the elements of dialogue

1. • I. DIALOGUE
• The noted Jewish Philosopher on dialogue, Martin Buber,
makes a distinction between the HUMAN and
INTERHUMAN.
• 1.1 The Social is the life of the group of people bound
together by common experiences and reactions; in short,
a group existence.
1

2. • 1.2 The Interhuman is the life between persons, the
interpersonal, the life of dialogue, The “I-THOU”.
• 1.3 For example, Buber joins a procession for the sake of
a comrade (social ), then suddenly he sees someone in
the café he had befriended a day before ( Interhuman ).
• 1.4. The Interhuman can happen to persons with
opposing views, like a boxer in the boxing match.
2

3. • “I-THOU” ( dialogue ) is to be distinguished from “I-IT” (
monologue )
• 2.1One way of distinguishing dialogue from monologue is
to describe the obstacles to dialogue which would be the
characteristics of monologue.
• We must note first that our life with other persons is in
reality never pure dialogue nor pure monologue but a
mixture. It is the question of which predominates
3

4. • 3.1 The first obstacle to dialogue is”SEEMING”, in
contrast to “BEING”.
• 3.1.1 Seeming proceeds from what one wishes to seem. I
approach the other from what I want to impress on the
other.
• 3.1.2 The look of seeming is “made-up”, artificial.
• 3.1.3 Being proceeds from what one really is. I approach
the other from what I really am, not wanting to impress on
the other.
4

5. • 3.1.4 The look of Being is spontaneous, without reserve,
natural.
• 3.1.5The Seeming that is an obstacle to dialogue must
be distinguished from the “Genuine Seeming” of an actor
who is playing a role and of a lad who imitates a heroic
model.
5

6. • 3.1.6 Seeming that attacks the “I-THOU” is a lie in relation to
existence, not a lie in relation to particular facts.
• 3.1.7 For example: Two men , Peter and Paul,
whose lives are dominated by seeming:
• Peter as he wants to appear to Paul, Paul as
He wants to appear to Peter,
• Peter as he actually appear to Paul, Paul as he
actually appears peter,
• Peter as He appears to Himself, Paul as He
appears to himself.
• Six appearances and two bodily beings!!!
6

7. • 3.1.8 In “I-THOU”, persons communicate to each
other as they are, in Truth.
• 3.1.9 Objection to Buber: Is it not natural for man
to seem.
• Answer of Buber: No, what is natural for
man is to seek confirmation of his being, a
• “yes” from the other for who he is, but this
is difficult and so he resorts to seeming
• because seeming is easier.
• 3.2 The second obstacle to dialogue is
speechifying, in contrast to personal making 7

8. • 3.2.1 Speechifying is talking past one another. For Sartre,
this is the impassable walls between partners in
conversation. Most conversations today are really
monologues.
• 3.2.2In dialogue, on the other hand, I personally make
present the other as the very one he is, I become aware
of Him, that he is different from me, unique, maybe even
with opposing views.
8

9. • 3.2.3 To be aware of a person is different from
becoming aware of a thing or animal. It is to
perceive his wholeness, determined by spirit. It is to
perceive his dynamic center.
• 3.2.4 In our time, we have the following tendencies
that make dialogue difficult:
• Analytical: We break the person into parts.
• Reductive: We reduce the richness of a person
to a schema, structure, concept..
• Deriving: We derive the person from a formula..
• Thus: the Mystery of a Person is Leveled
down. 9

10. • 3.3. The third obstacle to dialogue is IMPOSITION, in
contrast to UNFOLDING.
• 3.3.1 Imposition is interaction between persons, they
influence one another. But there are two basic ways to
influence another: Imposition and Unfolding.
• 3.3.2 Imposition is dictating my own opinion, attitude,
myself on the other.
10

11. • 3.3.3 Unfolding, on the other hand, is finding in the other
the disposition towards what I myself recognized as true
good and beautiful. If it is true, good and beautiful, it must
also be alive in the other person in his own unique way.
All I have to do in dialogue is to bring him to see it for
himself.
11

12. • 3.3.4 A typical example of imposition is the propagandist.
The propagandist is not concerned with the unique
person he wants to influence but with certain qualities of
the person that he can manipulate and exploit to win the
other to his side. He is concerned simply with more
members, more followers. Political methods are mostly
winning power over the other by depersonalizing him.
12

13. • 3.3.5 A Typical example of unfolding is the Educator. The
Educator cares for his students as unique, singular,
individual. He sees each as capable of freely actualizing
himself. What is right is established in each as a seed in
a unique personal way. He does not impose.
• 3.3.6 The educator trust in the efficacy of what is right.
The propagandist does not believe in the efficacy of his
cause, so he must use special methods like the media.
13

14. • 3.3.7 This idea of Buber has influenced a Theologian of
Liberation, Paolo Friere, who wrote the Pedagogy of the
oppressed. According to him there are two ways of
teaching:
• banking Method: a teacher “deposits” information in his
students’ minds and he “withdraws” it during
examinations.
14

15. • Dialogical Methods: the teacher teaches by learning from
his students their unique situation, and from there, he
unfolds what is right. Both the teacher and students are
responsible to what is true, good and beautiful.
• To summarize, genuine dialogue is turning to the partner
in all truth.
15

16. • 4.1 To turn to the other in all truth also means imagining
the real, accepting the wholeness of the other, including
his real potentialities and the truth of what he cannot say.
• 4.2 To confirm the other does not mean approval. Even if
I disagree with him, I can accept him as my partner in
genuine dialogue; I affirm him as a person.
16

17. • 4.3 Further, for genuine dialogue to arise, every
participant must bring himself to it. He must be willing to
say what is really in his mind about the subject matter.
• 4.3.1 This is different from unreserved speech, where I
just talk and talk.
• 4.4.2 Silence can also be dialogue. Words sometimes
are the source of misunderstanding (Zen Buddhism)
17