BY:
CASSANDRA
B. PARAGGUA
August, 2017
Martin
Buber (1878-1965)
Martin
Mordecai Buber was a prominent and influential twentieth century philosopher,
religious thinker, political activist and educator, essayist, translator and
editor who re-defined religious existentialism through his ‘philosophy of
dialogue’. (TheFamousPeople.com, 2013). He was born in
Austria in 1878. His
life was marked by several stages. The failure of his parent's marriage turned
out to be quite a milestone for the little three year old Buber which caused
him to live with his grandparents. Buber would only see his mother once more
when he was in his early thirties This
encounter he described as a “mismeeting” helped teach him the meaning of
genuine meeting. (Scott, n.d.).
He spent his first year of university studies at
Vienna. Ultimately the theatre culture of Vienna and the give-and-take of the
seminar format impressed him more than any of his particular professors. He
took courses in philosophy and art history at the University of Leipzig and
participated in the psychiatric clinics of Wilhelm Wundt and Paul
Flecksig. The summer of 1899 he went to
the University of Zürich, where he met his wife Paula Winkler (pen name Georg
Munk). They had two children, Rafael and Eva. From 1899-1901 Buber
attended the University of Berlin, where he took several courses with Wilhelm
Dilthey and Georg Simmel. He later explained that his philosophy of dialogue
was a conscious reaction against their notion of inner experience (Scott, n.d.).
Martin
Buber is considered to be one of the greatest minds of the 20th century in the
field of education. Much has been written on Buber and education, and on his
views on child education, adult education, arts education and the philosophy of
education in particular. Most of what has been written on Buber and education
tends to be studies of two kinds: theoretical studies of his philosophical
views on education and specific case studies that aim at putting theory into
practice (Guilherme & Morgan, 2010). He developed a
philosophy of education based on addressing the whole person through education
of character, and directed the creation of Jewish education centers in Germany
and teacher-training centers in Israel.
Buber became Chair of the Department of
Sociology of Hebrew University, which he held until his retirement in 1951.
Buber established Beth Midrash l’Morei Am (School
for the Education of Teachers of the People) in 1949 and directed it until
1953. This prepared teachers to live and work in the hostels and settlements of
the newly arriving emigrants. Education was based on the notion of dialogue,
with small classes, mutual questioning and answering, and psychological help
for those coming from detention camps. (Scott, n.d.).
Martin Buber received many awards, including the
Goethe Prize of the University of Hamburg (1951), the Peace Prize of the German
Book Trade (1953), the first Israeli honorary member of the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences (1961), and the Erasmus Prize (1963). However, Buber’s most
cherished honor was an informal student celebration of his 85th birthday, in which some 400 students from
Hebrew University rallied outside his house and made him an honorary member of
their student union.
On
June 13, 1965 Martin Buber died. The leading Jewish political figures of the
time attended his funeral. Classes were cancelled and hundreds of students
lined up to say goodbye as Buber was buried in the Har-Hamenuchot cemetery in Jerusalem. (Scott, n.d.) After his
death, the New York Times referred to him as ‘the foremost Jewish religious
thinker of our times and one of the world’s most influential philosophers’. (TheFamousPeople.com, 2013)
I- It and I- Thou Relationship
Martin Buber is best known for his 1923 book, Ich
und Du (I and Thou), which distinguishes between “I-Thou” and “I-It” modes of
existence. (Scott, n.d.). According to
Buber (2000), the fundamental fact of human existence is man to man. Human
existence is defined by the way in which we engage in dialogue with each other,
with the world and with God. Through dialogue we meet, for all real living is
meeting (Buber 1965). For Buber encounter has a significance beyond co-presence
and individual growth. He looked for ways in which people could engage with
each other fully – to meet with themselves. Persons and/or things are seen to
exist only in relation to other things and/or persons. We can only grow and
develop once we have learned to live in relation to others, to recognize the
possibilities of the space between us.
Martin Buber’s I-Thou (2000) which plays an
important role on education, designate
two basic modes of existence: I “I-It” (Ich-Es) and I-Thou” (Ich-Du).
I–It is a relation of subject-to-object. I-it
involves distancing. Differences are accentuated, the uniqueness of “I” is
emphasize. In the I–It relationship human beings perceive each other as
consisting of specific, isolated qualities, and view themselves as part of a
world that consists of things. You think of the other person as an object to be
labeled, manipulated, changed, and maneuvered to your own belief. “I-It”
relation is driven by categories of “same” and “different” and focuses on
universal definition. An “I-It” relation experiences a detached thing, fixed in
space and time. (Buber, 2000)
I-It relationship, happens when one stays in the
world of seeming of impressions, and treats the other as object, as something
that fills his need of the moment. Relationship exists but the existence has no
depth, and is absorbed. Whatever
personal depths a being may enjoy, it may be approached by the mind on his
level and in that measure be grasped as an object. Since there is no personal
and spiritual contact, there would be a fossilization of the other. Growth and
liberation is not present, rather impedes it. Utility matters for this kind of
interaction. It is a consideration of the other, not as a whole, but as object
for one’s use. This is a relationship, which requires only the “I” to operate.
Thus, shallow level of existence and relationship is established, only from
mere perception and sensation. For Buber, the images of our perception are not
in things, but only in the sphere of our relation in things. Thus, one might
consider an object structured in terms of its relation to the subject, either
as an object of experience or as an object of use. (Esmaya, 2015)
I–Thou, on the other hand, is a relation of
subject-to-subject. In the I–Thou
relationship, people are aware of each other as having a unity of being and you
see yourself and others as whole persons who can-not be reduced to
characterizations. In the I–Thou relationship, people do not perceive each
other as consisting of specific, isolated qualities, but engage in a dialogue
involving each other’s whole being. The “I-Thou” relation is the pure encounter
of one whole unique entity with another in such a way that the other is known
without being subsumed under a universal.
“I-Thou” relation participates in the dynamic, living process of an “other”.
(Buber, 2000)
In I- Thou a person is not only conversing with the
other, but affirming him as a person. Such true dialogue is an act of mutual
affirmation. With this type of conversation, words are only media for marking
the expression of mutual understanding. It involves the value of trust and
openness to each other. I thou relationship is a relationship characterize by
genuine dialogue.
In I-Thou man becomes whole not in relation to
himself but only through a relation to another self. The formation of the “I”
of the “I-Thou” relation takes place in a dialogical relationship in which each
partner is both active and passive and each is affirmed as a whole being. Only
in this relationship is the other truly an “other”, and only in this encounter
can the “I” develop as a whole being. Buber (2000) maintains that in becoming
the I of I-Thou, man cannot hold anything of himself back, he must confront the
Thou with his "whole being." The I-Thou does not represent a complete
merger—in that each of the partners retains his separate and unique identity as
a being or an existent, even as he willingly puts aside his autonomy of purpose
for the sake of relationship. For the partner that comes from the world of
things (i.e., the environment), this means, for example, that the beauty of a
rock confronts a man who attends to it as his Thou; the man may pick up the
rock and admire It more closely, however, the rock retains its
"rock-ness" and the man retains his "personhood." At the
same time, the two have entered into a dialogue and have achieved a common or
mutual purpose. (Clark Winright, 1991).
I-Thou relationship is not only a relation between
man to mam but also a relationship between man to God. All relationships Buber
contends, bring one ultimately into relationship with Eternal Thou. For Buber, God is the “Eternal Thou.” God is
the only Thou which can never become an It. Our relationship with God serves as
the foundation for our I-Thou relationships with all others, and every I-Thou
relationship–be it with a person or thing–involves a meeting with God.
According to Buber, one encounters God through one’s encounters with other
human beings and the world. “Meet the world with the fullness of your being and
you shall meet God.”
Buber (2000) summarizes the trappings of I-Thou and
I-It in this way:
Every Thou in the world is doomed by its nature to
become a thing or at least to enter into thing hood again and again. In the
language of objects: everything in the world can—either before or after it
becomes a thing appear to some I as its Thou. But the language of objects
catches only one corner of actual life.
I-Thou in Education
Education worthy of the name is essentially the education of character. The purpose of education was to develop the character of the student, to show him how to live humanly in society. One of his basic principles was that ‘genuine education of character is genuine education for community’ (Buber, 1947). However, educational systems of nations see schooling as a production factory. (Ambrose & Ayodele, 2012). Because of the education’s achievement-based outcomes principle its role now is to ensure students are mastering the skills necessary to successfully enter either the workforce or institutions of higher learning, measures of academic success have emerged. Most indicators come in the form of standardized tests and activities. (State University.com, 2017)
In the Philippines,
students are taught for their preparation from the basic education up to
tertiary level. It is a sad reality that only seven out of ten learners who
enroll in Grade 1 finish the elementary curriculum, and from the seven who
continue to secondary, only 3 are able to complete the curriculum. Education
system in the Philippines are also concerned with the so-called globalization
of education. This concern was a response to the ever changing milieu in the
international academic community where students must be globally competitive.
Thus, schools transformed their orientation from being parochial to liberal. (Durban & Catalan, 2012) . From character to skill.
Schools are no longer a place to discover the potentialities of the student
rather it is already a place where learners are taught to compete with one
other.
Martin Buber’s book “I and Thou” analyzes two
relationship for proper understanding of human reality as I-It and I- thou. In
I-thou two being meet in dialogue while in the I-it relation entities meet but
failed to established a dialogue. Buber understands that both I-Thou and I-It
relations play a role in education and he was very critical of both
teacher-centered and student-centered approaches to education. In his ‘Address
on Education’ (1925), which builds on I
and Thou, Buber criticizes the teacher-centered approach for it gives
too much weight to the role of the teacher where the teacher provides students
with facts and information, where the teacher funnels information into
students, but does not encourage their creativity; and Buber also criticizes the
student-centered approach for focusing too much on the role of the student as
the student lacks proper guidance from the teacher; the student is left to pump his education out of his own subjective interests
or needs within a given environment. (Guilherme & Morgan, 2010). These roles of the
teachers and students make it difficult for the I-thou relation to arise and
therefore they become trapped into an I-It relation.
In addition, Buber points the two attitudes of the
‘old’ and the ‘new’ educators which Buber cited in 1926 and are still dominant
in educational theory and practice today. On the one hand, there are those who
emphasize the importance of ‘objective’ education to be obtained through the
teaching of Great Books, classical tradition, or technical knowledge. On the
other, there are those who emphasize the subjective side of knowledge and look
on education as the development of creative powers or as the ingestion of the
environment in accordance with subjective need or interest. (Friedman, 2003). Educators are much of the
objective side of knowledge and looked at education in terms of the exclusive
dominance of the subject to object relationship.
The study of Ambrose
and Ayodele (2012) entitled " Martin Buber's Philosophical Idea of I-Thou
(You) and its Relevance to Modern Education in Nigeria cited that the Nigerian
teachers at all levels need to be re-invigorated to begin to deal with students
on a deeper personal level that is authentic so that students do not feel alienated
or stranded in this era of large classes and increasing teacher-student ratio
due to near collapse of infrastructure. This alienation has driven many
students into cultism, crime, prostitution, serial absenteeism, etc. Teachers
in the same vein are no longer seeing themselves as role models in the hue of
Buber’s principles. The lack of mutual and engaging meeting between teachers
and learners is one of the greatest challenges of the Nigerian educational
system which has led to lower academic performances. The study shows that
because of lack of genuine relationship between the educator and the learner
the educational system failed. Educator then can only educate his students if
he is able to build a relationship based on authentic dialogue with students
and on mutuality. That is, on I-Thou relations.
In order to help the realization of the best
potentialities in the student’s life, authentic meeting and genuine dialogue
must be established. For According to Buber, (1947) “the relation in genuine
education is one of pure dialogue”. Dialogue which stimulates inclusion.
Inclusion in the sense that a capacity to develop a dual sensation between the
teacher and the learner that has been described as experiencing oneself and
simultaneously perceiving the other in its singularity (Yaron, 2000). Teaching method is dominated by dialogue
while other means that help the learner achieve their goals by the use of
different techniques and activities are encouraged, Buber (2002), however, emphasized that genuine dialogues is where
presence is felt and there is “speech from certainty to certainty.” He also
emphasized that dialogue includes communication from “one open-hearted person
to another open-hearted person”. Only then, in a spirit of openness, will
dialogue manifest (Scott , 2011)
Such
openness requires a genius presence of the teacher as a human being with
knowledge, values, ideals, needs, desires and intention: the engagement of a
whole person.
The focus for the
educator is on dialogical presence and not a set of techniques. Freire (2006),
like Buber, stresses the ontological mooring of dialogue in education. Dialogue
is “an existential necessity” which cannot exist without “profound love for the
world and its people”. One cannot encounter others if one sees oneself as “a
case apart from others” and one recognizes that self-sufficiency—seeing oneself
as ontologically whole yet completely individually formed—is “incompatible”
with dialogue.
Dialogue, however,
can only come to fore if the student trusts the educator, if the student feels
accepted: otherwise any attempt to educate them will lead to rebellion and lack
of interest. (Friedman, 2003). Buber explains that
one cannot prepare students for every situation, but one can guide them to a
general understanding of their position and then prepare them to confront every
situation with courage and maturity. This is character or whole person
education. One educates for courage by nourishing trust through the trustworthiness
of the educator. Hence the presence and character of the educator is more
important than the content of what is actually taught. The ideal educator is
genuine to his or her core, and responds with his or her “Thou”, instilling
trust and enabling students to respond with their “Thou”. (Scott S., n.d.)
Dialogue makes possible an adequate picture of what
does in fact take place: the learner grows through his encounter with the
person of the teacher and the Thou of the writer. In this encounter the reality
which the teacher and writer present to him comes alive for him: it is
transformed from the potential, the abstract, and the unrelated to the actual,
concrete, and present immediacy of a personal and even, in a sense, a
reciprocal relationship. This means that no real learning takes place unless
the learner participates, but it also means that the learner must encounter
something really ‘other’ than himself before he can learn. The old,
authoritarian theory of education does not understand the need for freedom and
spontaneity. The opposite of compulsion is not freedom but communion, says
Buber, and this communion comes about through the child’s first being free to
venture on his own and then encountering the real values of the teacher. The
teacher presents these values in the form of a lifted finger or subtle hint
rather than as an imposition of the ‘right,’ and the learner learns from this
encounter because he has first experimented himself. The doing of the teacher
proceeds, moreover, out of a concentration which has the appearance of rest.
The teacher who interferes divides the soul into an obedient and a rebellious
part, but the teacher who has integrity integrates the learner through his
actions and attitudes. The teacher must be ‘wholly alive and able to
communicate himself directly to his fellow beings. (Buber, 2002) Intellectual
instruction is by no means unimportant, but it is only really important when it
arises as an expression of a real human existence. As Marjorie Reeves (1946)
has shown in her application of Buber’s I-Thou philosophy to education, the
whole concept of the ‘objectivity’ of education is called in question by the
fact that our knowledge of things is for the most part mediated through the
minds of others and by the fact that real growth takes place ‘through the
impact of person on person.’
Dialogue as an educational approach allows both
students and teachers to become aware of each other’s lived realities: they
engage in the mutual actions of naming their worlds, requiring each other to do
so. They might also relate deeply meaningful experiences or values that have
influenced their lives. In all of this, there can be a real meeting between
them characterized by openness, risk-taking, confirmation, and an inclusive
empathy. Naming their lived realities allows learners to engage in the
vocational or educational task of becoming more fully human. The engagements of
dialogue do not “begin with the upper story of humanity. They begin no higher
than where humanity begins” (Buber, 2002). They do have the potential to take
each person to heights not previously realized—and “where humanity begins” is
the community of the classroom.
Dialogue can
represent the challenge of both the educator and education. Dialogical
education serves to bring the sacred into our educational encounters. All that
is left to form, Buber suggests, is the image of God; that image is formed
within and between us as meaningful relation. It dwells here, immanently, in
the dialogical relation. It dwells here, transcendentally, in the sphere of
between. Dialogue becomes the revelation of the sacred in the sphere of the
between, in the meeting of I and
Thou. (Scott C. ,
2011)
The
teacher occupies the central position in Buber’s educational methodology and
pedagogy. In the teaching learning process, Buber exalted the teacher learner
relationship and dialogue. ( Ambrose & Ayodele, 2012)
According
to Buber the following should be the role of the teacher or educator:
1. The
teacher should take “a formative, disciplinary and highly purposeful role”.
Buber further sees teaching as the act of giving birth. He stressed in
“Teaching and Deed” that he who teaches the tradition of his fellowman is
regarded as though he has brought him to life. ( Ambrose & Ayodele, 2012)
2. Teacher is a healer of souls who occupies a
central position in the lives of the students and the community. The teacher
should stand as simple personal witness to the process of education in an
active and loving manner showing concern for his students in full relations
with them. The teacher far from being perfect is also a human being with
his/her strength and flaw who should embrace his functions which include
counseling in an authentic manner. ( Ambrose & Ayodele, 2012)
3. The
teacher should act as a “filter and selector‟. As a filter his task is to
refine the diverse messages arriving from his surrounding and as a “selector‟
he must stand in contradiction to the old education characterized by a passive
acceptance of tradition as well as the new education which are not proper and
conducive to learning. ( Ambrose & Ayodele, 2012)
4.
The educator needs to attend to the instincts of
a child and to work to channel the creative forces of the first toward the
second. (Smith, 2009). According to
Buber community builds on two key autonomous instincts that he believed
all children have:
a.
The originator instinct involves the drive
to create and make things, to shape the world. It helps
the learner to learn about themselves – capacity building in relation to their
world based on the societal ethical standard.
b.
The instinct for communion involves ‘the longing
for the world to become present to us as a person, which goes out to us as we
to it, which chooses and recognizes us as we do it, which is confirmed in us as
we in it’. It makes the learner to be conscious of
the mutuality and sharing which prepares the learner for true dialogue with
„Thou‟ and by extension, the community (Yaron, K, 2000).
5. The
teacher should make himself the living selection of the world, which comes in
his person to meet, draw out, and form the learner. For according to Buber,
Education means a conscious and willed ‘selection by man of the effective
world.’ In the meeting the teacher puts aside the will to dominate and enjoy
the learner, for this will more than anything else threatens to stifle the
growth of his blessings. ‘It must be one or the other,’ writes Buber (1947):
He sees them
crouching at the desks, indiscriminately flung together, the misshapen and the
well-proportioned, animal faces, empty faces, and noble faces in indiscriminate
confusion, like the presence of the created universe; the glance of the
educator accepts and receives them all.
6. A
teacher should influence the formation of the minds of the learners. There are
two basic ways to influence it, writes Buber. In the first, one imposes one’s
opinion and attitude on the other in such a way that his psychic action is
really one’s own. In the second, one discovers and nourishes in the soul of the
other what one has recognized in oneself as the right. The first way is most
highly developed in propaganda, the second in education. (Friedman, 2003)
The differences of the two ways are
as follows:
a. The
propagandist is not really concerned with the person whom he wishes to
influence. Some of this person’s individual properties are of importance to the
propagandist, but only in so far as they can be exploited for his purposes. The
educator, in contrast, recognizes each of his learners as a single, unique
person, the bearer of a special task of being which can be fulfilled through
him and through him alone.
b. The
propagandist does not trust his cause to take effect out of its own power
without the aid of the loudspeaker, the spotlight, and the television screen.
The true educator, in contrast, believes in the power which is scattered in all
human beings in order to grow in each to a special form. He has confidence that
all that this growth needs is the help which he is at times called to give
through his meeting with this person who is entrusted to his care.
7. To
set the curriculum, the framework, to set the value platform for the student,
but this does not mean that the student’s interests, creativity and needs are
overlooked as the student develops these within the framework set by the
teacher. They should not only teach learners to master the world, but should
also encourage them to perfect it; the teacher provides pupils with the insight
that their deeds exist in the world but that the world also exists in their
deeds. (Buber, 1925)
8. The
educator should bring the learner face to face with God through making him
responsible for himself rather than dependent for his decisions upon any
organic or collective unity. His responsibility lies in responding to the full
humanity and divinity of each person and each situation, thus allowing the
light to be revealed. In answering the question of what the educator is
developing, Buber replies that the individual we are developing represents the
development of a culture, but that ultimately what is left to form is the image
of God; thus the educator stands as representing “imitatio Dei absconditi sed non ignoti” (“the imitation of God
who is hidden but not unknown”). God’s presence, the “moment God,” is revealed
in the dialogical encounters of learners. (Friedman, 2003)
Everything depends on the teacher as a man, as a
person. He educates from himself, from his virtues and his faults, through
personal example and according to circumstances and conditions. His task is to
realize the truth in his personality and to convey this realization to the
learner. (Buber in Hodes 1972) The teacher is able to educate the
learners that he finds before him only if he is able to build real mutuality
between himself and them. This mutuality can only come into existence if the
child trusts the teacher and knows that he is really there for him. The teacher
does not have to be continually concerned with the child, but he must have
gathered him into his life in such a way ‘that steady potential presence of the
one to the other is established and endures.’ ‘Trust, trust in the world,
because this human being exists -- that is the most inward achievement of the
relation in education.’ But this means that the teacher must be really there
facing the child, not merely there in spirit. ‘In order to be and to remain
truly present to the child he must have gathered the child’s presence into his
own store as one of the bearers of his communion with the world, one of the
focuses of his responsibilities for the world.’
Education
worthy of the name is essentially education of character. The concern of the
educator is always with the person as a whole both in his present actuality and
his future possibilities. ’For educating characters you do not need a moral genius,’ Buber
declared, ‘but you do need a man who is wholly alive and able to communicate
himself directly to his fellow beings. His aliveness streams out to them and
affects them most strongly and purely when he has no thought of affecting
them.’ (Smith, 2009)
The teacher’s only access to the wholeness of the learner is through winning
his confidence, and this is done through his direct and ingenuous participation
in the lives of his learners and through his acceptance of responsibility for
this participation.
The teacher can do this best of all when he
recognizes that his real goal is the education of great character. Character
cannot be understood in Kerschensteiner’s terms as an organization of
self-control by means of the accumulation of maxims nor in Dewey’s terms as a
system of interpenetrating habits. The great character acts from the whole of
his substance and reacts in accordance with the uniqueness of every situation.
He responds to the new face which each situation wears despite all similarity
to others. The situation ‘demands nothing of what is past. It demands presence,
responsibility; it demands you. The teacher is not faced with a choice between
educating the occasional great character and the many who will not be great. It
is precisely through his insight into the structure of the great character that
he finds the way by which alone he can influence the victims of collectivism.
He can awaken in them the desire to shoulder responsibility again by bringing
before them the image of a great character who denies no answer to life and the
world, but accepts responsibility for everything essential that he meets. (Friedman, 2003)
For Buber (1957) , “It
is “… the education that leads man to a lived connection with his world and enables
him to ascend from there to faithfulness, to standing the test, to
authenticating, to responsibility, to decision, to realization”
Conclusion
Martin Buber’s influence
in education is significant. He had
provided us a clear path on how to transform relationship between teachers and
students through genuine dialogue. He had also established the role of true
communication and language in the educational practice which led to authentic
relations, care and reciprocation in educational matters. However his
philosophy is not in to practice. In reality, formal education has not achieved
what is supposed to be achieved. That is, to develop the character of the
learner and show him how to live humanly in society. The new curriculum now is
industry-based wherein educators are preparing the students based on what the
industry needs while creativity and students’ own needs are overlooked.
As educator, I believe
that total transformation must be implemented in the education system of the
country. Re-orientation of the system.
Policy transformation. Values reorientation. In addition, we educators have to
work fully to help our students not to compete with one another but to develop
their sense of self which allows them to engage fully as member of the
community. We should see ourselves not so much as transmitter of knowledge but
an individual engaging in the joint exploration and upholding knowledge and
understanding.
The challenge now for
us lies on trying to establish through genuine, meaningful, heartfelt
relationship to create opportunities for I-Thou relationship to exist.
References:
Ambrose, A.,
& Ayodele, Q. (2012). Martins Buber’s Philosophical Idea of “I – Thou
(You)” and Its Relevance to Modern
Education
in Nigeria. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences.
Buber, M.
(1925). The Address on Education, in Between Man and Man.
Buber , M.
(1947). Between man and man. (R. G. Smith, Trans.) Glasgow: William Collins and
Son.
Buber, M.
(1965). Daniel: Dialogues on realization. (M. Friedman, Trans.) New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Buber, M.
(2000). Martin Buber, I and Thou. (R. G. Smith, Trans.) Retrieved March 15,
2017, from angelfire.com:
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewrap/buber.html
Buber, M.
(2002). Between man and man. (R. G. Smith, Trans.) New York : Routledge.
Clark Winright,
E. (1991). Martin Buber's I and thou as model for relationship between artist
and visual artwork.
Durban, J.,
& Catalan, R. M. (2012). ISSUES AND CONCERNS OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATION
THROUGH THE YEARS .
ASIAN
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES .
Esmaya, J.
(2015, September 8). Genuine Relationships: An Anlysis of Buber' I and Thou.
Retrieved from
Discobolusblog.wordpress.com.
Friedman, M. S.
(2003, February 4). Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue. Retrieved from
Religion-online.org: http://www.
religion-online.org/cgl-bin/relsearched.dll
Freire, P.
(2006). Pedagogy of the heart. New York: Continuum.
Guilherme, A.
A., & Morgan, W. (2010, November). I and Thou: The educational lessons of
Martin Buber's dialogue with
the
conflicts of times. Article in Educational Philosophy and Theory •.
Hodes, A. (1972).
Encounter with martin buber.
Nguyen, V.
(2014, April 4). Martins Buber Educational Theory. Retrieved from New
Foundations: www.newfoundations.co
Reeves, M.
(1946). Growing up in a Modern Society. London: University of London Press.
Scott , C.
(2011). BECOMING DIALOGUE; MARTIN BUBER'S CONCEPT OF TURNING TO THE OTHER AS
EDUCATIONAL
PRAXIS.
Scott, S.
(n.d.). Martin Buber (1878-1965). Retrieved from Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
Smith, M. K.
(2009). Martin Buber on education. Retrieved from The Encyclopedia of Informal
Education :
http://infed.org./mobi/mqrtin-buber-on-education
State University.com.
(2017). Criticism of Public Education - Inequality of Opportunity, Highly
Bureaucratic Systems,
Achievement-Based
Outcomes, School Choice, Reform after Reform. Retrieved from Criticism of
Public Education - Inequality of Opportunity, Highly Bureaucratic Systems,
Achievement-Based Outcomes, School Choice, Reform after Reform: <a
href="http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2341/Public-Education-Criticism.html">Criticism
of Public Education - Inequality of Opportunity, Highly Bureaucratic Systems,
Achievement-Based Outcomes, School Choice, Reform after Reform</a>
TheFamousPeople.com.
(2013, June 4). Martin Buber Biography. (TheFamousPeople.com, Editor) Retrieved
from
TheFamousPeople.com:
http://www.the famouspeople.com/progiles/martin-buber-2925. php
Yaron, K.
(2000). Martin Buber (1878-1965). UNESCO: International Bureau of Education.
