and at the same time singly the particulars belonging to it” [emphasis added].
The purpose of this article however, is not only to defend the universal meaning of “Man” and attempt a reconciliation between ‘man’ and ‘Man,’ but also to offer as a parting thought the idea that there is yet a third meaning, a celestial one—what we in the New Church know as the Grand Man. It is outside the scope of this article to explore this sense and it is best left to be developed at a future time. However, it should be noted that there cannot be entrance into the understanding of any abstract sense without the mind rising up through the universal sense first. In other words, there is no coming to an understanding of the concept of the Grand Man through short-circuiting the concept of Man in the universal sense. There is a hierarchy of meaning. The concept of the Grand Man cannot be understood directly from the concept of man (male of the species); the spiritual, universal sense must be intermediary between the two. If we desire to raise our minds up to heaven to grasp the meaning of the Grand Man, then “Man” in its universal sense must be restored to its original place of honour.
In closing, let us bring our thoughts back down to earth and be reminded that the dignity of ‘man’ in every sense of the word has its origin and culmination in the Lord alone. May we reclaim and uphold the use of this noble, gracious, and holy word in all its forms—natural, spiritual, and celestial.
And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” Genesis 2:26-27.