, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 351–363 | Cite as

‘In the Beginning is Relation’: Martin Buber’s Alternative to Binary Oppositions



In this article we develop a relational understanding of sociality, that is, an account of social life that takes relation as primary. This stands in contrast to the common assumption that relations arise when subjects interact, an account that gives logical priority to separation. We will develop this relational understanding through a reading of the work of Martin Buber, a social philosopher primarily interested in dialogue, meeting, relationship, and the irreducibility and incomparability of reality. In particular, the article contrasts Buber’s work with that of poststructuralist theorists who take as their starting point the deconstruction of the Hegelian logic of binary oppositions. Deconstruction understands difference as the excess that undoes the binary, but Buber, we argue, shows how difference derives from the primacy and ontological undefinability of relation. Relational logic does not exclude the logic of separations and oppositions: relation is the primal ground that makes separations possible.


Relation Binary opposition Desire Love Difference 


  1. Barthes, R. (1984). Camera Lucida. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Frogmore: Paladin.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, A. A. (2000). Media and communication research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Bernasconi, R. (1988). ‘Failure of communication’ as a surplus: Dialogue and lack of dialogue between Buber and Levinas. In R. Bernasconi & D. Wood (Eds.), The provocation of Levinas: Rethinking the other. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Blanchot, M. (1995). Do not forget. In M. Holland (Ed.), The blanchot reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Bohm, D. (1985). Unfolding meaning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Buber, M. (1966). The way of response. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  9. Buber, M. (2002a). Between man and man. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Buber, M. (2002b). Meetings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Buber, M. (2004). I and thou. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Burbules, N., & Bruce, C.B. (2001). Theory and research on teaching as dialogue. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  13. Casey, D. (1999). Levinas and Buber: Transcendence and society. Sophia, 38(2), 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cixous, H. (1986). Sorties. In H. Cixous & C. Clement (Eds.), The newly born woman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  17. Derrida, J. (1987). Positions. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  18. Derrida, J. (1994). Given time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Duncan, R. (2001). Buber or Levinas? A response to Maurice Freidman. Philosophy Today, 45(4), 405–9.Google Scholar
  20. Friedman, M. (2001). Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas. Philosophy Today, 45(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
  21. Game, A., & Metcalfe, A. (2008). The significance of signs. Social Semiotics, 18(4), 493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hegel, G. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Kaufmann, W. (1996). Prologue. In M. Buber (Ed.), I and Thou. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  25. Kelly, A. (1995). Reciprocity and the height of God: A defence of Buber against Levinas. Sophia, 34(1), 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kojève, A. (1969). Introduction to the reading of Hegel. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Lacan, J. (1977). Écrits. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  28. Levinas, E. (1979). Totality and infinity. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levinas, E. (1989). Martin Buber and the theory of knowledge. In S. Hand (Ed.), The Levinas Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Levinas, E., & Nemo, P. (1985). Ethics and infinity. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Metcalfe, A., & Game, A. (2004). Everyday presences. Cultural Studies, 18(2/3), 350–62.Google Scholar
  34. Metcalfe, A., & Game, A. (2008). Significance and dialogue in teaching and learning. Educational Theory, 58(3), 343–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Serres, M. (1995). Angels. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  36. Shotter, J. (2003). ‘Real presences’: Meaning as living movement in a participatory world. Theory and Psychology, 13(3), 359–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sidorkin, A. (n.d.) Toward a pedagogy of relation. Accessed 21 April 2010.
  38. Steiner, G. (1989). Real presences. London: Faber.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social Sciences and International StudiesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations