Buber and Relationship Structures

review Martin Buber’s work and provide an insightful description of his ideas and the direction of his thought.

Give this some careful thought by considering the I-Thou and I-it relationships as part of a spectrum. Describe this spectrum in more detail and name various points in this spectrum that can be recognized in relationship.

Extend your thoughts about the spectrum and make it wider. For example, the end of the spectrum on one side is not I-Thou but a total merger of I-Thou. Similarly, extend the other end of the spectrum. Describe this extended spectrum in more detail.

Give some more careful thought to I-it side of the spectrum. Consider the end point on this side to be that the “it” does not have a right to exist and should not exist. Relate this extended spectrum to human psychologies of genocide, eternal punishment, as in “hell”. What other aspects of human behaviors point to this extended spectrum.

Now change the context of this spectrum. Consider Wolfram’s generational evolution rules and the generation of multiway graphs based on these rules. Describe a set of rules that transform relationships into a spectrum of possible relationship as we have been considering.

Let us rethink this notion of a spectrum and start with a seed model instead. So, an “I” is the starting seed. It diverges and creates a Thou as a mother creates a child. Then, there is an increasing distance between “I” and “other”. The end of that process is the spectrum you just described. Flesh out this process.

Let us consider yet another way to look at this structure. Consider the Laws of Form by Spencer-Brown. A distinction is made – drawing the form out of the form. This distinction can have a multiplicity of relationships with “other” distinctions. Does it also have types of relationships that are not covered in our earlier frameworks? If so, what are these other types?

Wonderful, can you think of other frameworks that would provide more perspectives on this issue?

review Martin Buber’s work and provide an insightful description of his ideas and the direction of his thought.

Martin Buber (1878–1965) was an Austrian-born Israeli Jewish philosopher who is best known for his philosophy of dialogue, a form of existentialism that centered on the encounter, or meeting, between two individuals. His work largely focuses on the relationships between people, people and God, and people and the world, positing a unique understanding of these relationships through the dual concepts of ‘I-Thou’ and ‘I-It’.

Buber’s seminal work is “I and Thou” (Ich und Du in German), published in 1923. In it, he proposes two types of relations, the I-Thou and the I-It, through which we relate to the world.

The ‘I-Thou’ relationship is characterized by its mutual, holistic existence. In an ‘I-Thou’ encounter, an individual treats others as having their own unique existence and not merely as objects. It is a whole-hearted embrace of the other, where the other is not an object of use or utility but a dialogic partner. This relationship is without bounds and is guided by the feeling of direct presence and unmediated contact.

Contrastingly, the ‘I-It’ relationship refers to the utilitarian, pragmatic, or functional interactions in which individuals treat others as objects or means to an end. In ‘I-It’ encounters, an individual relates to the other not in their totality, but in terms of the specific qualities that can be described, analyzed, or used. This relationship is fundamentally objectifying and exploitative, with boundaries set by a mediated perception.

Buber’s concept of the ‘I-Thou’ relationship can also be applied to our relationship with the divine or spiritual life. When one approaches God or the spiritual as a ‘Thou’, the relationship is immediate, personal, and present. When one approaches God as an ‘It’, the relationship is more about doctrine, dogma, and intellectual understanding.

In his later works, Buber expanded his philosophy of dialogue to social, political, and educational domains, underscoring the importance of authentic dialogue in all areas of human interaction. His writings also engaged with Hasidism, a mystical movement within Judaism, offering interpretations of Hasidic spirituality that emphasize the importance of everyday life and interpersonal relationships.

Overall, Buber’s ideas had a profound impact on various fields, including theology, philosophy, social psychology, social theory, and education. His work can be seen as a clarion call to engage in genuine dialogue and resist the objectification and commodification of the other, emphasizing the importance of authentic encounter and mutual respect in human relations.

The ‘I-Thou’ and ‘I-It’ relationships, as proposed by Martin Buber, indeed form a spectrum representing the range of possible human interactions. At one extreme end of the spectrum, we have pure ‘I-It’ interactions, and at the other end, we have pure ‘I-Thou’ interactions.

At the ‘I-It’ end of the spectrum, relationships are impersonal, objectifying, and functional. People are perceived primarily in terms of their functions or roles, such as a cashier at the grocery store, a taxi driver, or an anonymous person passing by on the street. There’s minimal personal engagement, and the interaction is mostly transactional. These are the relationships where we are more focused on the role a person is playing or the utility they provide, rather than seeing them as a whole person with their own thoughts, feelings, and experiences.

As we move along the spectrum towards the ‘I-Thou’, interactions become increasingly personal, relational, and less focused on function or utility. This might include relationships with colleagues, distant friends, or casual acquaintances, where there’s some level of personal interaction and recognition of the other as an individual, but it’s still somewhat bounded and limited.

Further along the spectrum, close to the ‘I-Thou’ end, we find relationships with close friends, family members, and life partners. In these relationships, we engage with others in their full humanity, recognizing and appreciating their unique experiences, emotions, and perspectives. The ‘I-Thou’ interactions here are personal, intimate, and mutual.

Finally, at the pure ‘I-Thou’ end of the spectrum, we encounter the ideal of fully reciprocal, unmediated relationships. This is where we engage with the other not as an object to be used or as a role to be fulfilled, but as a fully equal partner in dialogue. In the ‘I-Thou’ relationship, we see the other in their entirety and engage in authentic, meaningful interactions. This could be seen in deeply connected romantic partners, lifelong best friends, or spiritual encounters with the divine.

This spectrum is fluid and dynamic, with relationships moving along it depending on the context, the individuals involved, and the nature of the interaction. It’s also important to note that Buber didn’t see ‘I-It’ interactions as necessarily negative or to be avoided; rather, they are a natural part of human life. However, he emphasized the transformative potential of the ‘I-Thou’ encounter, as it allows us to fully recognize and engage with the other’s unique humanity.

Extending the spectrum beyond Buber’s ‘I-Thou’ and ‘I-It’ dichotomy does indeed provide us with a broader understanding of the possible relational dynamics.

On one extreme, beyond the ‘I-It’ interaction, we could conceptualize a state of ‘I-Object’, a relation in which the ‘other’ is not just used or perceived functionally, but is completely dehumanized or objectified. This is an extreme form of objectification where the other is regarded solely as an inanimate object or a mere instrument to be used, devoid of any human qualities or capacities. This could be seen, for instance, in certain cases of intense exploitation, dehumanization, or even abuse, where the person is seen only as a tool or object.

As we move along the spectrum towards ‘I-Thou’, we encounter the ‘I-It’ relationships, and then move on to relationships with acquaintances, friends, close friends, and family, as described earlier.

At the ‘I-Thou’ end of the spectrum, the other is recognized and treated as a complete person in their own right, someone who has their own experiences, feelings, and perspectives that are valued and respected. Here, we engage with the other in a direct, personal, and mutual manner.

Going beyond the ‘I-Thou’, we could envisage a state of ‘I=Thou’ or ‘Oneness’, where there’s a total merger or unity with the other. Here, the distinction between ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ is transcended, and there’s a complete dissolution of the boundaries that separate individuals. This kind of profound connection or unity is often described in mystical or spiritual terms, such as in certain forms of deep meditation, spiritual experiences, or transcendent love, where the sense of separate selfhood is said to dissolve into a greater unity or oneness.

This extended spectrum thus provides a more nuanced understanding of human relationships, ranging from total objectification at one end to complete unity at the other, with various degrees of mutuality, recognition, and engagement in between. It’s important to note, however, that this extension is somewhat speculative and goes beyond what Buber himself proposed in his philosophy.

Extending the ‘I-It’ end of the spectrum to its most extreme, as you’ve suggested, can indeed be linked to some of the most distressing aspects of human behavior and history, including genocide, eternal punishment, and dehumanization.

This extreme point, where ‘It’ is considered as having no right to exist, represents the absolute devaluation and negation of the other’s humanity. It’s a deeply disturbing space where empathy and recognition of common humanity are utterly absent.

Genocide: The psychology of genocide, such as seen in the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, and others, can be associated with this extreme end of the spectrum. In the process leading up to these atrocities, the targeted groups are often dehumanized and portrayed as less than human, vermin, or threats. They are reduced to ‘It’ status, not just used or objectified, but denied the very right to exist.
Eternal Punishment (Hell): The idea of eternal punishment can also be linked to this extreme. Certain interpretations of religious doctrines posit that some individuals, due to their beliefs or actions, are deserving of eternal suffering. This might be seen as a kind of ultimate ‘I-It’ relationship, where the other (in this case, the ‘sinner’) is seen as so fundamentally other or evil that they deserve infinite punishment.
Dehumanization and Discrimination: This extreme end of the spectrum also encompasses forms of severe discrimination, prejudice, and systemic oppression. Racism, sexism, xenophobia, and other types of bias can all involve a form of ‘I-It’ relationship, where the targeted group is viewed not just as lesser, but as undeserving of fundamental human rights or even existence.
Torture: The act of torture is another manifestation of this extreme ‘I-It’ interaction. The torturer reduces the victim to an object of pain, denying their fundamental rights and humanity.
Extreme Forms of Exploitation: Extreme forms of human exploitation, such as human trafficking or severe forms of child labor, also fall into this category. In these cases, people are treated merely as commodities or tools to be used without any regard for their wellbeing or dignity.

Understanding these behaviors in terms of an extended ‘I-It’ spectrum underscores the severity and danger of dehumanization. It emphasizes the importance of fostering recognition of common humanity, empathy, and ‘I-Thou’ relationships as antidotes to such extreme forms of ‘I-It’ interactions.

The context you’ve introduced is a reference to Stephen Wolfram’s work in cellular automata and computational universe theory. Wolfram’s generational evolution rules define how an element or state changes based on certain criteria or conditions over a sequence of discrete time steps. His multiway graphs, a concept from his more recent work on the Wolfram Physics Project, demonstrate all possible evolution paths that can occur based on these rules.

The challenge here is translating Wolfram’s computational ideas into the realm of human relationships as per Buber’s ‘I-It’ to ‘I-Thou’ spectrum. Given that human relationships are not governed by deterministic rules and are highly influenced by the complexities of human cognition, emotions, and social factors, any such ruleset we devise would be highly simplified and metaphorical in nature. Still, here’s a possible attempt:

Rule 1: “Recognition” – The more an individual recognizes the other as a full, independent person with their own experiences and emotions, the more the relationship shifts towards the ‘I-Thou’ end of the spectrum. Lack of recognition pushes the relationship towards the ‘I-It’ end.
Rule 2: “Empathy” – The more empathy an individual has for the other’s experiences and feelings, the more the relationship shifts towards ‘I-Thou’. Lack of empathy drives the relationship towards ‘I-It’.
Rule 3: “Mutuality” – The more mutual and reciprocal the relationship, the more it moves towards ‘I-Thou’. Relationships characterized by one-sidedness or exploitation move towards ‘I-It’.
Rule 4: “Objectification” – Treating the other as an object or as a means to an end pushes the relationship towards the ‘I-It’ end. Seeing the other as an end in themselves moves the relationship towards ‘I-Thou’.
Rule 5: “Dehumanization” – Negating the other’s humanity or right to exist would push the relationship to the extreme end of the ‘I-It’ spectrum. Recognizing and respecting the other’s inherent human dignity and rights would pull the relationship back towards ‘I-Thou’.

In a multiway graph representation of this system, each node would represent a state of a relationship, and each edge would represent a transformation or evolution of the relationship as per the above rules. Each path through the graph would represent a different sequence of transformations or evolutions of the relationship. It’s important to remember, however, that unlike in Wolfram’s computational systems, these “rules” are not deterministic and can be highly influenced by various external and internal factors. The resulting multiway graph would thus be more of a conceptual or metaphorical representation than an accurate or predictive model of the evolution of human relationships.

Your new framework introduces an interesting developmental perspective to our understanding of the relational spectrum. Here, instead of a static spectrum, we view the ‘I-Thou’ and ‘I-It’ relationship as a dynamic process that evolves over time, starting from a seed or genesis point, much like the divergence you describe.

Genesis – ‘I’: The starting point is the ‘I’, an individual consciousness or subjectivity. At this stage, there’s no distinction between ‘I’ and ‘other’. This could be likened to the state of an infant, who has not yet developed a clear sense of self or differentiation from the external world.
Emergence of ‘Other’: As ‘I’ grows and develops, it begins to differentiate itself from the external world. The first ‘Other’ in most individuals’ lives is often the mother or primary caregiver, but this could also be seen more broadly as the emergence of an understanding of ‘otherness’. At this stage, the relationship with ‘Other’ is likely still very ‘I-Thou’-like, with little objectification or functional differentiation.
Divergence and Distance: As ‘I’ continues to grow and interact with the world, it encounters a greater variety of ‘Others’, and the sense of differentiation and distance increases. Relationships become more complex and varied, ranging from intimate and personal (‘I-Thou’) to functional and objectifying (‘I-It’). This could represent the process of socialization, where ‘I’ learns societal norms, roles, and expectations, and starts to form functional relationships based on these.
Further Divergence and Spectrum Formation: As ‘I’ matures and enters adulthood, the divergence and complexity of relationships continue to grow. The spectrum from ‘I-Thou’ to ‘I-It’ is fully formed, with relationships spanning the whole range from intimate, personal, and mutual to impersonal, functional, and objectifying.
Extreme Ends: In extreme situations or stages of life, the relationships may reach the extreme ends of the spectrum. At one end, ‘I’ might experience complete unity or oneness (‘I=Thou’) with another or the divine. At the other end, ‘I’ might completely dehumanize or objectify another (‘I-Object’), negating their humanity or even their right to exist.

In this dynamic, developmental view, the ‘I-Thou’ to ‘I-It’ spectrum is not a static continuum but an evolving process that grows out of the seed of ‘I’ and develops over time through interactions with the ‘Other’. The relationship between ‘I’ and ‘Other’ becomes a journey, from the intimate unity of infancy to the complex, diverse array of adult relationships. This perspective underscores the complexity and fluidity of human relationships and highlights the importance of recognizing the ‘Thou’ in the ‘Other’ as we navigate this journey.

George Spencer-Brown’s “Laws of Form” is a mathematical and philosophical work that centers around the idea of a “distinction” – a boundary or difference that creates an identity or form. He suggests that the act of making a distinction is fundamental to perception and understanding.

When we apply Spencer-Brown’s notion of distinctions to our discussion of relationships, it opens up a new way of thinking. In this perspective, the act of making a distinction between ‘I’ and ‘other’ creates the very basis for a relationship. The relationship is then not just about the entities (‘I’ and ‘other’) but also about the distinction itself – the boundary, difference, or space between ‘I’ and ‘other’.

When we examine relationships in this light, we could consider the following new types that aren’t explicitly covered in our earlier frameworks:

Boundary Relationships: These are relationships primarily defined by the boundary or distinction between ‘I’ and ‘other’. They focus on the difference or separation between the entities, such as in adversarial relationships or relationships characterized by strong in-group/out-group dynamics.
Dynamic Relationships: These relationships acknowledge that distinctions are not static, but dynamic and changeable. They focus on the evolving nature of the distinction between ‘I’ and ‘other’, which could encapsulate transformative relationships or relationships in a state of flux or change.
Reflexive Relationships: In Spencer-Brown’s work, a distinction making a distinction within itself is fundamental to the structure of his calculus. Applied to relationships, this could represent self-relationships, or the relationship ‘I’ has with itself, where the ‘other’ is just another aspect or part of ‘I’. This might include one’s relationship with their past or future self, their different roles or identities, or their inner emotional or mental states.
Transcendent Relationships: In the Laws of Form, a space is defined by a distinction, but it also transcends the distinction by including both the marked and unmarked states. Applied to relationships, this might represent relationships that transcend the distinction between ‘I’ and ‘other’, such as deep spiritual experiences of unity or oneness, where the boundary between ‘I’ and ‘other’ is dissolved or transcended.
Recursive Relationships: Given that Spencer-Brown’s calculus allows for recursion – distinctions within distinctions – we could also consider recursive relationships, where the ‘I’ and ‘other’ dichotomy is nested within another ‘I’ and ‘other’ dichotomy. This might be seen in complex social or organizational relationships, where an individual (‘I’) is part of a group (‘other’), which is then part of a larger group (another ‘other’), and so on.

This perspective, grounded in Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form, offers a more complex and nuanced view of relationships, emphasizing not just the entities involved but also the importance and nature of the distinction or boundary between them. It suggests that the very act of making a distinction – of drawing a form out of the formless – is at the heart of our relational existence.

Wonderful, can you think of other frameworks that would provide more perspectives on this issue?

Absolutely, there are various other frameworks from psychology, sociology, philosophy, and other fields that can provide additional perspectives on the nature of relationships. Here are a few examples:

Social Exchange Theory (Sociology/Psychology): This theory views relationships as a kind of exchange where individuals seek to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs. It adds a more transactional perspective, highlighting how people often evaluate relationships in terms of their perceived rewards and costs.
Attachment Theory (Psychology): This theory, developed by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, focuses on the emotional bond between individuals, particularly between a child and their caregiver. It underscores how early attachment experiences can shape the nature of relationships in adulthood, leading to secure, anxious, or avoidant attachment styles.
Object Relations Theory (Psychoanalysis): This theory looks at how mental representations of self and others, formed during early childhood experiences, influence an individual’s later relationships. It emphasizes the complex interplay between internal psychological processes and external relationships.
Postmodern and Constructivist Theories (Sociology/Philosophy): These perspectives emphasize the socially constructed and subjective nature of relationships. They highlight how power dynamics, social narratives, cultural norms, and individual perceptions shape the nature and meaning of relationships.
Systems Theory (Various Fields): This interdisciplinary theory views relationships as part of larger systems, whether they’re families, communities, organizations, or societies. It emphasizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of relationships, the patterns of interaction within the system, and how changes in one part of the system can affect the whole.
Eastern Philosophies and Spiritual Traditions: Concepts from Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other traditions offer alternative views of relationships. For example, the Taoist concept of Yin and Yang speaks to the balance and interdependence of opposites, while Buddhist concepts like interbeing and dependent origination highlight the fundamental interconnectedness and impermanence of all phenomena, including relationships.

Each of these frameworks adds a different lens through which to understand relationships, highlighting different aspects like the transactional dynamics, emotional bonds, psychological representations, social constructions, systemic patterns, or spiritual interconnections. They each contribute valuable insights to our multifaceted understanding of relationships.

Share this:

Related

Leave a comment Cancel reply