Better Use an Arrow: ‘I-Thou,’ ‘Relation,’ and Their Difference in Martin Buber’s I and Thou

This article reviewed the first five mentions of PWIY, which appear in the opening three clauses of I and Thou, concluding that the concept PWIY describes the dialogical relation from a one-sided perspective, focusing on the active share of only one of the interlocutors, on my act of turning toward you rather than your concurrent turning toward me. Likewise, it demonstrated that there is no indication that PWIY may refer, as does the concept “relation,” to the bilateral entirety of the dialogic relation.

Let us now follow through and examine the remaining eight cases. In four of them, the above meaning of PWIY is straightforward. The first: “If I confront a human being as my You, if I speak the primary word I-You to him, he is not a thing among things and is not made up of things.”^[37] The second: “The You encounters me by grace – it is not found by searching. But that I speak the primary word to him is a deed of my essence, is my essential deed… The primary word I-You can only be spoken with the whole being.”^[38] The third: “The fundamental difference between the primary words comes to light in the history of the primitive in the fact that in the original relational event he already speaks the primary word I-You in a natural, as it were preformed way…”^[39] The fourth: “Man is all the more personal, the stronger the I of the primary word I-You is in the human duality of his I. According to his I-saying – according to what he means when he says I – it is decided where a person belongs and where his journey is heading.”^[40] In these four cases, the phrase PWIY is either presented one-sidedly as the act of one interlocutor toward the other, of the “I” toward the “You,” or—as in the last case—discussed in terms of this one-sided perspective.

In another three of the remaining eight mentions, this conclusion arises from the immediate context of the relevant sentence. The first: “Here it becomes crystal clear to us that the spiritual reality of the primary words arises out of a natural reality, that of the primary word I-You out of natural connectedness, and that of the primary word I-It out of natural separation.”^[41] This passage is unpacked by those that follow. Together, they portray the course through which the primary word I-You “arises out of [the] natural reality… of… connectedness.” They describe both the final, perfected form of the PWIY, as well as its various rudimentary forms, as the successful active attempts of the “I”-infant to initiate contact with a “You.” This course includes many failed attempts at contact, and these too are described as acts that the “I”-infant initiates toward a counterpart, such as “shaggy toy bear” or “boiling tea kettle”.^[42] Again, the discussion here is focused on the one interlocutor’s activity, and not the bilateral entirety of the dialogic relation.

The second and third: “The I of the primary word I-You is different from that of the primary word I-It. The I of the primary word I-It appears as an ego and becomes conscious of itself as a subject (of experience and use). The I of the primary word I-You appears as a person and becomes conscious of itself as subjectivity (without a dependent genitive). An ego appears by setting itself apart from other self-beings.”^[43] These two mentions appear in a clause that deals with the difference between the “I” components of the PWIY and those of the PWIT, between “person” and “ego.”^[44] Buber calls the primary words I-It and I-You, respectively, the “setting [of oneself] apart from other egos” and the “entering into a relationship with other people.”^[45] In other words, the focus here is also one-sidedly on the act of the “I” toward its counterpart.

There is one remaining case the meaning of which is indeterminable from its immediate context: “The world as experience belongs to the primary word I-It. The primary word I-You establishes the world of relation.”^[46] This passage is not detailed enough to advance our understanding of PWIY. Furthermore, it stands alone, with no immediate context, as it constitutes the entire clause.

To conclude, in many of the instances in which the term “primary word I-You” appears, it is explicitly presented as the active share of only one of the interlocutors, as the dialogic act of the “I” toward her “You.” In 12 of the 13 cases reviewed, the focus of discussion is on that one-sided perspective. In no instances is there any indication that this term may refer to the full bilaterality of the dialogic relation.