Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Vietnam, Volume I

45. Despatch From the Ambassador in Vietnam (Durbrow) to the Department of State¹

No. 213

Saigon, December 22, 1958.

SUBJECT

• Notes and Comments on “Personalism” in Viet-Nam

Introduction and Summary

This despatch is an attempt to set forth available facts and some tentative conclusions concerning “Personalism” in Viet-Nam.² Much remains to be learned concerning the doctrine of Personalism and the extent of its influence here. Little systematic information is available. Questions raised in this despatch suggest other questions and require further investigation. The Embassy will submit additional information and comments from time to time.

“Personalism” is a political and philosophical concept which this regime affirms is a basic guide to its action. The term “human person” is cited in the Constitution in Articles 5 and 20, and is referred to, either directly or indirectly, in many major government declarations. The Government operates a school to teach Personalism.

Intended as an ideological alternative to communism and fascism, Personalist philosophy, as expounded in the 1930’s by Catholic thinkers in France, stresses that the Human Person is endowed with natural rights and duties, and that respect for these rights and fulfillment of these duties would result in a social order where the individual enjoys true political and economic freedom.³

As applied in Viet-Nam, these ideas constitute an attempt to “fuse the cultural inheritance of Africa and Asia with the essence of Western civilization; to harmonize the conflicts between Tradition and Progress in order to create a stable, progressive human society, different from liberal and formal democracy as well as from communist popular democracy.”⁴ Such a society is to be an Afro-Asian democracy, a “Personalized Democracy,” which applies the principles implicit in the term Human Person.

Personalism, although Western and Catholic in inspiration, is declared to reflect the “middle way” of Confucian philosophy. It stresses principles and broad objectives. Other aspects, for example, individual dignity, suggest Buddhist teachings. Personalism does not discuss ways and means, and hence honest disagreement among personalists is not recognized. Likewise, political conflict or struggle for power has no part in the doctrine. Ngo dinh Nhu, in a confidential and apparently impromptu speech at the Department of Information and Youth last year described in some detail basic policies of the Government of Viet-Nam and related them to Personalism.

The speech by Nhu stresses the wish to provide each person, or family, with a basic plot of land. This land is to provide the individual or the family the elements of security upon which personal dignity can be based. This is also to provide wealth, beyond the immediate needs of the family unit it sustains, which would be saved for investment in industry. Nhu expects that the basic plot of land for each family unit will discourage the development of an underprivileged urban proletariat during the future industrialization of the country. The hard thinking and the difficult decisions involved in the complex task of building up Viet-Nam are influenced to some degree by Personalism. The extent of this influence, however, is difficult to determine conclusively and an effort will be made to follow up on this question. On the other hand, one might ask whether there may possibly be conflicts between Personalism in Viet-Nam and some of the objectives of U.S. policy toward Viet-Nam, particularly in the economic field. Nhu’s speech indicated some reservations about private foreign capital.

Although Personalism fails to respond to many of the urgent technical and complex questions inherent in Viet-Nam’s present situation, there are some aspects of Personalist doctrine which are germane and useful. Personalist doctrine stresses human values. A speech by the Minister of Education, Tran Huu The,⁵ discusses the attempt being made to overhaul the educational system so that it will preserve and reflect Vietnamese traditions while providing students instruction in meeting the problems of this age. The emphasis is on individual liberty, conditioned and qualified by the individual’s responsibility to society.

In a newly independent country, divided by the struggle between communism and the Free World, ideas and political motivation assume particular importance. In its present form, however, Vietnamese Personalism as a doctrine is incomplete, and remains, for the most part, a somewhat cryptic statement of good intentions on the part of the President and the inner circle of the regime.

[Here follows the 11-page body of this paper.]

Comment

Although Personalism is said to be an answer or an alternative to communism, it does not provide the pervasive, total doctrine that communists find in Marxism. Moreover, Personalism appears to command no particular dedicated following among Vietnamese intellectuals or functionaries. The various economic and social problems for which Marxians claim they have ready answers still remain basically unanswered in Personalist doctrine. There seems little popular acceptance of Personalism.

Discussions of Personalism stimulated by Embassy officers with Vietnamese elicit a repetition of the usual phrases concerning the rights and responsibilities of the Human Person. Vietnamese seldom show any real knowledge of the subject. The public speech by Minister The seems exceptional and may point the way to further developments in applying Personalism to Viet-Nam’s problems. Most Vietnamese seem reluctant to discuss Personalism except in safe, general terms. This is a striking contrast to the position of the President and Nhu. Personalist doctrines seem concentrated at the top, where political power is concentrated. High-ranking members of the GVN seem merely to subscribe to the concept of Personalism as a sign of agreement in principle with the Presidency and the regime. It is interesting that the speech of Dr. Tuyen, the director of Nhu’s special “political studies” branch, to the SEATO Counter-Subversion Seminar early this year⁶ was a nearly verbatim repetition of what Nhu had said earlier regarding Asian-African aspirations, Viet-Nam’s role in achieving these aspirations, and Personalism.

Personalist suspicion of parliaments, and the apparent absence of criticism or dissent in a Personalist society, appear to accord well with Diem’s practice of benevolent authoritarianism for Viet-Nam. Diem declares that good government is not “a collection of laws and texts …⁷ it is essentially a state of mind, a way of living in the active respect of the human person … a continuous self-education … a simple and patient art of fusing in a harmonious synthesis the desirable diversity of conceptions and the inevitable complexity of reality.”

It is still unclear whether the regime (the President and his family) actually observes Personalist doctrines or whether the regime merely uses them to achieve specific political or economic objectives. For example, are people encouraged to move into the PMS and the Plaine des Joncs, taking up small plots of land for family use as described by Nhu, because it is a wise plan, in consonance [with?] Personalist doctrines, or are Personalist doctrines merely invoked in order to help achieve and help justify the plan? Major decisions of this kind are subject to the President’s own scrutiny and analysis, and certainly Personalist doctrines are a part of his overall outlook. Probably a given plan may more readily appeal to him if it is compatible with Personalist doctrines. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Personalist doctrines must be expressed in all government plans and programs. The doctrines are too rudimentary to find expression, at all events, in many plans.

Although Personalism has not prevented this government from perpetrating heavy-handed acts hardly in accord with Personalist doctrines, the “respect for the human person” concept is highly salutary in any Asian regime. On the other hand, it would be unwise to criticize the government for not using exclusively Personalist methods in combating Communism. From what it has been possible to learn thus far, Personalist methods would not meet all communist threats. Respect for the human person should, however, be welcomed and encouraged in the existing social order as a desirable move toward better government and a better society. Personalism does some good along these lines, although it may also be suspected of being used at times to cloak crasser motives. The speech by The, for example, could probably be used to justify more statism as much as it could be used to protect the individual.

Conclusions

Although Personalist doctrine is scarcely adequate to respond to all problems that may beset this country, and it may not satisfy the intellectual aspirations of the sophisticated intelligentsia in this country, it at least ostensibly seeks to preserve human values and protect human dignity, and an effort has been made to elevate it to the highest levels in Vietnamese culture. Anyone who has lived for a period in the Orient cannot escape the fact that political democracy is a new and unproved concept in this part of the world. The rank and file still must learn to read and write, and to think in terms of civic responsibilities. They still have to learn to use the institutions, such as the National Assembly, that have already been brought into existence eventually to provide representative government. Therefore, to the extent that Personalism does help enhance human potentials there should be no doubt of its worth.

However, Personalism is not a complete explanation of all that motivates this government’s action. The connection between Personalist doctrine and the secret Can Lao party will be discussed in a separate despatch.⁸

For the Ambassador:

Thomas D. Bowie
Counselor of Embassy for Political Affairs

[Here follow the footnotes of the despatch and six enclosures relating to Personalism.]

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 751G.07/12–2258. Confidential. Drafted by Calvin E. Mehlert, former Second Secretary of Embassy, and Thomas D. Bowie, Counselor for Political Affairs, with numerous contributions from officers in other U.S. agencies in Saigon.
2. See p. 15 for footnotes. [Footnote in the source text. Only the two succeeding footnotes are printed.]
3. The English term “Personalism” does not convey the emphasis on the human being found in the French expression “la Personne humaine,” while the Vietnamese translation “Nhan Vi” implies individual dignity. “Nhan” is derived from a Chinese ideograph depicting ‘man standing up with his feet apart.” “Vi” is stated to mean “dignity”. [Footnote in the source text.]
4. Jacques Maritain, a Personalist philosopher, recently wrote in “Reflections on America” that while he had first formulated Personalism in the 1930’s as an ideal objective, he discovered that “living Personalism” was a chief characteristic of American society. (“Reflections on America,” Jacques Maritain, Charles Scribners Sons, N.Y., 1958, pp. 178–179) [Footnote in the source text.]
5. Reference to enclosure 5, attached but not printed, a speech in French by Tran Huu The, Secretary of State for Education, given September 9, 1958, at the sixth reunion of the Vietnam-France Friendship Association.
6. Reference to enclosure 1, attached, but not printed.
7. Ellipses in this paragraph are in the source text.
8. Document 56.