I and Thou is divided into 3 parts, each of which addresses a different aspect of the I-YOU and I-IT modes of relationship. Part 1 (which we discussed last week) is mainly concerned with establishing and expounding the I-YOU/I-IT distinction in terms of human relationships. Since Buber also wants to lay out the scope of the overall book there, he briefly discusses differences between an I-YOU and I-It relationship with a tree. So we know already that Buber is interested in the natural world in which the primary relations unfold. This natural world, its history, and the successive civilizations that have appeared and disappeared within it are the subject of Part 2 of the book. What is it to be in the world? What is the difference between being in the world when relations are predominantly of an I-IT kind as opposed to an I-YOU kind? Buber speaks of "the world of It" in stark contrast to "the world of YOU/Thou." I will simply refer to "The It-World" vs. "The YOU-World."
Characteristics of the It-World:
When one lives predominantly in an I-It mode of being, s/he will often feel safe, largely in control of objects and events which are familiar, rationally understood and thus reliable. Towards the end of Pt. I Buber begins to set up this "It-World." A human being in this world:
"[P]erceives an ordered and detached world. It is to some extent a reliable world,...its
organization can be surveyed and brought out again and again; gone over with closed eyes, and verified with open eyes...It is your object...[b]ut you cannot meet others in it. You cannot hold on to life [survive] without it, its reliability sustains you; but should you die in it, your grave would be in nothingness." (p. 31)
Because the contours of this It-World will become much darker, even nightmarish in part 2, it's worth pointing out that when he first describes it, there seems to be much of value in it, even if it is devoid of ultimate meaning (you die there in vain; "in nothingness"). I want to emphasize these values because later it's easy to think "You world = Good/ It-World = Evil" as he will liken the latter to an 'incubus,' a 'nightmare,' a 'fever,' and make its spokesman Napoleon in Part 2. Some reasons to value the It-World include:
>>>Survival value: Buber states "you cannot hold on to life without it" for good reason. Without analyzing, comparing and identifying events and objects and classifying them under general terms we cannot do so much as effectively hunt and gather, much less create complex civilizations with economies, written language, religions, philosophy, art, politics or much of anything else that is presupposed for any relationship to occur in the first place. No survival, no relationship.
>>>It provides a shared or common context for interaction, however superficial Buber takes it to be. One must start somewhere, and as he himself states on p. 32, the It-World is "ready... to be an object common to you all."[emph. added] I find interesting, maybe even telling his choice of the words "you all" rather than "all of us" or "all beings." Is he (un)consciously excluding himself from what already is said to be necessary for survival?
Buber now begins to move from an IT-World/YOU-World distinction to an IT-World/YOU-World dichotomy. In the mystical YOU-World:
"Measurement and comparison have disappeared...It cannot be surveyed, and if you attempt to make it capable of survey, you lose it....It does not help to sustain you in life, it only helps you to glimpse eternity." (pp. 32-3)"
So, while the It-world, he continues, is set in space and time, the YOU-world is not. The It-World is the one within which we have to live. We mark time, categorize things and events, deploy human skills to alter conditions based on knowledge through which we objectify the world-- thus seeing it as a "graph of place [and] events in time" (p. 31), i.e. as an object of rational and useful knowledge. In making it an object of this kind, we drain it of rich interpersonal meaning (which can only emerge in I-You relations) and of intrinsic value. It is only when the unfamiliar YOU (that which we can't make fully familiar because it is spontaneous and not predictable just as all deep relationships are) appears that our deepest need for value and meaning can be fulfilled. THOU enters the it world in the form of "strange, lyric and dramatic episodes, seductive and magical, yet tearing us away to dangerous extremes, loosening the well-tried context [and]...shattering security. p. 34) Life in the YOU-world is ever-new, always present-- the "eternal now" as some have put it. This is not the eternity of the everlasting in time, but that which however fleeting has a "timeless" quality, as when rapt in ecstasy one may "lose track of time."
Buber knows we can't live in a world like this for long. It's not "secure" or predictable, but it replenishes the being who would greet YOU with open arms during "strange, lyric...episodes." The familiar It-World cannot be "Present," meaning fully present with you as in I-You relations, but also meaning in the "here-and-now" of the present moment, which is not predictable or familiar but always poised at the threshold of something new, of the not-yet. It is the ability to be-with-others in the world in the Present that sets us apart as being human. So, the IT-world is necessary to live, but "he who lives with IT alone is not a man."
History of the It-World:
Much of Part 2 is taken up by positing a historical process in which the IT-World becomes ever more prevalent and the YOU-world diminishes to the point of leaving modern people in a confused, nihilistic situation. Much of this tracks the thought of Nietzsche, Weber, and Buber's former teacher Georg Simmel -- all of whom discussed modernization, urbanization and secularization as the stripping away of ultimate values, and loss a sense of being part of a vast, meaningful and spiritually vibrant cosmos. Max Weber famously calls this the "disenchantment" of society that goes along with increased utilitarian rationality and secularization. Buber's nightmarish description of the modern world as one too firmly in the tyrannical grip of the IT-World carries with it much of the German pessimism of post WW1 art and philosophy. If the growth of IT-World is described somewhat melodramatically in this book, he was more nuanced in later essays. That said, we should try to understand Buber on his own terms in I and Thou. Buber writes:
"The sickness of our age is like that of no other." (p.55)
"AS POWER OVER THE INCUBUS [sic] is obtained by addressing it with its real name, so the world of It... is bound to [reveal itself to] the man who knows it for what it really is -- severance and alienation...But how can the man in whose being lurks a ghost, the I emptied of all reality, muster the strength to address the incubus by name?(p. 58)
While the YOU-world is spontaneous, open and thus free from the chain of relentless cause-effect sequences, the modern mechanistic vision is deterministic. All talk of individuality and freedom fails to make sense in terms of a rational vision of a completely ordered universe in which fixed laws govern all that occurs. Perhaps soon we'll all believe that the behavior of neurons in the brain "determines" what we do, who we love and what meaning (if any) we may find in the eyes of our neighbors and the swaying of trees against the skyline. Many believe this already. If "freedom" is reduced to "getting my way" (even when 'my' desires are fated by nature and nurture); if it's reduced to fulfilling arbitrary desires, then we are not "free" but determined. Buber says we (modern western civilization which he calls "sick") are more fatalistic than any other culture that has existed. In the past, there was "destiny" which was unknown to us, but in which we felt ourselves to be active participants. Now the cosmos and society are reduced to meaningless "things" and forces" obeying "laws." We seek to eliminate the mystery of the Present (the here-now which brings us into potentially new and unknown territory) by mapping and engineering all outcomes with our day-planners, technological instruments, social/political policies, and abstract explanations for every concrete event. We're not open and vulnerable before the mystery of being, but arrogantly deluded into thinking that we can master all beings as though they were just so much putty; as if nature and persons would readily conform to the arbitrary will of the engineer or tinkerer without protest. (Note: if viewed this way, anthropogenic global climate change is an example of the delusion that we can "master" nature to fit our wants -- even more telling is the failure to take the scientifically established threat seriously enough to actually respond to it. How can we "control nature" when we can't even control our own behavior?)
"[In the YOU-World] freedom and destiny are solemnly promised to one another and linked together in meaning; [while in the It-world] arbitrary self-will and fate, soul's spectre and world's nightmare, endure one another living side by side and avoiding one anoher without connection or conflict, in meaninglessness--till in an instant there is confused shock of glance on glance and confession of their non-redemption breaks from them."(p. 59
Only when, in crisis, we "confess" or admit our confusion and failure to redeem our humanness (i.e. find "redemption,")-- only then is there a possibility for modern society to take a turn toward "health" from "sickness." Only then will the scales of the It and You worlds cease to be so "nightmarishly" weighted to the side of "IT," in which what is most human and intimate is experienced as some-THING to be enjoyed, enhanced, altered, controlled, improved ad inifinitum. A world of things and not PERSONS. A world in which it is seldom possible to enjoy the unknown and spontaneous, and to listen to the other from one's innermost depths.
The It-World is populated by "individuals" who compare themselves to one another to feel unique, special, "distinct." Nietzsche had spoken of this modern "striving for distinction" and principle of individuality, as did Buber's teacher Georg Simmel. Individuals of this kind do not really connect with one another or enter into authentic relationships because they are too busy engaging in comparisons, noticing differences to boost self-esteem, and manipulating others.
"The I of the primary word I-It makes its appearance as individuality and becomes conscious of itself as subject (of experiencing and using)....The aim of [this] self-differentiation is to experience and to use, and the aim of these is "life" that is [really] dying that lasts the span of a man's life. (62-3)
Life, under the tyranny of the Modern It-World, requires to be put in scare quotes! "Life" is really just a long dying relieved only by actual death. In stark contrast we have the YOU-World which only scattered human beings in modern Western civilization know well. The YOU-World is the world of the Person, not the "subject of experiencing and using." The I-YOU mode is one of sharing, not labeling, analyzing and manipulating persons as though they were things.
"Where there is no sharing there is no reality." (63)
Yet the detached, alienated and lonely self of modernity still contains the "inner seed" which can be realized only through relationships untainted by capricious desires, self-interests and utility maximization. We must learn to see each other as "whole beings" as persons, not just objects of experience and use value. We're a society of users and consumers. Experience has become consumption, interaction mutual exercises in "influencing one another." It isn't every age that produces perennial best-selling books called "How To Win Friends and Influence People," but Buber would not be surprised that such a book is cited by our current president as a great influence on his life and character. Sociologist and psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm distinguished "having" from "being." It's much the same as Buber's You and It-worlds. Most of us relate to the world on the basis of a possessive attitude. I "have" friends; I "have" a house; I "have" good qualities; I "have" a beautiful spouse; I "have" lots of fun, etc. etc. But few know how to BE where that means existing openly, without defining everything, especially myself and my well-counted assets and liabilities. I think George Harrison had something like this distinction in mind when he railed against the common fixation on "I, Me, Mine" in the song bearing that title. Those pronouns are pulling away from others and deep connections in which life is shared. We become fragments in the void.
The person looks on his Self, individuality is concerned with its 'My'-- my kind of race, my creation, my genius....Individuality niether shares in nor obtains any reality. It differentiates istself from the other, and seeks through experiencing and using to appropriate as much of it [i.e. the other] as it can. This is its dynamic..."(64)
Following this passage, there is a rare moment of nuance in this otherwise Manichean chapter. Refreshingly, Buber states that if the YOU-World is the necessary context for the emergence of whole and authentic PERSONS, and the It-World for fragmented and alienated Individualists, then no actual human being is exclusively one or the other. In a short passage he seems to walk back the strict dichotomy, the either/or tone of the chapter describing IT and YOU as opposed and mutually exclusive modes of being. On page 65 he admits that:
"No [actual] man is pure person and no man is pure individuality. None is wholly real, and none wholly unreal. Every man lives in the twofold I. But there are men so defined by person ( You-world] that they may be called persons, and men so defined by individuality [It-world] that they may be called individuals. True history is decided in the field between these two poles."(65)
Though Buber appears to recognize the reality of many intermediate modes of relating between the "Pure Types" of I-It and I-You, he does little to describe any of these mixtures and variations between the extremes. Having written most of the book in terms of an either-or dichotomy of IT- and Thou, Buber reveals, however fleetingly, an awareness of ambiguity and nuance in real life. However, in this book he does little to develop this awareness as a theme. Indeed he reverts almost immediately to the language of dichotomies, even allowing the It-World to become "demonic" (perhaps Evil?) and the You-world divine and uniquely good. I started by noting some of the good or value that I believe Buber has already established (e.g. survival value, reliability, provision of a world of common objects and words to describe them, etc.) Now, I am suggesting that in his-- perhaps legitimate-- worries about the direction of history, he falls into a Manichean, either/or dichotomy, despite briefly acknowledging the subtler realities and mixed attributes of real human beings. This is worth considering so that we don't simply ignore Buber's warnings about the direction of history just because he exaggerates and creates stiff dichotomies where there may be more fluidity. He may be generally correct despite the melodramatic wrappings of his style, and the lapse into seemingly absolutizing "It and You-worlds" even after admitting nobody is a pure example of either, but always a mixture of the "twofold." The distance between YOU and IT is described in a way, often, that makes them appear unbridgeable. But this one paragraph betrays an awareness of much that lies "between these two poles." (65).
Almost as if he never wrote that paragraph, Buber resumes the dichotomous descriptions of It and You worlds, and he tries to bring the dichotomy of the YOU and IT worlds to a level of concreteness that can't be missed even by the casual reader. He does this by giving historical examples par excellence.
The YOU-World, with its 3 facets (people, the natural world, the divine) is exemplified by Socrates (realm of people), Goethe (realm of nature) and Jesus (realm of the spiritual). What exemplifies the It-World? Only one historical person is named and discussed-- Napoleon! "Indeed the lord of the age [Napoleon] manifestly did not know the dimension of the Thou. [sic](67) Rather, "he was for millions the demonic Thou; the Thou that does not respond..." (ibid)
It is only the realization that we are alone, cut off, frightened and not whole that prepares us as a society to build a culture that prioritizes genuine relationship and not just use-value, consumption and mastery over others and nature.
"At times the man shuddering at the alienation between the I and the world comes to reflect that something is to be done. As when in the grave night hour you lie, racked by waking dream--bulwarks have fallen away and the abyss is screaming-- and note amid your torment; there is still life, if only I get through to it-- but how, how?" (70)
Are we really in such a situation? And is it only dread and angst that can wake us up as a society and culture? Sure, says Buber, some individuals are fully alive to the world, but no thanks to the mass-culture that has swallowed millions in its heartless machinery.
Is this dichotomy between the authentic/YOU-world and the inauthentic, even demonic It-world overplayed? Melodramatic? Filled with post WW1 period angst (written both during and after that war which in the beginning Buber thought might produce solidarity and unity), it is easy to dismiss as the mystic poet's hyperbole. But though I think (as I'll discuss at the end of the reading) the dichotomy is too strict, and allows little ambiguity, the subsequent history is not reassuring. There followed the rise of Fascism, World War, the Holocaust, the advent of a maddening Nuclear Arms race (which continues with the doomsday clock still set at 2 minutes before midnight https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/ ) and the grim possibility, indeed likelihood, of global catastrophes following an an I-It way of relating to nature. Buber began by conceding that the I-It mode is indispensable for survival and civilization. But in section 2 he describes a pathological process in which "IT" has captured culture itself, and made of the multitudes something less than fully living and responsive human beings. Can we afford to dismiss all of Buber's grave concerns? What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment