Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘Inclusion’ in Martin Buber’s dialogue pedagogy

‚Umfassung‘ in der Dialogpädagogik Martin Bubers

  • Allgemeiner Teil
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we review the possibility and limitations of the dialogue pedagogy to make suggestions for extensions and modernizations of it, highlighting the concept of inclusion, which is a keystone of dialogue pedagogy, and focusing on the different pedagogical understanding and reception of it in the past few decades. It emerges that dialogue pedagogy can be of different character and significance depending on different positions toward the possibility of inclusion. Adhering to Buber’s position shown in his Heidelberg speech in 1925, we review what kind of logic and system Buber suggested with regard to the concept of inclusion and investigate the possibility of a theoretical extension for the contemporary context of education and pedagogy.

Zusammenfassung

Es geht in diesem Artikel um das Konzept der Umfassung, das einen Schlüsselbegriff in der Dialogpädagogik Martin Bubers einnimmt. Es werden in dieser Untersuchung verschiedene Verständnisse des Konzepts der Umfassung und deren Rezeptionen in der Pädagogik der letzten Jahrzehnte revidiert und in vier Kategorien klassifiziert. Es hat sich gezeigt, dass sich sowohl der wissenschaftliche Charakter der Dialogpädagogik als auch ihre Implikation für die pädagogische Praxis nach den Verständnissen der Umfassungsmöglichkeiten unterschiedlich verstehen lässt. Unter Berücksichtigung dieser unterschiedlichen Positionen und besonders aus einer vergleichenden Perspektive werden Vorschläge für die Erweiterung der Dialogpädagogik gemacht, um die Dialogpädagogik im zeitgenössischen Kontext weiter zu entwickeln.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Theunissen refers to the historical meaning of dialogue philosophy using a contrast between “the old philosophy and a new philosophy” (cf. 1977, p. 243 f.). In the same context the dialogue pedagogy and its educational ideas can also be called a “new pedagogy” which differs from the “traditional education of eros and will to power.”

  2. In order to indicate the information about original text and translation, we will use the following form “(Author + Year + Page/Translator + Year + Page)”.

  3. The ordinary German word for “inclusion” is “Umfassung”. Another suggestion for this translation can be “embracing” (Kaufmann 1970, p. 89) which has more active connotation in itself. In this article however, considering the conventional usage and in order to minimize unnecessary association in meaning, we will use the English translation “inclusion”. However, even in this case, the word “inclusion” is just a translation for “Umfassung” and has little to do with “inclusion” in modern English.

  4. Buber differentiates Inclusion into the following three subdivisions: abstract but mutual inclusion, concrete and one sided inclusion (education), and mutual inclusion (friendship). (Buber 1964, p. 34 f.) See Chap. IV in regards to the difference between “education” and “friendship”.

  5. “there is seeing, but no see-er or seen”, “non-subjective ontological state”, “pedagogy without a project”, “hopeless hope”, or “a non subject-based ontology”. (Game and Metcalfe 2008, p. 462, 464, 467, 472)

  6. Borowitz comments in his article “Education is not I-Thou” about the chasm between the dialogue philosophy and dialogue pedagogy of Buber as follows; “Martin Buber, however, was not an orthodox Buberian. With regard to education, he made a major break with his own ‘system’. Education, Buber taught, for all that it must center about the person, education is not I-Thou.” (Borowitz 1971, p. 328)

  7. Guilherme and Morgan point out; “Given that much of Buber’s philosophy is based on dialogue, on community and on mutuality, it is puzzling that relatively little has been written on the implications of Buber’s thought for the theory and practice of non-formal adult education.” They discuss Martin Buber’s philosophy of education and its implications for a non-formal adult education (2009, p. 565).

References

  • Black, L. W. (2005). Dialogue in the lecture hall. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 6(1), 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borowitz, E. (1971). Education is not I-Thou. Religious Education, 66(5), 326–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brezinka, W. (1964). Die Pädagogik und die erzieherische Wirklichkeit. In H. Röhrs (Ed.), Erziehungswissenschaft und Erziehungswirklichkeit (pp. 192–220). Frankfurt a. M.: Akademische.

  • Brose, K. (1983). Das Erziehungsdenken Martin Bubers. Vierteljahrschrift für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik, 59, 381–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buber, M. (1962). Elemente der Zwischenmenschlichen. In M. Buber (Ed.), Das Dialogische Prinzip (pp. 269–298). Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider.

  • Buber, M. (1964). Reden über Erziehung (8th ed.). Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider. In R. G. Smith (Trans.). (1979). Between man and man (pp. 109–147). Glasgow: Collins.

  • Buber, M. (1965). Urdistanz und Beziehung (3rd ed.). Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider.

  • Buber, M. (1979). Ich und Du (10th ed.). Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider. In W. Kaufmann (Trans.). (1970). I and Thou. Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark.

  • Caselmann, C. (1974). Martin Buber als Erzieher. In B. Gerner (Ed.), Martin Buber. Pädagogische Interpretationen zu seinem Werk (pp. 110–124). München: Ehrenwirth.

  • Cohen, A. (1979). Martin Buber and changes in modern education. Oxford Review of Education, 5(1), 81–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, F. (2001). Existential medicine: Martin Buber and physician-patient relationships. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 21, 170–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1956). Martin Buber’s philosophy of education. Educational Theory, 2, 95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1967). The base of Buber’s ethics. In P. A. Schlipp & M. Friedman (Eds.), The philosophy of Martin Buber (pp. 171–200). London: Cambridge University Press.

  • Friedman, M. (2005). Martin Buber and Mikhail Bakhtin. In B. Kluwer & J. Kluwer (Eds.), Dialogue as a mean of collective communication (pp. 29–39). New York: Academic/Plenum.

  • Game, A., & Metcalfe, A. (2008). The teacher’s vocation: Ontology of response. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 461–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, D. K. (2003). Zhu Xi’s reading of the analects. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinnell, F. (1983). The problem of intersubjectivity: A comparison of Martin Buber and Alfred Schutz. Human Studies, 6, 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grytzka, U. (1981). Die gegenwärtige Rezeption Martin Bubers in der Pädagogik. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 27, 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilherme, A., & Morgan, W. J. (2009). Martin Buber’s philosophy of education and its implications for adult non-formal education. International Journal of Lifelong Eductation, 28(5), 565–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendley, B. (1978). Martin Buber on the teacher/student relationship: A critical appraisal. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 12, 141–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hook, S. (1963). Education for modern man. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höltershinken, D. (1971). Religiöse Erziehung bei Martin Buber. Vierteljahrschrift für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik, 47, 121–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1998). Über Pädaagogik. In W. Weischedel (Ed.), Immanuel Kant (Vol. VI, pp. 695–778). Darmstadt: WBG.

  • Kim, S.-D. (2011). Martin Buber’s anthropology. In S.-D. Kim (Ed. & Trans.), Phenomenological philosophy of dialogue by S. Strasser (pp. 241–268). Seoul: Philosophy & Reality.

  • Kurzweil, Z. E. (1973). Martin Bubers Erziehungslehre und die Moderne. In N. Kluge (Ed.), Das pädagogische Verhältnis (p. 418–436). Darmstadt: WBG.

  • Legge, J. (1935). The Chinese classics (Vol. I, 2nd ed., revised). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Lippitz, W., & Woo, J.-G. (2008). Pädagogischer Bezug. Erzieherisches Verhältnis. In U. Frost et al. (Ed.), Handbuch der Erziehungswissenschaf (Vol. I, pp. 405–419). Paderborn: Schöningh.

  • Palmer, P. J. (2007). The courage to teach (10th Anniversary ed.). San Francisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, N.-G., Park, J.-H., & Moon, J.-H. (2008). How does a teacher grow up? Seoul: Woori.

  • Reger, A. (1966). Der unterrichtliche Dialog. Pädagogische Welt, 20, 226–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitemeyer, U. (1995). Dialogisches Prinzip und pädagogische Begegnung. Vierteljahrschrift für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik, 71, 442–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricken, N. (1999). Subjektivität und Kontingenz. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

  • Röhrig, P. (1964). Der Begriff der Verantwortung bei Martin Buber. In W. P. Eckert & E. L. Ehrlich (Eds.), Judenhass—Schuld der Christen?! (pp. 457–478). Essen: Driewer.

  • Rödler, P. (1996). Martin Buber: Anachronismus oder neue Chance für die Pädagogik? In J. Vierheilig & W. Lanwer-Koppelin (Eds.), Martin Buber: Anachronismus oder neue Chance für die Pädagogik? (pp. 1–5). Butzbach-Griedel: AFRA.

  • Scudder, J. R. (1968). Freedom without authority. Educational Theory, 18, 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shady, S. L. H., & Larson, M. (2010). Tolerance, empathy, or inclusion? Insights from Martin Buber. Educational Theory, 60, 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, C. H. (2001). A study on a modern educational implication of the doctrin of the mean. Dissertation, Korea University.

  • Slingerland, E. (2003). Confucius analects. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, W.-J. (2010). The moral educational meaning proposed by Martin Buber’s philosophy of encounter. Philosophy of Ethics and Philosophy Education, 13, 65–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suter, A. (1990). ‘Beziehung erzieht’. Pädagogische Rundschau, 44, 171–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theunissen, M. (1963/1964). Bubers negative Ontologie des Zwischen. Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 71, 319–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theunissen, M. (1977). Der Andere. Berlin: de Gryter.

  • Tischner, W. (1985). Der Dialog als grundlegendes Prinzip der Erziehung. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vierheilig, J. (1996). Dialogik als Erziehungsprinzip. In P. Rödler (Ed.), Martin Buber—Anachronismus oder Neue Chance für die Pädagogik? (pp. 17–74). Butzbach: AFRA.

  • Vogel, M. (1970). The concept of responsibility in the thought of Martin Buber. Harvard Educational Review, 63(2), 159–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, J., & Schwartz, M. S. (1979). Values education without indoctrination. The Educational Forum, 43(2), 203–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woo, J.-G. (2007). Zwischen Dialogphilosophie und Dialogpädagogik Martin Bubers. The Korean Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40, 139–161.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Education, Kyung Hee University, HoeGiDong 1, DongDaeMunGu, Seoul, South Korea

    Jeong-Gil Woo

Authors
  1. Jeong-Gil Woo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeong-Gil Woo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Woo, JG. ‘Inclusion’ in Martin Buber’s dialogue pedagogy. Z Erziehungswiss 15, 829–845 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-012-0327-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-012-0327-3

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation