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 Table of Contents Paul Mendes-Flohr Introduction: Dialogue as a Trans-Disciplinary Concept 1 Jürgen Habermas A Philosophy of Dialogue 7 Julia Matveev From Martin Buber’s I and Thou to Mikhail Bakhtin’s Concept of ‘Polyphony’ 21 Jeffrey Andrew Barash Politicsand Theology: The Debate on Zionismbetween Hermann Cohen and Martin Buber 49 Samuel Hayim Brody Is Theopoliticsan Antipolitics? Martin Buber, Anarchism, and the Idea of the Political 61 Ran HaCohen Bubers schöpferischer Dialog mit einer chassidischen Legende 89 Irene Kajon Religio Today: The Concept of Religion in Martin Buber’s Thought 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 Henry Abramovitch The Influence of Martin Buber’s Philosophy of Dialogue on Psychotherapy: His Lasting Contribution 169 Alan J. Flashman Almost Buber: Martin Buber’s Complex Influence on Family Therapy 183 Aleida Assmann Dialogic Memory 199 Contributors 215 Subject index 217 Paul Mendes-Flohr Introduction: Dialogue as a Trans-Disciplinary Concept Inamomentofdisarmingcandor,Buberexplainedtoafriendwhowasseeking topromotehisappointmenttothefacultyoftheHebrewUniversity:“Ichbinkein Universitätsmensch” –I a m not auniversity person.¹ By this confession,written justbeforeheleftGermanyforEretzYisraelinMarch1938,Bubermeantthathe didnotfitinto–nordidhecaretofitintothedisciplinaryclassificationsofthe university.HisappointmenttothefacultytotheHebrewUniversityofJerusalem was delayed by many years, primarily because those advocating his appoint- ment–suchasGershomScholemandeventhepresidentofthefledglinguniver- sity, Judah Leon Magnes – could not convince their colleagues that Buber was indeed a Universtätsmensch. WasBuberaphilosopher?Tobesure,hewroteextensivelyonphilosophical themes,buthismodeofexpositiondidnotquiteconformtotheaccepteddisqui- sitional protocol of academic publications.Was he a scholar of comparative re- ligion (Religionswissenschaft),whichhetaughtasaHonorarprofessoror adjunct professor at the University of Frankfurt? Was he a biblical scholar? After all he translated(initiallywithFranzRosenzweig)theHebrewScripturesintoGerman, wrote innumerable essays and (by 1938) no less than four major books on bib- lical subjects? Was he a scholar of Hasidism and mysticism? Or perhaps he was an art historian, having also written about art? He was of course all these, yet not quite any. He lacked a clear disciplinary profile. Finally, after tenyearsofnegotiations acompromisewas reachedandhewasgrantedapro- fessorship in social philosophy,which soon evolved into the founding chair of the Hebrew University’s department of sociology.² Although Buber had studied sociology and social philosophy with the likes of Georg Simmel and Wilhelm Dilthey,andeditedahighlyacclaimedseriesoffortymonographsinsocialpsy- chology, Die Gesellschaft,one would hardly regard him in the strict sense a so- ciologist.  Buber to S. H. Bergmann, letter dated 16 April 1936. Buber, Briefwechsel aus sieben Jahr- zehnten,ed.GreteSchaeder(Heidelberg:VerlagLambertScheidner,1973),vol2:589.  OnthecomplextrajectoryofBuber’sacademiccareer,seemyarticle“Buber’sRhetoric,”in: MartinBuber:AContemporaryPerspective,ed.PaulMendes-Flohr (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities/Syracuse: Syracuse University Press,2002),1–24. 2 PaulMendes-Flohr In aword, he was a polymath of exceptional learning, a fact to which his friend Franz Rosenzweig attested in a letter explaining why he had invited BubertojointhefacultyoftheFreiesJüdischesLehrhausinFrankfurtamMain: Iwouldnothaveinvitedhim…hadInotbeenutterlyconvincedfromtheveryfirstmo- mentofhisabsolutegenuineness,tobeexact,theintegritythathasslowlytakenholdof him.…Idonotknowofanyoneelsewhoisashonestasheiswithrespecttospiritual andintellectual matters, andasdependable in human affairs. Ido notreadilyemploy superlatives…. [Yet I must acknowledge that] Buber is for me an imposing savant (Ge- lehrter). I am not easily impressed by knowledge, because I myself have some. … But incomparisontoBuber’slearning,Iregardmyselfadwarf(GegenBubersGelehrsamkeit aberemfindeichmichalseinenZwerg.).Inthecourseofmyconversationswithhim,every timeIseektosaysomethingnew,Iencounteracommandingerudition–withoutatrace of pretentiousness–notonlyin Germanand foreign literature ‘about,’but also in the primary writings of individualswhose names I hardlyknow.That I am also impressed byhisJudaicandHebrewknowledgesaysless,althoughinrecentyearsIhavedeveloped acertainsenseandlearnedtodistinguishbetweena‘little’anda‘great’[knowledgein Jewishmatters].ThereareareasofJudaicainwhichheiscertainlyinthestrictestsenseof thetermanexpert(Fachmann).³ Buber’sreadingwasnotonlyvoraciousbutcatholic,coveringencyclopedicin- terestsinthehumanandsocialsciences,theartsandliterature.Theenormous breadth of his intellectual universe is also registered in the catalogue of his personal library of over 40,000 volumes and from the thematic scope of his writings.Buber’sinterdisciplinaryhorizonsarealsoreflectedinthecriticaled- ition of his writings that are currently in preparation initially under the joint sponsorship of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, and since 2009 with Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, and The Israel Academy of Sci- ences and the Humanities, will comprise some 21 volumes, some containing two books, and each volume dedicated to a specific theme. For example: MythandMysticism Hasidism PsychologyandPsychotherapy PhilosophicalAnthropology ChinesePhilosophyandLiterature Pedagogy PhilosophyofReligion PhilosophyofLanguage MessianismandEschatology  RosenzweigtoEugenMeyer,letterdated23January1923,inRosenzweig.DerMenschundsein Werk:Gesammelte Schriften, Part 1: Briefe und Tagebücher, ed. Rachel Rosenzweig and Edith Rosenzweig-Scheinmann,II:883. Introduction:DialogueasaTrans-DisciplinaryConcept 3 Judaism Christianity Zionism PoliticalPhilosophy SocialandCulturalTheory TheoriesofTranslation TheaterandLiterature ArtCriticismandArtHistory Indeed,Buber’sinterestsweretrans-disciplinary.Whatultimatelycharacterizes hisworkinthesemultifariousfieldsistheprincipleofdialogue,whichheem- ployed as a comprehensive hermeneutic method. Asaninterpretivemethod,dialoguehastwodistinctbutultimatelyconver- gentvectors.Thefirstis directedto thesubjectofone’s “investigation”:oneis tolistentothevoiceoftheotherandtosuspendallpre-determinedcategories and concepts that one may have of the other; dialogue is, first and foremost, the art of unmediated listening. In a sense Buber’s principle of dialogue ex- tendsIsaacNewton’smaxim:Hypothesesnonfingo:Ifeignnohypotheses.Dia- logue is, of course, more than a method ensuring maximum objectivity; dia- logue has manifest cognitive and thus existential significance. By listening to the Other attentively, by allowing the voice of the Other to penetrate, so tospeak,one’sverybeing,toallowthewordsoftheOther–articulatedacous- ticallyandviscerally– to question one’s pre-establishedpositionsfortified by professional, emotional, intellectual and ideological commitments, one must perforce be open to the possibility of being challenged by that voice. As Eugen Rosenstock-Heussy put it: Respondo etsi mutabor, I respond, although Iwillbechanged;“Irespond,eventhoughImaychangeintheprocess!”Gen- uinedialoguethusentailsarisk,the‘danger’thatbytrulylisteningtotheother –betheotheranindividual,atext,aworkofart–thatonemight,indeed,be changed,transformed cognitively and existentially. Onamoreprosaicbutnolesssignificantlevel,Buberenvisioneddialogue as a scholarly conversation conducted between various disciplinary perspec- tives. In his studyof the origins of the biblical conception of Messianism, Kö- nigtum Gottes, he not onlydrew upon the canon of biblical scholarship,dem- onstrating a mastery of textual skills finely honed by exhaustive philological analysis (grounded in a nuanced knowledge of ancient Near Eastern languag- es), but also upon archaeology, history, and sociology. Incidentally, in this monumental study, Buber was in particular beholden to the work of Max Weber,whomheknewpersonallyandwhomheeffusivelyextolledinthepref- 4 PaulMendes-Flohr ace of the volume as “a most extraordinary person” (ein außenordentlicher Mensch).⁴ AnditisWeberwhocomestomindwhenadjudgingBuber’stransdisciplina- ry disposition. In his memorable lecture of 1918 Science as Vocation (Wissen- schaft als Beruf) Weber bemoaned the imperious, but given the inherent logic of modern science a necessarydrive to disciplinary specialization: Inourtime,theinternalsituation[ofscholarshipis]conditionedbythefactthat[it]has entered a phase of specialization previously unknown and that this will forever remain thecase.Notonlyexternally,butalsoinwardly,mattersstandatapointwheretheindivid- ualcanacquirethesureconsciousnessofachievingsomethingtrulyperfectinthefieldof scienceonlyifheisastrictspecialist.Allworkthatoverlapsneighboringfields…isbur- dened with the resigned realization that at best one provides the specialist with useful questions upon which he would not so easily hit from his specialized point of view. … Onlybystrictspecializationcanthescientificworker(Wissenschaftler)becomefullycon- scious…thathehasachievedsomethingthatwillendure.Areallydefinitiveandgoodac- complishmentistodayalwaysaspecializedaccomplishment.⁵ Andwhoeverlacksthis“passionatedevotion,”asWeberputit,tospecializedre- search– “without this strangeintoxication, ridiculedbyeveryoutsider”–“you have no calling for science and you should do somethingelse.”⁶ NearlyseventyyearsafterWeberpennedthispleaforasoberresignationto “thefateofourtimes”⁷thatknowledgemustbepursuedbywayofoftenradical- lydivergentdisciplinarypathsandwiththecircumscribedtoolsofthespecialist, Jürgen Habermas questioned whether specialization has not gone too far.With respectto the social sciences, helamentedthattheyareeach lockedintoa“re- strictivelineofinquiry”creatingaconditionof“mutualincomprehension,”such that the adherents of different methodological approaches “scarcely have any- thing to say toone another.”⁸ Such scholarlyautism, Habermas suggested,pre- vailsinthehumanitiesaswell.Farmoredistressing,inHabermas’sview,isthe resultingisolation oftheacademic inquiryfromthe“life-world,”thereallifeof human beings to which he believes science should ultimately serve. Twoalternative responses tostemthe centrifugaltendencies todisciplinary fragmentationhaveemergedinthelastdecades,whichhavewitnessedanever-  Buber,KönigtumGottes(Berlin:SchockenVerlag,1932)  MaxWeber,“ScienceasaVocation,”in:FromMaxWeber:EssaysinSociology,trans.anded. byH.H.GerthandC.WrightMills(London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1948),134f.  Ibid.,135.  Ibid.,155.  Habermas,TheoryofCommunicativeAction,trans.ThomasMcCarthy(Boston:BeaconPress, 1989),vol.2:375.