Abstract
The positive reception of Buber’s philosophy does not fully match Buber’s intention in terms of overcoming the problem of the subject–object binary. In other words, a number of authors have remained within the traditional way of thinking by merely replacing the subject and object with Buber’s I and You, establishing a more dogmatic normative subjectivity, paradoxically going against Buber’s intent and even seemingly not noticing this problem. In this article, we will investigate the reasons for these paradoxical readings of Buber. By focusing on the structure and significance of Buber’s ontology of between-humane, we will study the concept of I–You and I–It, suggesting that these are not intentionality-oriented concepts, but a radically relationship-centered one. The theoretical problem caused by Buber himself in the process of adaptation of his dialog-philosophy to his dialog-pedagogy, namely the impossibility of complete mutuality in the educational relationship will be critically examined, based on Buber’s own declaration in his “Afterword” (1957) in I and Thou (1923). With this, we will reflect on the problematic situation of post-Buberian literature in contemporary pedagogy to pave a way to modernize Buber’s dialog-pedagogy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
There are two different versions for the translation of Ich und Du, namely I and Thou and I and You. There seems to be no meaningful difference between Thou and You, if it is concerned not with man-and-God relationship but with man-and-man relationship which is the case in this article. “A theologian would translate it and turn Ich und Du into I and Thou” (Kaufmann 1970, p. 15). This is seen in the other English translation by Smith (2008), who uses Thou instead of You. This may be because of his academic background as a theologian. We see in Kaufmann’s translation I and Thou (the first edition in 1937 and the latest edition 1979) that both of them were used without any complication: in the title “I and Thou”, in the subtitle “A new translation with a prologue ‘I and You’ and notes by W. Kaufmann” and in the text “the word pair I–You and I–It” (1979, p. 53). His personal preference was You instead of Thou, however, as he also says, it doesn’t play a critical role in the reception of the philosophy of Buber (Kaufmann 1970, p. 1). Following Kaufmann’s suggestion in his translation, we will use the expression You in this article. In the case of citation we will follow the text of the author.
A recent example of this kind of misreading: Black (2005).
“Haltung” is the ordinary German word for “attitude” and it means “wie man steht” (how man stands), not “was man tut” (what man does).
It is arguable whether Buber’s concept of education as encounter relies more on grace rather than educational intentionality. This is because Buber refers to “pointing” which can be seen as a strong metaphor for educational intentionality: “I have no teaching. I only point to something. I point to reality, I point to something in reality that had not or had too little been seen. I take him who listens to me by the hand and lead him to the window. I open the window and point to what is outside. I have no teaching, but I carry on a conversation."(Buber 1967, p. 693). The action of “pointing in silence” has of course an implication for educational practice as well as giving an educational direction. However, the question whether Buber did more than an “implication” in terms of theorizing his concept of education as encounter is open-ended. As we will see in following chapters (esp. Section “Education as a Selection of Being: A Strange Paradox”), educational intentionality (“selection of being”) and “unmediatedness of encounter” (Buber 1979, p. 18) are still in collision in his philosophical and pedagogical system.
Buber’s original text: “Ich werde am Du; Ich werdend sprech ich Du” (Buber 1979, p. 18). The first sentence could be translated with two prepositions “with and at”, namely “The I becomes at/with the You.“However this is quite unsatisfactory and probably it is actually, as Kaufmann comments, untranslatable. Anyway it should be pointed out that Kaufmann’s translation, “I require You to become; becoming I, I say You” (1970, p. 62), is problematic due to the risk of I–You dualism and You-objectification. For reference Smith suggests the translation as follows: “I become through my relation to the Thou; as I become I, I say Thou” (Smith 2008, p. 17).
Buber’s radical persistence on unmediatedness and mutuality is also to be seen in a self-reflection that Viller wrote, which Buber referred to his book, “The dialogical principle” (1962). He tells of his old reminiscences about a form of “between-human”. Namely, there is a between-human between you and me which consists of a half-you and a half-me. Therefore I am I and the between-human and you are you and the between-human at the same time: “Wiesenhaus, 27. Dec. 1877. I have a superstitious belief in a between-human. I am not it and you are not it either, but someone comes into being between you and me who is the You to me and I am also You to the other. In this way, each of us has his own between-human with a reciprocal double-name. The between-humans, in which each of us are comprised of fifty percent, are all different from each other. The one who thinks, feels, and speaks—this is the very between-human and to him belongs the thought. It makes us free.” (Buber 1962, p. 298).
In German: “Mir begegnet keine Seele des Baums und keine Dryade, sondern er selber (Buber 1979, p. 14). Kaufmann translates this with an I-active form: “What I encounter is […]”.
There are a few possible interpretations about whether the I changes or disappears at the moment of the power of exclusiveness. For example, besides Theunissen, who understands the structure of Buber’s encounter as “we meet us” (Theunissen 1963/1964, p. 322; ch. II), Game and Metcalfe (2008) see the educational subject in Buber’s pedagogy as “a non-subjective ontological state” which implies of a possibility not I-based but relation-based didactic. And for McHenry (1997), who regards “moment as a gift” as prerequisite of education as “co-poiesis and co-inventing”, the I does not play a role as a initiator and coordinator of education, but as an anonym co-worker and co-inventor. In the former, the I disappears—or at least, the I does not work -- temporarily at the moment of grace. In the latter case, the I changes into a co-existential subject. Both of them can be seen as a new dimensioning of Buber’s educational subject which gooes beyond the dualistic scheme of “either grace or the I”.
Buber’s “experience” means a conscious and unconscious, and intentional and unintentional objectification. Therefore, he says that “the human being to whom I say You I do not experience” (Buber 1979, p. 16).
"Of course, it may be asked whether the educator should really start "from above," whether, in fixing his goal, the hope of finding a great character, who is bound to be the exception, should be his starting-point; for in his methods of educating character he will always have to take into consideration the others, the many. To this I reply that the educator would not have the right to do so if a method inapplicable to these others were to result. "(Buber 1964, p. 70).
I would like to thank to the reviewer, who has shown his dialogic spirit and a well balanced perspective with regards to Buber reception in pedagogy during the review process, for his critical comments and productive suggestions.
References
Belke, F. (1973). Dialogischer und pädagogischer Bezug in Martin Bubers Konzeptionen des Relationalen. In N. Kluge (Ed.), Das pädagogische Verhältnis (pp. 284–329). Darmstadt: WBG.
Black, L. W. (2005). Dialogue in the lecture hall: Teacher–student communication and student’s perception of their learning. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 6(1), 31–40.
Borowitz, E. (1971). Education is not I–Thou. Religious Education, 66(5), 326–331.
Brezinka, W. (1964). Die Pädagogik und die erzieherische Wirklichkeit. In H. Röhrs (Ed.), Erziehungswissenschaft und Erziehungswirklichkeit (pp. 192–220). F.a.M: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.
Buber, M. (1962). Elemente der Zwischenmenschlichen. In M. Buber (Ed.), Das Dialogische Prinzip (pp. 269–298). Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider.
Buber, M. (1964). Reden über Erziehung. 8. Aufl. Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider. (Between man and man, pp. 109–147, R. G. Smith, Trans. 1979, Glassgow: Collins).
Buber, M. (1965). Urdistanz und Beziehung. 3. Aufl. Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider.
Buber, M. (1967). Replies to my critics. In P. A. Schlipp & M. Friedman (Eds.), The philosophy of Martin Buber (pp. 689–744). Illinois: The open court publishing.
Buber, M. (1979). Ich und Du. 10. Aufl. Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider; (I and Thou, W. Kaufmann, Trans. 1970, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark; I and Thou, R. G. Smith, Trans. 2008, London: Continuum).
Cohn, F. (2001). Existential Medicine: Martin Buber and Physician–Patient Relationships. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 21, 170–181.
Foucault, M. (1974). Die Ordnung der Dinge. Suhrkamp: F.a.M.
Game, A., & Metcalfe, A. (2008). The teacher’s vocation: Ontology of response. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 461–473.
Grytzka, U. (1981). Die gegenwärtige Rezeption Martin Bubers in der Pädagogik. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 27, 53–64.
Hendley, B. (1978). Martin Buber on the teacher/student relationship: A critical appraisal. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 12, 141–148.
Höltershinken, D. (1971). Religiöse Erziehung bei Martin Buber. Vierteljahrschrift für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik, 47, 121–139.
Kurzweil, Z. E. (1973). Martin Bubers Erziehungslehre und die Moderne. In N. Kluge (Ed.), Das pädagogische Verhältnis (pp. 418–436). Darmstadt: WBG.
Lippitz, W., & Woo, J.-G. (2008). Pädagogischer Bezug. Erzieherisches Verhältnis. In U. Frost, et. al. (2008). Handbuch der Erziehungswissenschaft. Bd. I. (pp. 405–419). Paderborn: Schöningh.
Masschelein, J. (1991). Kommunikatives Handeln und Pädagogisches Handeln. Weinheim: DSV.
McHenry, H. D., Jr. (1997). Education as encounter: Buber’s pragmatic ontology. Educational Theory, 47(3), 341–357.
Meyer-Drawe, K. (1993). Das Ich im Spiegel des Nicht-Ich. Bildung und Erziehung, 46(2), 195–295.
Nagel-Docekal, H., & Vetter, H. (Eds.). (1987). Tod des Subjekts?. Wien: Oldenbourg.
Reger, A. (1966). Der unterrichtliche Dialog. Zu einer Didaktik im Geiste Martin Bubers. Pädagogische Welt, 20, 226–234.
Reitemeyer, U. (1995). Dialogisches Prinzip und pädagogische Begegnung. Vierteljahrschrift für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik, 71, 442–454.
Rödler, P. (1996). Martin Buber: Anachronismus oder neue Chance für die Pädagogik? In J. Vierheilig & W. Lanwer-Koppelin (Eds.), Martin Buber: Anachronismus oder neue Chance für die Pädagogik? (pp. 1–5). Butzbach-Griedel: AFRA.
Röhrig, P. (1964). Der Begriff der Verantwortung bei Martin Buber. In W. P. Eckert & E. L. Ehrlich (Eds.), Judenhass—Schuld der Christen?! (pp. 457–478). Essen: Hans Driewer.
Rustin, C. (1999). Martin Buber and the ontological crisis of modern man. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2(4), 74–104.
Shady, S. L. H., & Larson, M. (2010). Tolerance, empathy, or inclusion? Insights from Martin Buber. Educational Theory, 60(81–96), 1.
Shim, S. H. (2008). A philosophical investigation of the role of teachers: A synthesis of Plato, Confucius, Buber, and Freire. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 515–535.
Suter, A. (1990). ‘Beziehung erzieht’—Zum erzieherischen Verhältnis bei Buber. Pädagogische Rundschau, 44, 171–180.
Theunissen, M. (1963/1964). Bubers negative Ontologie des Zwischen. Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 71, 319–330.
Theunissen, M. (1977). Der Andere. Berlin: Walter de Gryter.
Tischner, W. (1985a). Der Dialog als grundlegendes Prinzip der Erziehung. F.a.M: Peter Lang.
Tischner, W. (1985b). Das dialogische Prinzip in der Erziehung und die Entwicklungsstufen der kindlichen Aktivität. Pädagogische Rundschau, 39, 469–489.
Weinstein, J., & Schwartz, M. S. (1979). Values education without indoctrination. The Educational Forum, 43(2), 203–212.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the Kyung Hee University Research Fund in 2010 (KHU-20100688).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Woo, JG. Buber from the Cartesian Perspective? A Critical Review of Reading Buber’s Pedagogy. Stud Philos Educ 31, 569–585 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-012-9307-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-012-9307-6