Six Degrees of Buber

The Six Degrees of Buber:

Martin Buber is one of the most influential scholars of his time – in fact he might be one of the most influential scholars, period. With Buber’s I and Thou remaining in print and serving as a foundation or inspiration for dozens of scholars in fields like psychology and communication, it is hard to find concepts in which no trace of Buber can be found. Because of his emphasis on human relationships, Buber’s influence is most often seen when looking at the ways in which people interact with each other and their environment – in the realm of interpersonal communication.

Bailey (2004) argued that deep listening is “the most important skill to develop to have a relationship based on timeless love” (p.55), describing deep listening as something that occurs when our mind lets go of all preconceived notions and ideas, a “purely receptive state of mind” (p. 56). When one is engaging in the practice of deep listening, Bailey explained that we let the feelings and words wash over us – we experience, not analyze. As a result, this allows for the listener to get the essence of what is being said, to find a connection with the speaker, and to experience a sense of compassion. Bailey’s concept of deep listening sounds a lot like empathetic listening – the listener is truly trying to put themselves in the other’s shoes, putting aside judgments and truly trying to understand the other’s position and feelings. Another way to describe the concept of deep listening would be to understand it as a kind of dialogue – “more of a communication attitude, principle, or orientation than a specific method, technique, or format” (Johannesen, 1971, p. 374). This dialogue is an interaction between people that helps to promote knowledge and personal growth – an inspiration for the concept of deep listening.

            Johannesen (1971) explained that the dialogic relationship is similar to Buber’s concept of the I-Thou, where the “attitudes and behavior of each communication participant are characterized by such qualities as mutuality, open-heartedness, directness, honesty, spontaneity, frankness, lack of pretense, nonmanipulative intent, communication, intensity, and love in the sense of responsibility of one human for another” (p. 375). All of these are characteristics that are used to describe both dialogue and Buber’s I-Thou relationship, ultimately seeming accurate for Bailey’s (2004) deep listening as well. As Buber (1970) stated:

All reality is an activity in which I share without being able to appropriate for myself. Where there is no sharing there is no reality. Where there is no self-appropriation there is no reality. The more direct the contact with the Thou, the fuller is the sharing. (p. 63)

If one is engaged in what Bailey describes as effortful listening, the focus is on analyzing and filtering an interaction through beliefs, value systems, etc. As a result, as Buber would have argued, this prevents there from being true reality – by trying to analyze and filter the communication, it is impossible to truly self-appropriate the person’s words and thoughts (in other words, it is impossible to be empathetic if one is busy filtering and analyzing another’s words). Only when it is possible to be a deep and empathetic listener is it possible to truly engage in a dialogue and a true I-Thou relationship. It is the effortful listening that results in a monologic relationship, because as Buber stated, “the person becomes conscious of himself as sharing in being, as co-existing, and thus as being. Individuality becomes conscious of itself as being such-and-such and nothing else…. Individuality in differentiating itself from others is rendered remote from true being” (pp 63 – 64).

            Clearly, Martin Buber’s ideas set forth have a wide ranging impact, having been applied and adapted for decades. Not only can his work still be found in its original and prose-like form, but also present in dozens of other works, including self-help books designed to help empower people to achieve the I-Thou relationships that Buber so prized.

References

Bailey, J. & Carlson, R. (2004). Slowing Down to the Speed of Love. Chicago: Contemporary

Books.

Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou. Trans. W. Kaufmann. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Johannesen, R. L. (1971). The emerging concept of communication as dialogue. The Quarterly

Journal of Speech. 57(4). 373 – 382.

Connecting Joseph Bailey to Buber...

 Joseph Bailey who wrote the book Slowing Down to the Speed of Love can be connected to Martin Buber's book “I and Thou.” Even though he is not directly connected to the main ideas in  “I and Thou,” there is a connection between the two through Baxter and Montgomery’s book Relating, Dialogues and Dialectics. Using the six degrees of separation as the descriptive framework, I assigned the book by Baxter and Montgomery, Bacon Number one and Joseph Bailey as Bacon Number two to Martin Buber. I examined some of the text in the books by these authors and connected them to each other. Baxter and Montgomery employ the notion of dialogues which is based on Buber’s “I and Thou” concept and Joseph Bailey advances Baxter and Montgomery’s notion of dialogue to describe how we can have a meaningful relationship with our partners similarly described by Buber to define people's relationship with other people and God.

Baxter and Montgomery describe the concept of dialectics as relational dialectics signifying the tensions, which arise in relationships. Buber mentioned “the world is two fold for man in accordance with his two fold attitude”(p.83). He also said that “ the individual “it” can become a "You" by entering into the event of relation” (p.84). Baxter and Montgomery advances Buber’s notion of I and Thou by adding the idea of tension, which exist in relationships. Buber focused on the relationship that we have with someone as either an “it” world or a “Thou” world while Baxter and Montgomery elaborates on the tensions that exist while building that relationship. For example, Buber mentioned “When I confront a human being as my You and speak the basic word I-You to him, then he is no thing among things nor does he consist of things (p.59). Baxter and Montgomery argue that close relationships like all social systems are always composed of fusion with and differentiation from both centrifugal and centripetal forces both interdependent and independent (p.43). While Buber is redefining the relationship between people, Baxter and Montgomery advance that concept to elaborate on the tension in the relationships.

Joseph Bailey is Bacon number 2. His book Slowing Down to the Speed of Love recreates Buber’s idea of I and Thou to describe a solution to the tensions that exist in relationships. Bailey reiterates that it is difficult to build relationships now because of the hectic fast paced lives that currently engulf our livelihood. Apart from other factors, I think the fast pace life also causes tensions in relationships which Baxter and Montgomery elaborated on. One of Bailey’s thesis relies on the fact that, we have to find personal fulfillment in order to access our birthright of love in relationships. Buber mentioned that every actual relationship in the world rests upon individuation; that is the delight, for only thus is mutual recognition of those who are different granted (p.148). Joseph bailey combines Buber’s idea of true relationship and Baxter and Montgomery’s examination of the tensions in a relationship to devise a new way of finding true meaning in a relationship.

In conclusion, Joseph Bailey and Baxter and Montgomery can be connected to Buber through the concept of Dialogue. Both of them used Buber’s concept of I and Thou to build their own concepts and ideas about relationships. Through of six degrees of separation model, Buber is Bacon, Baxter and Montgomery is Bacon number one and Joseph Bailey is Bacon number two as he re-introduces Buber as a solution to a fast paced world which has caused so much tensions in relationships.

Six (actually Seven) Degrees of Martin Buber

Six (actually Seven) Degrees of Martin Buber

            This semester when reading about Martin Buber I noticed there are interesting connections between the authors we have read.  I set out to see if I could connect Buber to Joseph Bailey.  For the connection to be made it took seven degrees.  Some of the connections are not authors but they played an interesting role in the connection’s life.  With all of the authors we read this semester there was a pattern of building on the information from one to the next, they are almost interrelated. 

Martin Buber’s Ich und Du (1923) first translated into English in 1937 by Ronald Gregor Smith. Smith would have Buber degree of one.  Later Smith would be influenced by Francis A. Schaeffer Secular Christianity (1968); Schaeffer would have a Buber degree of two.  Schaffer co wrote a book with C. Everett Coop titled Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, Coop would have a Buber degree of three.  In this book they discuss the “thinkable’ and “unthinkable” issues that arise in every era of time, communication plays a large role because much of the controversy is over miscommunications (Koop & Schaeffer, 1983).  On a side note, Coop’s second wife Cora Hogue has a blog where she posts the following comment “One day we will be perfectly healed and there will be no more painful layers to peel off. It's hard to imagine what it will be like to be made perfect, to be without pain or brokenness.”  This statement made me think of Jefferson and Grant in A lesson Before Dying, because in the end, Jefferson accepts his impending death and Grant accepts the death and allows himself to cry in front of his class (Sargent, 1999).   Back to C. Everett Coop, he served as the Surgeon General under the Ronald Reagan administration; Reagan would have a Buber degree of four.  In 1988, President Ronald Reagan appointed Richard Carlson to the National Commission on Children, Carlson would have a Buber degree of five.  Richard Carlson is the co-author of Slowing down to the speed of Life with Joseph Bailey, author of Slowing Down to the Speed of Love.  Carlson would have a Buber degree of six and Bailey would have a Buber degree of seven.  In both of the slowing down books they talk about taking the time to connect with others in our lives.  We do this by being present, listening deeply, forgiving others and speaking from the heart (Joesph Bailey, 2003) (Carlson, 1997). 

            In the game of connections there are variations based on the assumption that almost anyone in the world can be linked to anyone else in the world by six or seven degrees.  In the path I took I had to use seven degrees to connect Martin Buber with Joseph Bailey. The connection is strong because they both have an underlying message of taking the time to really talk and listen to someone you care about, by taking the time to be present with someone we create the relationship Buber was talking about.

Resources

Carlson, R. (1997). Slowing Down to the Speed of Life. New York, NY: Haprper Collins Publisher.

Joesph Bailey, M. L. (2003). Slowing Down to the Speed of Love. United States: McGraw-Hill eBook.

Koop, C. E., & Schaeffer, F. A. (1983). Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Martin Buber. (2004, April 20). Retrieved April 24, 2012, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buber/

Sargent, J. (Director). (1999). A Lesson Before Dying [Motion Picture].

What Does Obese Mean?: And Other Lost I/Thou Moments

Against my better judgment I returned my aunts phone call on Tuesday a half hour before I taught my night class. She was crying the sort of unintelligible cry that can only be understood by a family member. All I could make out, “Grandpap, has a malignant brain tumor”. I had no idea how to process this information. I should have cried. I should have reacted but I sat quietly thinking of my to do list before class. It was a numbing thought to not think about what was at the front of my mind but I pushed it down inside of me like a professional. I can’t cry. They haven’t filled out their evals.

I watched their speeches and played energetic host to my much anticipated extra-credit Jeopardy match. I went home in a vegetative state. No words just thoughts caught in butterfly nets that I could not grasp, share, describe, or even fully imagine. I compiled a list of pros and cons to staying in town or leaving. Itemization only problemetized my dilemma. Bailey (2003) argued that individuals should live in the present. The emphasis being on feeling, contextualizing, and actively living in the moment. The past few days have been a blur I wish I could erase. It seems impossible to live in the moment when the moment is bad. What advice can be given to one that wants nothing more than to move beyond the now. I want to know if my grandfather will make it through surgery. I want to know if I will have a job to help pay off my grad school loans. I want to know where I will be living in two months. To put it bluntly; I want nothing more than to not be in the now.

The neurologist asked him the year. He replied “2007”. In 2007, I had gone AWOL from my family. I had not spoken to my mother, or any member of my extended family, in two years. Of all the years to be trapped in Grandpap.

However, a reexamination of the Bailey (2003) articulated, “Presence is a state of mind that is calm, quiet, and not caught up in habitual thought” (p. 39). Although I had been familiar with the concept of being in the moment, I had never considered that a prerequisite for being in the moment meant to free myself from the trappings of habitual thinking. Habitual thinking is inherent to day to day interactions; interactions laden with the linguistic processing. It seems impossible to live in the moment when the language of the present serves as a vehicle for what is about to happen. Breaking the mold of interaction is a burden I wish lift over my head like weightlifter. I imagine my words heavy being carried by day laborers from my mind into students’ brains through their ears resting in a place that will take more effort for them to extract than it took for me to imagine. I wonder: Is this how one lives in the present?

“I noticed our persuasive speeches aren’t graded yet”, an over anxious student interrupts.

My grandfather fucking is dying!. I scream in my head. I calmly respond, “You know my mind has been all over the place recently”. I apologize. “I will post those shortly”.

Describing how one can live in the moment with insufficient language is a contradiction reminiscent of relational dialectics. Baxter and Montgomery (1996) described relational dialectics as an attempt to bridge the gap between the theoretical world and the lived world. My grasping for words to live in the now seems more and less tangible the more I try. I know I should communicate to others, but all I seem to do is sit at home reading graphic novels. Escape seems so much easier even if I know it is but a momentary delay. My entire mode of human interaction is a futile practice of perpetual “I know better but…”s. I wish I knew how to realistically practice my expensive education but in so many ways I feel comfort in being misunderstood. I would much rather be perceived as aloof than weak so I have mastered the art of living down to my expectations; a theoretical race to the bottom of emotional intelligence. I literally haven’t been to work this week despite my best efforts.

Martin Buber established the language to talk about my conundrum. I seem to want to be in the present yet I cannot articulate how. I am trapped in my conventions. Buber (1958) articulated human interactions into different frames: I and It, I and You, I and Thou. These frames are how we process our interactions. The intimacy of conversation is dependent on the relation of the I to the other. The depth of the conversation is also contingent on the relation. I and It is functional language. Although this is often referred to as exposition of non-living things, human beings still treat each other as theoretical “its” in contemporary society. When my students ask me about grades when I am suffering I feel like an it. Buber (1958) qualified most human interaction as I and You. This is the language of the immediate now. Human beings do have expressed needs that are communicated to and through each other. It is easy fall into this mode of communication because it is the language of pragmatic function. This is the language of human relation. However this communication is limited. Humans rarely divulge into the area of trust to be able to meaningfully change each other. This mode of communication is reserved for the Thou. Buber (1958) stated that I and Thou communication is often reserved for interactions in the mind from an individual to God. The Thou is thus a communication of faith, trust, and hope. It seems as if all of my Thou conversations are in my head. Interactions with my grandfather both imagined and real. It is hard for me to present when my thoughts, prayers, and desires are lost somewhere between here and a hospital pre-op room in Pittsburgh.

The tumor has resided in him for months and thrived in the denial of my aunts as they refused to see his deterioration. His tumor is on his frontal cortex. He is losing his ability to process words. He hears words and knows that he once knew what they meant. “What does obese mean?” he asked my mother. “Fat. It means fat Dad”, my mother responds callously although I imagine a single tear falling down her cheek as she witnesses her father's mental capacities fail him. Always holding it together. If she communicates in the Thou she will lose all composure. I wonder if she realizes she might not have much more time to do so. My mother and I. My mother and he. My grandfather and Him. My mother and Him. Even me and Him. I wonder if I could transmit my thoughts to my grandfather’s mind like I can to my students are they too heavy? Too far? Too many? My mother described the most recent memory of Pap in a lucid state.

“What’s the kid up to?” He always calls me kid.

 “She graduates with her Master’s next week, Dad”

“Already?”

“I know Dad. Alyssa’s all grown up.”

She described him as nodding knowingly.

I sit on the other end of the phone wondering if I even know what being grown up means. As a child I imagined being a grown up meant talking about grown up things after my bed time. Now, I imagine it has something to do with turning in paperwork and paying bills. However, I wish it was more like listening to my grandfather talk about anything just one more time. I strain to remember the last words we ever shared and I regret to say I can't find them as if at one point I might have known what they were and am unable to recall. I imagine my synapses as a tangled web my of academic self stretched to the edges of a sad lonely granddaughter thousands of miles away. I cannot help but see the connections. 

References

Bailey, J. (2003). Slowing down to the speed of love: How to create a deeper, more fulfilling

           

            relationship in a hurried world. Chicago, IL: Contemporary Press. 

Baxter, L. A., Montgomery B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY:

Guilford Press. 

Buber, M. (1958). I and thou. London: Continuum. 

From Saussure to Buber: Six(ish) Degrees of Separation

 

            Throughout the semester, we’ve read a number of articles and books with interlocking concepts.  From Buber to Baxter and Montgomery, Bailey to Hart et al., the ideas put forth in each reading seemed to build off the last in one way or another.  So for this, I will attempt to connect some of the authors who have at least influenced our readings this semester to the work of Martin Buber. 

First Degree

            Famous scholar Ferdinand de Saussure (1959) paved the way for modern day notions of linguistics, revolutionizing the way in which we approached language and its societal uses.  In particular, Saussure identified the difference between langue and parole.  Essentially, langue constitutes actual language, or speech, including the specific meanings given to the words.  Parole, on the other hand, includes the psychological mechanisms; it is speaking, and takes in the context of the moment.  As Saussure argued, “Execution is always individual, and the individual is always its master: I shall call the executive side speaking [parole]” (his addition and emphasis, p. 187).  Because the act of actually speaking is always in the moment, is always bound by contextual aspects, it is necessarily an individual experience.  Additionally though, Saussure felt as though langue was more important, or more conducive to studying language;  however, many scholars along the way have argued against Saussure’s notion.

Second Degree

            One of these scholars who diverged from the path Saussure paved was Mikhail Bahktin (1981), who argued that language should be studied as a living system, rather than a closed one, to take into account all of the specific contexts that each interaction includes.  As Bahktin asserted, “A unitary language is not something given but is always in essence posited – and every moment of its linguistic life it is opposed to the realities of heteroglossia” (p. 270).  This notion of heteroglossia put forth by Bahktin refers to language-in-use, or to the in-the-moment contexts and situations that impact everyday communication between individuals.  The ideas and arguments surrounding this concept have impacted many aspects of communication, but one aspect directly connected to moment-centric communication occurs in research on certainty and uncertainty.

Third Degree

            Baxter and Montgomery (1996), expand upon this notion in their discussion of certainty and the usefulness of uncertainty in dialogic communication.  The authors discuss Bahktin’s sentiments directly, arguing that “personal relationships are not closed, determinate systems but rather processes of interplay between forces of certainty and forces of uncertainty” (p. 107).  As such, the authors proposed the parole was a more effective way of studying the impact of (un)certainty in dialogic communication.  They advance this notion further, arguing that “[a] dialogic perspective fundamentally challenges a view of communication as interaction between two monadic individuals, each of whom undertakes independent surveillance work in viewing the other as an object” (p. 118).  By doing so, the authors hit upon a topic we’ve discussed throughout this class: the idea of monologue vs. dialogue.

Fourth (and final) Degree

            This tension between monologue and dialogue is something that heavily influenced Marin Buber’s (1958) I and Thou.  In his discussion of I/Thou communication, Buber asserted “All modern attempts to interpret this primal reality of dialogue as a relation of the I to the Self, or the like – as an event that is contained within the self-sufficient interior life of man – are futile: they take their place in the abysmal history of destruction of reality” (p. 68).   Essentially, Buber argued that, on the spectrum of communication, individuals and conversations varied in levels of how personal they were, the most personal of which was I/Thou communication.  By following Buber’s assertion, individuals could be engaged in a conversation with another individual but still be engaging in monologue.  In order for individuals to truly experience dialogic communication, one must take the focus off of oneself and be truly engaged and active in what the other is saying/feeling.  This notion of dialogic communication, as well as looking past the self and opening oneself up to the “other,” is clearly a tying factor that connects many of the readings we have encountered throughout the semester, greatly influencing interpersonal communication, and the field of communication studies in general. 

References

Bahktin, M. M. (1981).  The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bahktin (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Baxter, L. A. & Montgomery, B. M. (1996).  Relating dialogues and dialectics. New York: The Guilford Press.

Buber, M. (1958). I and thou. (R. G. Smith, Trans.) New York: Scribner.

de Saussure, F. (1959).  Course in general linguistics. (W. Baskin, Trans.; C. Bally & A. Sechehaye with A. Reidlinger, Eds.).  In R.T. Craig & H.L. Muller (Eds.), Theorizing Communication (pp. 357-360). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Thought Piece - Connecting Isaiah to Buber

The prologue to Martin Buber’s I and Thou, written by Walter Kaufman, provided a very unique background to understanding Buber. Kaufman includes a Biblical chapter from Isaiah: “When you come to appear before me, who requires of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no vain...defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Buber, 1970, pp. 28-29). Considering Buber’s need of an omnipresent Being, this quote provided a great example of what Buber might deem too little in understanding how God is self-actualized in man. Specifically, the last few lines: “...cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” (p. 29).

I love this thought. With Buber, my understanding with him is that God is in everything, therefore man has a unique relationship with Him. But how is this made present to us? By reading a chapter from the Christian Bible! Basically, God is only known to each of us through our unique relationship with Him. It very subtly eliminates organized religion, provides a self-aware sense of commitment to a higher being, and potentially gives man a cause to live. As a Catholic/Christian, I love the combination of philosophy with religious actualization.

That is my likeness to my life: the realization that I can understand Buber more fully by connecting it to my own knowledge of Christianity. While not written by Buber of course, I still think how Kaufman connects this passage from Isaiah to religious self-transcendentalism is fascinating.

Part of me wonders where Kaufman thought to use Isaiah from. Buber (1970) said: “But as surely as God embraces us and dwells in us, we never have him within. And we speak to him only when all speech has ceased within” (pp. 152-153). Perhaps as a way back to understanding an omnipresent God, man must (as Isaiah says) to cease evil, do good, seek justice, etc. My understanding of Buber is simple: we talk to God mostly when we fail to do as Isaiah says. When that point happens, man learns again to talk to God and see Him as an omnipresent being.

Buber, M. (1970). I and thou. Touchstone: New York, NY.

Martin Buber & Religion

For Martin Buber, God is the “Eternal Thou.” Hasidic Judaism teaches God as being omnipresent, with Friedman (1955) describing God as “Absolute Person, a Being which becomes Person in order to know and be known, to love and loved by man” (p. 267). “God creates people so that He could personally converse with them” (Buber, 1952). Buber’s use of religious references in his texts acknowledges his belief that God exists in everything according to how they can best use Him. Buber preferred the religious over philosophy, on the grounds that religion addresses the whole being, whereas philosophy fragments it.

The fragmentation of a man’s soul cannot be done by self-transcendence: to understand the I of the I-Thou relationship, man understands that God is known only by His relation to man. How else better to accomplish this than to follow the words found within the Christian faith? In Two Types of Faith (1955), Buber explains the messianism of Jesus, who he greatly respected but yet did not consider divine. To Buber, Jesus’s faith is similar to the Hebrew term emunah, which advocates a faith in God’s continual presence in the life of each person. Also, Buber’s interpretation of the Bible (for example) postulates that the book is a history of God’s relation to man, from the perspective of man. The use of religious terms in Buber’s writings reflect his advocacy for Zionism in everyday life. Man creates his self by understanding the I-Thou relationship between himself and God.

"You are not an object for men like this, not a thing to be used or experienced, not an object of interest or fascination. The point is not at all that you are found interesting or fascinating instead of being seen as a fellow I." (Martin Buber, I AND THOU 1970 p.g 11) A quote that stuck out to me, I haven't gotten to read the full book on Martin Buber, but a interesting person. He provided a literal perspective on direct relationships with God. Now we can say that God carries his absoluteness into his relationship with man kind.  Many believers altogether have a understanding that the conversation with God should flow as any with a friend. Buber "God address to man the events in all our lives and all the events in th world arond us, everything biographical and everything historical, and turns it into instruction,* into demands for you and me." (Martin Buber)

Integrating identity and respect into the classroom: Llardo, Buber, and Me

As a relatively new teacher, I am still trying to balance the relatively complex aspects of this new job, making Lladro’s (1972) statement that “it is that teachers of interpersonal communication are engaged in the conduct of a sort of therapy which has arisen in response to the needs resulting from the fact that we are living in an age of transition, an age of anxiety” (p. 5) all the more poignant. I have already, in my first semester, found myself acting as a mentor to my students – having to offer life advice and support. It is a role that many teachers never choose to take (and one that I myself never had with a professor). Buber (2000) stated that “as experience, the world belongs to the primary word I-It. The primary word I-Thou establishes the world of relation” (p. 5), explaining my problems with the traditional educational system – it is primarily one described as one that used the “banking method” – where the teachers view the students as accounts waiting to be filled with knowledge. I try to teach using an I-Thou relationship with my students, one where I have a relationship with my students where we see and regard each other as individuals, as people with personalities and with needs. This means that I spent extra time planning for lessons, emailing students, and assuaging people’s fears. However, I’ve found this to be an infinitely more rewarding relationship. I received two separate thank you notes last semester from students. Apparently, treating my students as actual people not only ensures that I receive good teaching evaluations and that they have higher learning motivation, but I believe that it is what helped to keep disrespectful talking/texting behaviors out of the classroom. By respecting my students and by treating them as people with significant problems, issues and identities, I think that they in turn recognized that I was a person as well. Instead of being a faceless educator at the front of the room of faceless students, we saw each other as worthwhile people.

Buber and Bailey...Will we ever learn our lesson?

"...love does not cling to an I, as if You were merely its "content" or object; it is between I and You" (Buber, 1970, p. 66)

Bailey (2003) describes in his novel "Slowing down to the speed of love: How to create a deeper, more fulfilling relationship in a hurried world" that love cannot truly exist without first existing within ones self. The author argues it is only, essentially, upon accepting ones self that one can begin to be loved by others.

Both Buber and Bailey focus on the interaction between two. Though they each take a distinct approach to the conversation of love and others, both advocate strongly that it is a difficult process to achieve a true connection. Furthermore, each places extensive emphasis on the need to maintain focus on creating relationships. It is only upon making a relationship a priority can that relationship, whether with a lover, a friend, a tree, or a stranger, thrive.

Even in slower times, Buber found himself often reflecting on his need to slow down and actively engage in pursuing the I-Thou. I find it interesting that such a seemingly simple task, focus on, and actively engage in relationships, has yet to be fully understood. This is perhaps where I fall short with both Bailey and Buber. How can it be that we have failed to make forward strives in achieving the I-Thou? How can it be that between Buber forever advocating, and Bailey reiterating, not to mention those hundreds of scholars in-between, humans have yet to master the art of the highest level of relationships? Perhaps it is my own hurried pace, and my hurried attempts to understand each man, but I find myself both congratulating myself on achieving the I-Thou, and simultaneously feeling haggard and run down because I continuously fail to achieve functional relationships.