Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Publication: Society
Does the renewed interest in Buber's thought stem merely from curiosity
about something esoteric from a different period, intriguing precisely
because it is not relevant? That alone, I believe, would not explain this
abiding appeal; I suggest, rather, that it is due to the feeling that Buber's
approach may provide at least one answer to some of the problems
raised by postmodern culture and ideas. However, the strength and
uniqueness of his vision lies in the interconnection between the different
areas of his work and thought; we cannot fully understand one area
without considering all the others. Since it would be impossible to do
justice to all of his concerns, I shall focus here on just three related
concepts that I feel are particularly relevant to today's issues: utopia,
education and community.
Buber noted that utopian thought has played a crucial role in the cultural
and institutional dynamics of every great civilization. This is true not only
of societies founded on monotheistic religions like Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam, but also of those steeped in Hinduism, Buddhism, and the
Confucian-Taoist complex in China. Of course, different modes of utopian
thought developed in each culture. As Buber emphasized, however, in
every case it emerged from the recognition of the impossibility of fully
incarnating or realizing on earth a transcendental vision, like that of the
Kingdom of GOd or the bliss of Nirvana. Utopian thought embodies the
desire to overcome this limitation.
Naturally, the search for a utopian solution was anathema to the secular
and, especially, to the ecclesiastical powers of these civilizations, which
generally supported an Augustinian-type concept of the distinction, and
tension, between the City of God and the City of Man. Only in this way
could the hegemonic groups, the spiritual and political elites, maintain
their legitimacy in the face of the transcendental visions promulgated and
accepted in their respective civilizations. However, this Augustinian view
was never fully accepted even in Western civilizations. During the Middle
Ages in Europe, various movements attempted to bring about an earthly
Kingdom of God. Most of them were gnostic movements based on the
idea that emancipation would issue from immediate knowledge of
spiritual truth, through faith alone; the most extreme was perhaps that of
Joachim de Flora. Though these movements were more or less
successfully segregated from other parts of society, they nevertheless
had great impact.
One of the major goals of both the American and the French Revolutions,
and even to some extent of Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans in the
English Civil War, was to bridge this gap between the ideal and the real,
to implement a transcendental kingdom in human society. With these
modern revolutions, three crucial new elements were added to utopian
thinking. Often addressed by Buber, these elements shaped the problem
as it is viewed today. First, the vision of Utopia was politicized, not only at
the margins of society but also at its center. As Buber himself and others
have shown, socialism in its full bloom, whether utopian or Marxist, was
in many ways a secular transformation of Christian eschatology. Second,
the belief arose that a new society could be constructed through political
action, a belief most clearly evident in the French Revolution but
discernible even among the American Puritans. Third, paradoxically but
certainly very dramatically, violence came to be sanctified as a means of
implementing the political utopian vision. The Jacobins are the prime
example of the emergence of this trend. One of its most important and
interesting exponents was Georges Sorel, whose texts some of us had
the privilege of studying with Buber at the Hebrew University, where he
taught social philosophy and sociology from 1938.
Opposed to Lenin's view was that of the Utopian Socialists, who, despite
their ambivalent and even negative attitudes toward the Revolution, can
be understood only in relation to the new political, social, and
philosophical discourse that it engendered. Writers like Pierre Proudhon
and Saint-Simon shared the missionary zeal and eschatological
orientation of the French Revolution but wished to transform society
without involving themselves in politics. Unlike the revolutionaries, with
their emphasis on egalitarianism, the thought of the Utopian Socialists
was characterized by a very strong hierarchical communitarian order.
Many of its later proponents - some of whom, particularly those of a more
religious bent, had personal connections with Buber and Gustav
Landauer - eventually opted for a retreat into small, segregated
communes, where their vision could be fully realized. Though they hoped
thus to become precursors of a new society, they failed to influence the
broader frameworks around them.
Unlike many other utopians, Buber denied neither the strength nor the
legitimacy of the primordial and political elements in society. Consider his
famous reply to Mahatma Gandhi, who asked him why the Jews wanted
to settle in a place so rife with conflicts as the land of Israel. Buber
emphasized in response that without primordial roots in the land, one
cannot create good, just solutions to social problems or assure social and
cultural creativity. He was fully aware that overemphasizing these
primordial elements might bring on such ills as chauvinism and racism.
Nevertheless, he saw them not as necessary evils but as fully legitimate
aspects of humanity, without which humanity's existence is roofless and
probably meaningless.
Though Buber gave the formal aspects of curriculum their due, he did not
care much about the details. What he did care about was dialogue, a
concern that ties in with his thoughts on utopia and provides a
counterpoint to contemporary - especially postmodern - discussions on
discourse. For Buber, there were at least two closely related dimensions
in dialogue: There was dialogue between man and man, and there was
also dialogue between man and the sacred (I prefer not to use the word
"God," although Buber did use it). He sought and analyzed situations in
which these two modes of dialogue could interconnect.
Though it was important that dialogue have content, Buber believed that
the full crystallization of this content brought with it the dangers of
routinization and apathy. New contents for interactive communication
must constantly be sought, and not only on the social, communicative
plane but also on a higher plane, which might be called "transcendental,"
"religious," or "sacred." It is the combination of the social and the sacred
modes of communication that is the crux of fruitful dialogue. Communities
embodying this combination have the potential to become "experiments
that do not fail" and to serve as starting points for wider social and
cultural regeneration.
It is worthwhile here to compare Buber's work with that of his friend and
teacher Georg Simmel, who has lately been the subject of renewed
interest as it becomes clear that he was one of the first social scientists to
detect and analyze postmodern trends. Simmel's work greatly influenced
Buber's conception of social interaction. Nevertheless, there is a very
interesting and very basic difference between them. In Simmel's view of
the modern world, everything is constantly fluid; nothing is really
permanent. His world not only has no internal center, it no longer even
seeks one. Moreover, for Simmel the essence of modernity is the total
dissolution of primordial elements. Concrete situations continually break
down into their constitutive elements, which go on to take new forms.
This dual attentiveness to the theoretical and to concrete social reality led
Buber to develop a new evaluation of the modern and even the
postmodern situation. He fully understood the fluidity of modern trends
and much preferred it to the static solidity characteristic both of
totalitarian communism and of the technocratically homogeneous
institutions of contemporary Western societies. Buber sought possibilities
for combining that fluidity not with the denial of ultimate values but with
the search for the sacred and the transcendental.
Buber was one of the very few thinkers to have attempted to combine
what we now call deconstructionism with a continuing search for ultimate
values. Precisely here, I believe, lies the continued interest for the
contemporary reader of his thoughts on the potential for regenerating
cultural and social life in scattered utopian settings, though his specific
views and analyses may not be widely accepted. Here lies his answer to
the postmodern predicament: the paradoxical alternation of society
between rigid boundaries and continual fluidity. For Buber, the fluidity of
our era was an important, potentially creative component of the
contemporary human situation, and he never opposed it in the name of
some everlasting symbol or vision. But deconstruction, without the
constructive search for ultimate value, risks being reduced to a nihilistic
de. The continual search for value, rather than the achievement of an
immutable solution in the form of a rigid social framework, is what may
enable humanity to transcend the uncertainty of postmodern social
theory.
SUGGESTED FURTHER READING
Martin Buber. "The Land and Its Possession." In Israel and the World: Essays in a Time of Crisis. New
York: Schocken Books, 1948, pp. 227-33.
Martin Buber. "On Hasidim." In Martin Buber, ed., On Inter-subjectivity and Cultural Creativity.
Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1992, Section H, part 5.
S. N. Eisenstadt. "Martin Buber's Social Doctrine." In Martin Buber, in Memoriam: On the Twentieth
Anniversary of His Death. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987 (in Hebrew).
Michael Keren. Ben Gurion and the Intellectuals: Power, Knowledge, and Charisma. DeKalb: Northern
Illinois University Press, 1983.
S. N. Eisenstadt is Rose Isaacs Professor of Sociology Emeritus at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Currently, he is visiting professor at the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago. He
is the author of numerous books, including Modernization, Protest, and Change; Essays on
Comparative Institutions; Social Differentiation and Stratification; Transformation of Israeli Society
and Japanese Civilization: A Comparative Perspective. He has edited Political Sociology and Society,
Culture, and Urbanization.