Abstract
In this article we develop a relational understanding of sociality, that is, an account of social life that takes relation as primary. This stands in contrast to the common assumption that relations arise when subjects interact, an account that gives logical priority to separation. We will develop this relational understanding through a reading of the work of Martin Buber, a social philosopher primarily interested in dialogue, meeting, relationship, and the irreducibility and incomparability of reality. In particular, the article contrasts Buber’s work with that of poststructuralist theorists who take as their starting point the deconstruction of the Hegelian logic of binary oppositions. Deconstruction understands difference as the excess that undoes the binary, but Buber, we argue, shows how difference derives from the primacy and ontological undefinability of relation. Relational logic does not exclude the logic of separations and oppositions: relation is the primal ground that makes separations possible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It should be noted that there are tensions in Levinas. In some of his accounts of face-to-face encounters, for example, he does describe meetings with undefinable difference (eg. Levinas and Nemo 1985: 85–87).
References
Barthes, R. (1984). Camera Lucida. London: Fontana.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Frogmore: Paladin.
Berger, A. A. (2000). Media and communication research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bernasconi, R. (1988). ‘Failure of communication’ as a surplus: Dialogue and lack of dialogue between Buber and Levinas. In R. Bernasconi & D. Wood (Eds.), The provocation of Levinas: Rethinking the other. London: Routledge.
Blanchot, M. (1995). Do not forget. In M. Holland (Ed.), The blanchot reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bohm, D. (1985). Unfolding meaning. London: Routledge.
Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. London: Routledge.
Buber, M. (1966). The way of response. New York: Schocken Books.
Buber, M. (2002a). Between man and man. London: Routledge.
Buber, M. (2002b). Meetings. London: Routledge.
Buber, M. (2004). I and thou. London: Routledge.
Burbules, N., & Bruce, C.B. (2001). Theory and research on teaching as dialogue. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington: American Educational Research Association.
Casey, D. (1999). Levinas and Buber: Transcendence and society. Sophia, 38(2), 69–92.
Cixous, H. (1986). Sorties. In H. Cixous & C. Clement (Eds.), The newly born woman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Derrida, J. (1987). Positions. London: Athlone Press.
Derrida, J. (1994). Given time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Duncan, R. (2001). Buber or Levinas? A response to Maurice Freidman. Philosophy Today, 45(4), 405–9.
Friedman, M. (2001). Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas. Philosophy Today, 45(1), 3–11.
Game, A., & Metcalfe, A. (2008). The significance of signs. Social Semiotics, 18(4), 493–502.
Hegel, G. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. London: Routledge.
Kaufmann, W. (1996). Prologue. In M. Buber (Ed.), I and Thou. New York: Touchstone.
Kelly, A. (1995). Reciprocity and the height of God: A defence of Buber against Levinas. Sophia, 34(1), 65–73.
Kojève, A. (1969). Introduction to the reading of Hegel. New York: Basic Books.
Lacan, J. (1977). Écrits. London: Tavistock.
Levinas, E. (1979). Totality and infinity. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Levinas, E. (1989). Martin Buber and the theory of knowledge. In S. Hand (Ed.), The Levinas Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
Levinas, E., & Nemo, P. (1985). Ethics and infinity. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Metcalfe, A., & Game, A. (2004). Everyday presences. Cultural Studies, 18(2/3), 350–62.
Metcalfe, A., & Game, A. (2008). Significance and dialogue in teaching and learning. Educational Theory, 58(3), 343–56.
Serres, M. (1995). Angels. Paris: Flammarion.
Shotter, J. (2003). ‘Real presences’: Meaning as living movement in a participatory world. Theory and Psychology, 13(3), 359–92.
Sidorkin, A. (n.d.) Toward a pedagogy of relation. http://sidorkin.net/pdf/towardPR.pdf. Accessed 21 April 2010.
Steiner, G. (1989). Real presences. London: Faber.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Sal Renshaw for inspiring and continually supporting this and other articles.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Biographical Details
The authors teach and write together in the School of Social Sciences and International Studies, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052. They have written four books collaboratively: Passionate Sociology; The Mystery of Everyday Life; The First Year Experience; and Teachers Who Change Lives. Additionally, Ann is co-author of Gender at work and author of Undoing the Social, and Andrew is author of For Freedom and Dignity. They are currently working on a study of everyday ritual practice.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Metcalfe, A., Game, A. ‘In the Beginning is Relation’: Martin Buber’s Alternative to Binary Oppositions. SOPHIA 51, 351–363 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-011-0278-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-011-0278-9