The I-Thou Relationship and Bridging Political (and other) Gaps

Martin Buber

Many of us have a special friend with whom we meet regularly, and with whom we spend time "solving the world's problems...even though nobody asked us."  I quote that expression from Stan Lacey, z"l, a member of my congregation in Australia.  He had such a friend, whom he called 'Doctor George.'  I've got such a friend here in Israel, Alan, a fellow oleh from the USA but who has been here many years, and is considerably older than me.  We meet every Friday; sometimes we go for a walk and sit at a cafe, sometimes we just sit in one of our homes, and we solve the world's problems...even though nobody asked us.

Last time we met, Alan asked me if there were any particular books I've read, that were especially memorable.  I answered, without hesitation, that I and Thou by Martin Buber was not only memorable, but life-changing.  And Alan agreed; he allowed as how Martin Buber's little epistle had been formative for him, too.

I want to write about two things today:  the affect of I and Thou and the way to bridge political gaps.  And in reality, they're both related.

I and Thou, once you get past Buber's use of the specific language of philosophy, challenges us in all our relationships, to see the relationship as an end in itself.  Most of us, if we're honest, are rather utilitarian about most of our relationships; we enter them, and stay in them, because we believe the Other will provide us with something.  In the way that, when we enter a store, a sales associate whom we encounter, will provide us with a means to find and buy the product we went in for.  That associate becomes, in effect, an object for our desire/need to acquire that item.  This type of relationship, as usually played out, is what Buber calls I-It, where the associate is an it, no more than an object.

A relationship between a sales associate and a customer, is generally a most superficial and short-lived relationship.  But we tend to approach even our most potentially enduring relationships as I-It.  Not that we think about it much, if at all.  But we tend to go through life, looking for individuals who have something we want, and build relationships, the premise of which is that we might get that which we seek.

The way that we deepen our relationships is to transform them to Buber's I-Thou model, where the Other becomes an entity which needs no justification of utilitarian purpose.  Under this model, we don't seek out partners in relationships who have something specific to offer.  Rather, we form relationships naturally with whomever we encounter as each person is an entity needing no justification for their existence or their presence in our lives.

If this sounds like just a lot of mumbo-jumbo, I recommend you spend the next few weeks trying it.  Every time you encounter someone else, even in the most superficial of circumstances, think of them as a subject, not an object.  Look into their eyes and allow yourself to feel empathy - identification - with that person and whatever their circumstances are.  And see how much more meaningful and satisfying your relationships become.  When I first read I and Thou years ago, I took its message to heart and worked to put it into effect in my life.  And it was transformative.

What was interesting was that, after discussing I and Thou with Alan, I realized that our relationship was special precisely because it is an I-Thou relationship.  And out of this realization comes my second lesson of the day, which is really a result of the first.

When we pursue I-It relationships, a profound difference between the two principles will usually lead to an effort to 'proselytize' the Other, to bring him or her over to your side on whatever divides you.  If that fails - as it generally does - then that relationship is easily disposable.  Of course, the word 'proselytize' comes from religion, but we proselytize in other areas as well.  Like politics.  People often say that they keep religion and politics out of conversations, and thus keep their conversations pleasant.  And yet, it seems unnatural to build a fence around some subject just to avoid disagreement.  What they aught to try, is to keep proselytizing about religion, politics, or whatever out of their conversations.  Because someone to whom you proselytize, in effect becomes an object, and your relationship with him or her becomes I-It.  So, when the proselytization fails, there's nothing left of the relationship.  And you might miss out on a very meaningful relationship, simply because you and that person disagreed on something.

That's how it is with my friend Alan, the conversation with whom reminded me of I and Thou, and of the I-Thou relationship.  There's a wide gulf between us in one area:  in this case politics, in that Alan is a man of the Left and I'm more Right-of-Center.  And yet, when we met one another, instead of seeing that gulf immediately as something to 'work on' in the sense of convincing the Other over to my side, each of us realized that we have far more in common.  Because neither of us sees the other as an object, our conversations - and yes, we do talk about politics regularly! - do not take on the quality of proselytizing.  Instead, we share our ideas without any thought of changing the Other's mind.  And it works.

I offer this, because I think it is very timely.  Right now, in both the countries that mean so much to me, there are particularly deep divisions that tend to alienate one citizen from another, based solely on one's particular stance on one issue.  We caricature others based on some ideological test.  And as a result, we miss out on seeing things that we have in common.  And we miss out on potential relationships that could be deep and satisfying and life-changing.