Subject and Object

Sara Mazumdar [Horsfall]
February 1971
(Washington Center)

I would like to share some thoughts I've had recently about subject and object relationships. In one sense, this has been the whole problem of the fallen world. There have been no real subjects and no real objects. Therefore, it's no wonder that at times it is hard for us to understand exactly how this polar relationship actually works.

In thinking back over the friends I've had, one thing struck me. The friendship which were, and still are solid are those in which there; was a clear and accepted overall role of subject and object. For instance, in my relationship with Barbara Mikesell in high school, she was always the overall subject, and we both know and acknowledged that. That doesn't mean that she always appeared in that role. Quite the contrary. Many times I would bubble, exude, and say "Isn't that great" and "we should do this or that." Barbara made a great subject, because she would listen and get all excited, and together we would do something. But the overall direction, the new information, the control of the depth was left to Barbara, because she was older, she knew more, and she had a broader perspective. That relationship is true even today. And in looking back, it seems that because those roles were acknowledged our relationship was able to grow. In fact, it is on the strength of that friendship that I came into the Family.

But what if there isn't harmonious give and take between the two people? If the subject is stronger, much stronger than the object, he will be domineering, the extreme of which is a director. This is an unhealthy situation. On the other hand, if the object is stronger than the subject, the result will be confusion, provided that the two don't have identical goals. There is confusion because both will be taking the subject position of determining the overall direction. So there will be two directions. This is obviously an unprincipled situation.

So how does this relate to Cain and Abel? And what deeper things can we learn about Cain-Abel relationship?

Before the fall Cain would have been in the subject position -- the older -- the wiser son. He undoubtedly was a strong person, and could have fulfilled this role. Abel should have been the object, learning from and following his older brother. Because of the fall, neither role was free from Satan's claim. Therefore the roles were reversed. Because Cain was not allowed his rightful position, he could not take pride in it, and thus Satan could not claim it. Rather, that position had to be purified and restored to God through Abel. But neither could Abel build up false pride in the position which should have been Cain's. For then Cain, whose love and trust he had to win, would hate him for his false pride in addition to hating him because of jealousy. So the only way Cain and Abel could restore human nature and the subject-object relationship to God, was if Abel took the position foreign to his nature.

He would learn then what his true was to be through Cain. Then he could restore the positions in a humble way after Cain had recognized Abel as a subject. He would do this by giving the subject role back to Cain. For this to work, humanity is required of both Cain and Abel. First in Cain to accept the object role, and second in Abel to restore the subject role to Cain. In this way God can enter in brothers, and the relationship is restored to God.

Needless to say, this was not the case with Cain and Abel. But it was the case with Esau and Jacob. Jacob helped Esau to accept the object role by sending him gifts. Then Jacob returned and humbled himself to Esau by serving him.

If we look at people in general, we can almost group them into two categories: those who are sure of themselves outwardly, and those who aren't sure of themselves outwardly. It seems logical to assume that God's original intention was that those who are sure of themselves should be in the subject position- leading the others. They have the strength, the capability to fulfill that role. But because of the fall, the positions are reversed. Those who are outwardly sure of themselves are easily subject to Satan's claim, subject to false pride. They must humble themselves to those who would have originally taken the object role. In this way God can work through both parties and Satan has no claim. In the world as we know it today, most people know how to be either subject or object, but not both.

There are three levels of subject-object relationships, just as there have been three levels of Father's love for mankind. The first is the level of a master and a servant. Anything the subject says, the object does-almost blindly-on faith. If you think back to the beginning of your present relationships, I'm sure you will find that was true. Or take the example of a boy and girl who have a "crush" on each other. Anything the girl wants the boy will break his back to get. Anything the boy says the girl will believe. The same thing is true with those whom we teach, once we have gotten their trust, they often believe and do everything we say, whether it is right or wrong.

The next level is that of father and son. The object responds more with his personality rather than by blindly seeking to satisfy the subject. And the object begins to take more of a subject position at times. The third level is like that between equals, or between husband and wife. Both are subject, both are object. One is overall subject, one is overall object. When this is established, God can fully be reflated between the two, and can have full give and take between them. This full give and take cannot take place at the lower two levels. I left out step which is necessary because of the fall. That is the buildup of faith. We don't automatically trust each other, or God, so that must be established before any kind of subject-object relationship can begin on any level.

Although it sounds obvious, one important fact is that you can't be a subject without an object. Nor can you be an object without a subject. In other words, only as a unity is developed between the two does it make sense to talk about either subject or object positions. For instance, given two people, you DON'T automatically have subject and object. Not until the two acknowledge each other and begin to function together can there be either, or any position. In other words, you can't be a subject unless your object responds to you. Nor can you be an object unless the subject acknowledges you as an object. So if I feel I know a lot, and tell someone else what to do, I'm being very foolish unless there has been a previous relationship to base my actions upon. Otherwise, what basis does the object have for believing me, or trusting my word. Even more, what right have I to act as a subject to someone who isn't an object to me? So I might just as well talk to a blank wall for all the good that it will do in God's eyes.

Once the subject and object form a unit, they cease to exist in their own separate identities any more. For instance, once you're married, there is no way you can stay the same person that you were, and still have a successful marriage. You have to give up a part of yourself in order to create something new. Well, it's easy to see what that might be outwardly your personal likes or dislikes, or personal sacrifices so the other person may be happy. But it's more than that. You have to actually give up a part 'of your identity. A few weeks ago

Marilyn gave a sermon on our self-image. She said that in the fallen world we do everything we can to protect the image or identity we have built up for ourselves, whether it's right, or wrong, because we are afraid to change. The same is true between subject and object units-especially between husband and wife. And it may not be in a negative sense. It may be that you just have to give up a part of your identity in order to form a new one with your spouse.

Once a unit is formed the subject and object are working together, they are dependent upon each other. So if one or the other fails in some way, no matter how well the other did, they both fail. That means if the subject is right and has the proper direction, the proper truth, but the object fails to respond to it, the subject can go no further, can be no closer to truth than the object. He can't go on alone unless he breaks the subject-object unit. If the subject responds, but the subject doesn't lead in the right direction, again neither is any closer to the truth than the subject has led.

This may become clearer in a simple instance. Assume you were fastidiously prompt in attending meetings, attending to any sort of obligation. Once you are married assume your husband or wife wasn't. It than becomes a part of your identity to be late. And you must accept the consequences of being late, even though it isn't directly your fault.

Or assume you arc object to someone, and subject to someone else. You trust the subject, therefore you convince the object of the same action. If it should turn out that the subject is wrong, you accept the blame, and must apologize to the object. You can't say "well, it wasn't really my fault." If you do, you are disavowing that subject-object relationship. If you ever wonder why a manager in a store has such a difficult time, it is precisely for that reason. He is subject to the workers and object to the owner. And he continually takes the blame for the mistakes of both, in addition to his own.

This relationship holds true within each person, between his own body and spirit. If a person's body is lazy, the spirit suffers, and can't grow. If the spirit is lazy, the body will suffer, and be neglected. Ideally, the body should respond to the spirit, and the spirit should have enough wisdom not to demand more of the body than it can give. The body's whole actions are for the benefit of the spirit, and when the spirit is happy, the body is also happy.

The same is true between any subject and object. The object's whole purpose is to make the subject happy. What makes the subject happy is something that leads closer to God. In this way both become closer to God, It was God's intention that Adam should desire God's love first, God could then help Eve to grow by her dedication to Adam. Adam worked according to truth, and Eve worked according to love. As they reached God, both aspects would be represented.

Because of the fall, that relationship is reversed. Women must take the subject position to reach God. And man, because of his love will follow. In that way both subject and object positions are purified, as with Cain and Abel, or Jacob and Esau.

The same is true between man and God because man assumed the subject position in turning away from God, he must also take the subject position in returning to God, and then in offering it back to God he restores his rightful position with God, and ultimate love can flow between the two.

The whole purpose of any subject-object relationship is a framework for love to flow. Any relationship which does not generate love is not fulfilling its purpose, and cannot reflect God. Therefore, it cannot be in accordance with Principle.