From Martin Buber’S Iand Thou to Mikhail Bakhtin’Sconcept of ‘Polyphony’ 21
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Dialogue as a Trans-disciplinary Concept Studia Judaica Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums Begründet von Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich Herausgegeben von Günter Stemberger, Charlotte Fonrobert und Alexander Samely Band 83 Dialogue as a Trans-disciplinary Concept Martin Buber’s Philosophy of Dialogue and its Contemporary Reception Edited by Paul Mendes-Flohr DE GRUYTER An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. ISBN 978-3-11-037915-0 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-040222-3 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-040237-7 ISSN 0585-5306 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Munich/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com TableofContents Paul Mendes-Flohr Introduction: Dialogue as aTrans-DisciplinaryConcept 1 Jürgen Habermas APhilosophy of Dialogue 7 Julia Matveev From Martin Buber’s Iand Thou to Mikhail Bakhtin’sConcept of ‘Polyphony’ 21 Jeffrey AndrewBarash Politics and Theology: The Debate on Zionism between Hermann Cohen and Martin Buber 49 Samuel Hayim Brody Is Theopolitics an Antipolitics? Martin Buber,Anarchism, and the Ideaofthe Political 61 Ran HaCohen Bubers schöpferischer Dialog mit einer chassidischen Legende 89 Irene Kajon Religio Today: The Concept of Religion in Martin Buber’sThought 101 Karl-Josef Kuschel Martin Buber und das Christentum 113 Yoram Bilu Dialogic Anthropology 141 Andreas Kraft Jüdische Identität im Liminalen und das dialogische Prinzip bei Martin Buber 157 VI TableofContents HenryAbramovitch The Influence of Martin Buber’sPhilosophy of Dialogue on Psychotherapy: His Lasting Contribution 169 Alan J. Flashman Almost Buber: Martin Buber’sComplex Influence on Family Therapy 183 Aleida Assmann Dialogic Memory 199 Contributors 215 Subject index 217 Paul Mendes-Flohr Introduction: Dialogue as a Trans-DisciplinaryConcept In amoment of disarming candor,Buber explainedtoafriend who was seeking to promotehis appointment to the faculty of the Hebrew University: “Ichbin kein Universitätsmensch”–Iamnot auniversity person.¹ By this confession, written just before he left Germanyfor Eretz Yisrael in March 1938, Buber meant that he did not fit into – nor did he care to fit into the disciplinary classifications of the university.His appointment to the facultytothe Hebrew University of Jerusalem was delayedbymanyyears, primarilybecause those advocating his appoint- ment– such as Gershom Scholem and even the president of the fledglinguniver- sity,Judah Leon Magnes – could not convince their colleagues that Buber was indeedaUniverstätsmensch. WasBuber aphilosopher?Tobesure, he wroteextensively on philosophical themes, but his mode of exposition did not quite conform to the accepted disqui- sitional protocol of academicpublications. Washeascholarofcomparative re- ligion (Religionswissenschaft), which he taught as a Honorarprofessor or adjunct professor at the University of Frankfurt? Washeabiblical scholar? After all he translated (initiallywith Franz Rosenzweig) the Hebrew Scriptures into German, wroteinnumerable essays and (by1938) no less thanfour major books on bib- lical subjects?Was he ascholarofHasidism and mysticism?Orperhaps he was an arthistorian, having also written about art?Hewas of course all these, yetnot quite any. He lacked aclear disciplinary profile. Finally, after ten years of negotiations acompromise was reached and he was granted apro- fessorship in social philosophy, which soon evolvedinto the foundingchair of the Hebrew University’sdepartment of sociology.² Although Buber had studied sociologyand social philosophywith the likes of GeorgSimmel and Wilhelm Dilthey,and edited ahighlyacclaimedseries of forty monographs in social psy- chology, Die Gesellschaft,one would hardlyregardhim in the strict sense aso- ciologist. Buber to S. H. Bergmann, letterdated 16 April 1936.Buber, Briefwechsel aus sieben Jahr- zehnten, ed. Grete Schaeder(Heidelberg: VerlagLambertScheidner,1973), vol2:589. On the complex trajectory of Buber’sacademic career,see my article “Buber’sRhetoric,” in: Martin Buber:AContemporaryPerspective,ed. Paul Mendes-Flohr (Jerusalem: The Israel AcademyofSciences and Humanities/Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2002), 1–24. 2 Paul Mendes-Flohr In aword, he wasapolymathofexceptionallearning, afacttowhich his friend Franz Rosenzweig attested in aletterexplainingwhy he had invited Buber to join thefaculty of the FreiesJüdisches Lehrhaus in Frankfurt am Main: Iwould nothaveinvited him … hadInot been utterlyconvinced from theveryfirst mo- ment of hisabsolutegenuineness,tobeexact,the integritythathas slowly takenhold of him. … Idonot knowofanyoneelse whoisashonest as he is withrespect to spiritual andintellectualmatters, andasdependableinhuman affairs. Idonot readilyemploy superlatives….[YetImust acknowledge that]Buber is for me an imposing savant (Ge- lehrter). Iamnot easily impressedbyknowledge,becauseImyselfhavesome. … But in comparisontoBuber’slearning,Iregard myself adwarf (Gegen Bubers Gelehrsamkeit aber emfinde ich mich als einen Zwerg.). In thecourseofmyconversationswithhim,every time Iseektosay somethingnew,Iencounter acommandingerudition – withoutatrace of pretentiousness – not only in Germanand foreignliterature ‘about,’ butalsointhe primarywritings of individuals whosenames Ihardlyknow. That Iamalsoimpressed by his Judaic andHebrew knowledgesaysless, although in recent years Ihavedeveloped acertain sense andlearned to distinguish betweena‘little’ anda‘great’ [knowledge in Jewishmatters]. Thereare areasofJudaica in whichheiscertainly in thestrictest senseof thetermanexpert(FachmaNN).³ Buber’sreading wasnot only voraciousbut catholic,coveringencyclopedicin- terestsinthe human andsocialsciences, theartsand literature. Theenormous breadthofhis intellectual universe is alsoregisteredinthe catalogue of his personal library of over 40,000 volumesand from thethematic scopeofhis writings. Buber’sinterdisciplinary horizons arealso reflectedinthe criticaled- itionofhis writings that arecurrentlyinpreparation initiallyunder the joint sponsorshipofthe Berlin-Brandenburg AcademyofSciences, andsince 2009 withHeinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf,and TheIsrael AcademyofSci- encesand theHumanities,will comprise some 21 volumes, some containing twobooks,and each volume dedicatedtoaspecifictheme.For example: Myth andMysticism Hasidism Psychology andPsychotherapy PhilosophicalAnthropology Chinese Philosophyand Literature Pedagogy Philosophy of Religion Philosophy of Language Messianismand Eschatology RosenzweigtoEugen Meyer,letterdated 23 January 1923,inRosenzweig.Der Mensch und sein Werk:Gesammelte Schriften,Part 1: Briefe und Tagebücher,ed. Rachel Rosenzweigand Edith Rosenzweig-Scheinmann, II: 883. Introduction: Dialogue as aTrans-DisciplinaryConcept 3 Judaism Christianity Zionism PoliticalPhilosophy Social andCultural Theory TheoriesofTranslation Theaterand Literature Art Criticism andArt History Indeed, Buber’sinterests were trans-disciplinary.What ultimatelycharacterizes hisworkinthese multifarious fields is theprinciple of dialogue,which he em- ployed as acomprehensive hermeneutic method. As an interpretivemethod,dialogue hastwo distinct butultimately conver- gentvectors.The firstisdirectedtothe subject of one’s “investigation”:one is to listen to thevoice of theother andtosuspend allpre-determinedcategories andconcepts that onemay have of the other; dialogue is,first and foremost, the art of unmediatedlistening. In asense Buber’sprinciple of dialogue ex- tendsIsaac Newton’smaxim: Hypothesesnon fingo: Ifeign no hypotheses. Dia- logue is,ofcourse,morethanamethod ensuring maximum objectivity; dia- logue hasmanifestcognitive andthus existentialsignificance.Bylistening to theOther attentively,byallowing thevoice of the Other to penetrate, so to speak, one’sverybeing, to allowthe wordsofthe Other – articulatedacous- tically and viscerally – to question one’spre-establishedpositionsfortifiedby professional, emotional, intellectual andideological commitments,one must perforce be opentothe possibilityofbeingchallenged by that voice. As Eugen Rosenstock-Heussy putit: Respondo etsimutabor, Irespond, although Iwillbechanged; “Irespond,even though Imay change in the process!” Gen- uine dialogue thusentails arisk, the ‘danger’ that by trulylisteningtothe other – be the otheranindividual, atext, aworkofart – thatone might, indeed, be changed, transformedcognitively andexistentially. On amoreprosaic butnolesssignificantlevel,Buber envisioned dialogue as ascholarlyconversation conductedbetween various disciplinary perspec- tives.Inhis studyofthe originsofthe biblicalconceptionofMessianism, Kö- nigtumGottes,henot onlydrewupon the canon of biblical scholarship,dem- onstratingamasteryoftextual skills finelyhoned by exhaustive philological analysis(grounded in anuanced knowledgeofancient