INT. J. OF LIFELONG EDUCATION, VOL. 28, NO.

5 (SEPTEMBEROCTOBER 2009), 565581

Martin Bubers philosophy of education and

its implications for adult non-formal
education
ALEX GUILHERMEa and W. JOHN MORGANb
University of Durham, UK; bUniversity of Nottingham, UK

a
International
10.1080/02601370903189989
TLED_A_419171.sgm
0260-1370
Original
Taylor
502009
28
alexandre.guilherme@durham.ac.uk
AlexGuilherme
00000SeptemberOctober
and
&
Article
Francis
(print)/1464-519X
Francis
Journal of Lifelong
2009
(online)
Education

The Jewish philosopher and educator Martin Buber (18781965) is considered one of the
twentieth centurys greatest contributors to the philosophy of religion and is also recognized
as the pre-eminent scholar of Hasidism. He has also attracted considerable attention as a
philosopher of education. However, most commentaries on this aspect of his work have
focussed on the implications of his philosophy for formal education and for the education of
the child. Given that much of Bubers philosophy is based on dialogue, on community and
on mutuality, it is puzzling that relatively little has been written on the implications of Bubers
thought for the theory and practice of non-formal adult education. The article provides a
discussion of the philosophy underpinning this aspect of Martin Bubers life and work, and
its implications for adult non-formal education.

Introduction
Born in 1878, Martin Buber became known both as one of the most significant existentialist philosophers of the twentieth century and as the leading scholar of the
Hasidic tradition in Judaism. What is less well known is his contribution to the
philosophy and practice of education in general and to non-formal adult education
in particular. Yet this was to be a recurrent feature of his life, work and philosophy.
Buber had an outstanding university career and in 1904 was awarded a doctorate by
the University of Berlin, for a thesis on Christian mysticism during the Renaissance
and Reformation. His abilities as a writer and lecturer saw him much in demand as
a speaker, not only to academic audiences but also to the general public, an experience which familiarized him with the potential intellectual and cultural importance
of informal and non-formal adult education. At the same time Buber began to reassess his personal relationship with Judaism and with Jewish cultural traditions.
He was associated with the infant Zionist movement, but his commitment was to
a Zionist socialism and to a cultural regeneration, which rejected an aggressive and
nationalistic colonization of Palestine. In 1920, he and Franz Rosenzweig established
the Freies Jdisches Lehrhaus (Free Jewish Academy), a centre for adult education in

Alex Guilherme is a tutor and lecturer in the Department of Philosophy, University of Durham. Correspondence: Department of Philosophy, University of Durham, UK. Email: alexandre.guilherme@durham.ac.uk
W. John Morgan is a director, UNESCO. Correspondence: Centre for Comparative Education Research,
School of Education, The Dearing Building, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG8
1BB, UK. Email: john.morgan@nottingham.ac.uk
International Journal of Lifelong Education ISSN 0260-1370 print/ISSN 1464-519X online 2009 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/02601370903189989

566

ALEX GUILHERME AND W. JOHN MORGAN

Frankfurt. He also undertook, again with Rosenzweig, a German translation of the

Hebrew Bible, a massive intellectual undertaking. Between 1924 and 1933 Buber was
professor of the Jewish History of Religion and Ethics at the University of Frankfurt.
It was during these years that he consolidated his reputation as one of the most important German-speaking theologians and philosophers of religion of his generation.
However, in 1933, when Hitler came to power, Buber was obliged to withdraw
from the University of Frankfurt and he devoted his time to the Lehrhaus, which,
especially after the implementation of the anti-Jewish Nuremburg Laws in 1935
(Taylor and Shaw 1987), became the main site of Jewish education in Germany.
Buber also became the director of the Office for Jewish Adult Education in
Germany, with responsibility for the training of volunteer teachers as Jews were
excluded from German educational institutions. Bubers reputation at this time, as
an educator and as a moral leader, was considerable. Hannah Arendt, writing in Le
Journal Juif on 16 April 1935, said of him: Martin Buber is German Judaisms incontestable guide. He is the official and actual head of all educational and cultural
institutions. His personality is recognized by all parties and all groups. And furthermore he is the true leader of the youth (Arendt 2007: 31). In 1938, Buber left
Germany to become professor of social philosophy at the Hebrew University in
Jerusalem. In 1949, following the establishment of the State of Israel, about which
Buber held serious reservations, the new Israeli Ministry of Education requested his
help in establishing an Institute for Adult Education in Jerusalem. Its purpose was
to train teachers to work with immigrants and it was aimed at fostering a sense of
community amongst people from the most varied social and cultural backgrounds.
Knowledge of this context is necessary to understand how Martin Bubers philosophy of education and of dialogue was developed in practice, as a response to situations of crisis and through his personal engagement with adult non-formal
education (Friedenthal-Haase 1990; Friedenthaal-Haase and Korrenz 2005; Zank
2006). Following this short biographical introduction, the rest of the article
comprises three parts. First, we consider Bubers foundational concepts, IThou
and IIt. Second, we discuss Bubers philosophy of education; finally, we discuss the
implications of Bubers views for adult non-formal education.

IThou/IIt: the foundational concepts of Bubers philosophy

In his seminal work I and Thou (Ich und Du), published in 1923, Martin Buber established a taxonomy and typology to describe the kinds of relationships into which a
human being can enter. According to Buber, human beings possess a twofold attitude towards the world, indicated by the foundational concepts IIt (IchEs) and I
Thou (Ich-Du). These concepts are essential for a proper understanding of Bubers
philosophy, and not least for understanding his views on education.1
The relation of IThou stresses the mutual and holistic existence of two beings.2
It is an encounter of equals who recognise each other as suchit is a dialogue. Buber
argues that the relation of IThou lacks proper structure and content because infinity and universality are at the basis of this relation. This is because when two free
rational human beings encounter each other and recognize each other as equals,
then an infinite number of meaningful and dynamic situations may be established
within the IThou relation. Despite the fact that it is difficult to pin down the I
Thou relation, Buber argues that it is a real and perceivable relation. Instances that

MARTIN BUBERS PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

567

illustrate the IThou relation in daily life are: two lovers, two friends, teacher and
student. Words such as dialogue, meeting, encounter, mutuality and exchange are
used to describe the IThou relation. Olsen (2004: 17) describes the IThou relation rather well: The IThou address points out an approach in mutuality, where
the I partakes in the ontological openness in which the Thou shows itself independently of the Is pre-judgement.
The IIt relation could be said to be almost the opposite of the IThou relation.
Whilst in the IThou relation, two beings which recognize each other as equals
meet, in the IIt relation beings fail to establish a dialogue. Instead, in the IIt relation a being confronts another being and, by objectifying it, does not recognize it as
an equal. Thus, in the IIt relation an individual being treats things, including other
people, as objects to be used and experiencedthey are means to ends. We live in
this worldly reality and require, to some extent, to manipulate nature; for example,
to seek resources to fulfil our needs and sometimes to use people as means to ends
(to ride a taxi-cab from A to B). The IIt relation fulfils our basic needs.
Buber understood that human existence consists of an oscillation between the I
Thou and IIt relations, and that the IThou experiences are rather few and far
between. It is also important to emphasize that Buber rejects any sort of sharp dualism between the IThou and IIt relation; that is, for Buber, there is always an interplay between the IThou and the IIt, rather than an either/or relation between these
foundational concepts. Thus, for Buber, the IThou relation will inevitably slip into
an IIt relation, but the IIt relation has always the potential of becoming an IThou
relation. Consequently, it could be said that the IIt relation is an objective or instrumental relation that allows human beings to provide for and fulfil their basic needs
and desires because we are material entities, but it could also be said that the IThou
relation is a subjective or spiritual relation that allows human beings to fulfil themselves
creatively, emotively and spiritually because we are also subjective entities. Given the
nature of human existence, which is grounded on a material and objective world but
which also encompasses ones subjectivity and interiority, human beings require
both kinds of relationsthis is one of Bubers greatest insights. This oscillation is
very significant for it is the source of transformation; that is, through every IThou
encounter, the I is transformed and this affects the Is outlook of the IIt relation
and of future IThou encounters. Putnan (2008: 67) notes that the idea is that if
one achieves that mode of being in the world, however briefly then ideally, that
mode of being will transform ones life even when one is back in the It world.
This account of Bubers IThou and IIt foundational concepts will suffice for
the purposes of this article and we must now ask the question: how does Buber apply
his philosophy of inter-human relationships to education? Let us turn to this question before dealing with the specific issue of the implications of Bubers views for
adult non-formal education.

Bubers philosophy of education

Bubers Between Man and Man (1947), The Education of Character (1939) and The
Address on Education (1925) are some of his most important texts on education. As
the title of the first suggests, education is a relation between human beings and, as
such, Bubers theory of inter-human relationships serves as the obvious foundation
for his philosophy of education. Buber understands that both the IThou and the

568

ALEX GUILHERME AND W. JOHN MORGAN

IIt relations play a role in ones education and he was very critical of both teachercentred (top-down, or as Buber would say, funnelled in) and student-centred
(bottom-upor as Buber would say, pumped out) approaches to education, which
were discussed in the early years of the twentieth century in Germany in particular.
Bubers lecture, The Address on Education, delivered at the Third International Educational Conference in Heidelberg in 1925, which focussed on the development of the
creative powers of the child, is a direct attack on such approaches to education. For
Buber, a teacher-centred approach to education, the practice in Germany at the time
of his lecture, places too much emphasis on the role of the teacher. This makes it
difficult for an IThou relation to arise, and therefore teacher and pupil become
trapped in an IIt relation where the teacher provides students with facts and information, where the teacher funnels information into students, but does not encourage
their creative minds. The student-centred approach to education emphasises the role
of the student, but also makes it difficult for an IThou relation to arise, for the
student lacks the guidance from the teacher and, by and large, is left to his or her
own devices, left to pump education out of subjective interests or needs within a given
environment. Both these approaches to education remain within the realm of the
IIt according to Buber and, as such, Buber rejects these in favour of an educational
approach based on dialogue between teacher and student, which enables the IThou
relation to arise. One of the reasons for Bubers defence of an education based on
dialogue is the fact that the teacher does not choose who is before him or her, and
as such the teacher must accept whoever is present if he or she is to educate. This
acceptance, this mutuality, this dialogical relation can only arise through the IThou
relation. The educator can only educate if he or she is able to build a relation based
on true mutuality, on true dialogue with students, and this mutuality, this dialogue
can only come to the fore if the student trusts the educator, if the student feels
accepted, otherwise any attempt to educate will lead to rebellion and lack of interest.
The question here is thus: What does Buber mean by an educational approach
based on dialogue? In The Address on Education, he defines education as:
What we term education, conscious and willed, means to give decisive selection by man of the effective world; it means to give decisive effective power to
a selection of the world, which is concentrated and manifested in the educator.
The relation in education is lifted out of the purposelessly streaming education of all things, and is marked off as purpose. In this way, through the educator, the world for the first time becomes the true subject of its effect. (1925,
1961: 116)
For Buber, education based on dialogue is one that places appropriate weight on
both the teachers influence and on the students capacities, interests and needs.
The role of the teacher is to set the curriculum and the framework, and in doing
so, the teacher sets a sort of value platform for the student, but this does not mean
that the students interests, creativity and needs are set aside, as the student develops
these within the framework set by the teacherthis is now an aspect of educational
theory and practice that is widespread among educators, which perhaps demonstrates Bubers influence in the field of education. As Cohen (1979: 89) says, for
Buber, what is important to education is not freedom lacking direction, but
communion having both a direction and a purpose. It becomes clear that communion and dialogue are key terms within Bubers philosophy of education.

MARTIN BUBERS PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

569

Moreover, that which takes place between teacher and student is described by
Buber as inclusion and must not be confused with empathy. In the case of empathy, one
transposes over the other, one puts oneself into the others position and in so doing
nullifies the others difference. In the case of inclusion, Buber (1961c: 124) notes,
there is a relation between two persons an event that is experienced by them in
common (our emphasis), in which at least one of them actively participates and
without forfeiting anything of the felt reality of his activity, at the same time lives
through the common event from the stand point of the other.
Prima facie, Bubers illustration is applicable to both teacher and pupil. The
teacher experiences what the pupil experiences, the teacher perceives things
through the pupils eyes, without losing control of their perspective as teacher. The
pupil is also encouraged to share in experiences, to accept the teachers guidance,
without losing spontaneity and creativity. It is only through communion, through
mutual respect, through encountering, that this can happen: it is only through the I
Thou relation that teacher and pupil can truly enter upon dialogue. However, Buber
places a caveat on teacherpupil relations which appears contradictory. He maintains that the IThou relation with respect to a teacherpupil relation can only be
one-sided; that is, teacher towards pupil but not pupil towards teacher. Buber understands that dialogical inclusion cannot be fully mutual in this case because if it were
to become fully mutual it would either tear apart the educative relation or the educative relation would develop into friendship. Therefore, the relation is only fully
accomplished on the teacher side but not on the pupil side, and thus the relation
between teacherpupil is somehow asymmetrical.
How can Buber talk about a dialogical relation that is one-sided inclusive? This
seems to argue against his definition of the IThou relation as something ineffable,
as something encompassing an infinite number of meaningful and dynamic situations, as an encounter expressing the mutual and holistic existence of two beings. Not quite.
In fact, it makes complete sense to talk about a dialogical relation that is one-sided
inclusive within the educational realm. It is a fact that in education the relation is
under the guidance of the educatorthis is something that is not open to challenge. And the life of dialogue is ineffable; it has an infinite number of meaningful
and dynamic situations because it arises from the many realities of lifes experiences,
not least educational experiences, and as such the IThou relation allows for various
levels, shades and hues of inclusion. For instance, the Thou that I say to my lover is
much more intense than the Thou I say to a friend, and the Thou that I say to a close
relation is more inclusive than the Thou I say to a pupil. This is an aspect that is not
often recognized by Bubers commentators but it is imperative for an accurate
understanding of Bubers philosophy as a whole (cf. Stevenson, 1963: 207). And if
IThou relation is so ineffable that it allows for difference shades and levels of inclusion, then it becomes less puzzling to talk about it being, in some cases, one-sided
inclusive (197).
Thus, given that the educator is in control of his or her relation with pupils, it is
up to the educator, it is the task and the obligation of the educator to step in and say
Thou at his or her will and whenever he or she sees fit. That is to say, it is the obligation of the educator to experience education both as a teacher and as a student. But
there is also a conscious decision by the educator and students to prevent the relation from becoming fully mutual, because if it were to become so it would either
destroy the educative relation, for the teachers role as a guide is undermined, or it
would develop into friendship.

570

ALEX GUILHERME AND W. JOHN MORGAN

All this talk about asymmetrical relations between teacher and pupil applies only
to the education of the child. Buber regarded adult education differently. He understood that in the case of adult education, and here undergraduate and postgraduate
students, should be seen as being on the bridge between formal school and fully
independent adulthood as it were: the relation between teacher and student is
different. For Buber, adult education allows for a higher level of mutuality and is
established on the basis of real questions, rather than on Socratic challenges or on
preparation for examinations (Yalom 1994: 144). As such within the context of
adult education the relation between teacher and student is based on a higher level
of communion and this makes it easier for the IThou relation to arise. The one-sidedness of the IThou relation between teacher and student in child education is
replaced by an IThou relation that is more symmetrically reciprocal and more
empowering for the adult student. This empowerment of adult students via an I
Thou relation based largely on mutuality is the value core of adult education, as it
allows it to become the source of personal and community transformation; that is,
every IThou encounter in adult education has the potential for the I to be transformed and this affects the Is outlook of IIt relations and of future IThou encounters. And this applies to adult education based on dialogue in its various modes
formal, informal and non-formal. Such transformations, whether personal or
communal, are directly connected to an individual and communitys wellbeing and
capacity to relate to and interact with other individuals and communities, and this
greatly impinges on issues such as adult basic education, active citizenship and
conflict resolution. This is something that we shall discuss in detail in the next
section.
It is important to emphasize that Buber understood that educationthat is,
dialogical educationis always the education of character; perhaps this applies even
more to adult education than to the education of the child, given the greater emphasis it places on IThou relations and on mutuality. The core task of education is to
enable people to live humanely and in social peace and harmony. In his Education of
Character, an address to the National Conference of Palestinian Teachers in Tel Aviv
in 1939, Buber says that education is:
a step beyond all the dividedness of individualism and collectivism genuine
education of character is genuine education for community he who knows
inner unity, the inner most life of which is mystery, learns to honour the
mystery in all its forms. (1961b: 146)
It is obvious in this passage that Buber understood the implications of his thought
for social and political advancement, as well as for spiritual wellbeing (Smith 2000,
2009). When the educator establishes a value platform and invites the student to
experience this platform, the student does not experience this passively; rather, the
student analyses, scrutinizes, criticizes this platform actively and, in turn, this
prompts the educator to re-evaluate and/or re-assert the value platform; that is,
there is a constant dialogue between educator and student. This interaction
between educator and student, this constant evaluation and re-evaluation of value
platforms, is the cornerstone of what Buber calls a dialogical community. Such a
community is for Buber a third way between absolute individualism (I without
Thous) and collectivism (Thous without an I) and this, Buber believes, improves the
quality of life for the members of the community as it increases social cohesion and

MARTIN BUBERS PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

571

sustains cultural creativity and, we would add, it brings about economic benefits for
both individuals and for the community as a whole. Hence, Bubers dialogical
theory of interrelations is just as applicable to individuals as it is to communities. We
shall come back to this point when we discuss the issue of non-formal education and
conflict resolution based on dialogue.

The implications for non-formal education

Most of what has been written about Buber and education has focused on the relationship between the teacher and young students and it has also been written within
the context of formal education (Schudder 1968; Rosenblat 1971; Hilliard 1973;
Cohen 1979; Lundan 2003). The implications of Bubers philosophy of education
for non-formal adult education remain relatively unexplored, yet, given that it is
founded on dialogue, on inter-human relationships, on communality and on
exchange, they are considerable (Friedenthal-Haase 2007).
A standard definition of non-formal education, quoted widely in the literature, is
that of Combs, Prosser and Ahmed:
Non-formal education is any organized educational activity outside the established formal systemwhether operating separately or as an important feature
of some broader activitythat is intended to serve identifiable learning clienteles and learning objectives. (1973: 11)
Although it has wider cultural benefits, non-formal adult education has been characterized by concern for the needs of disadvantaged groups and peoples, by its
specific aims and by a flexibility of organization, methods and settings. Rogers (2003)
notes the renewed interest in non-formal education, particularly in connection with
adult education. This is the result of a fresh perspective, widespread since the turn
of the century, by which learning is understood as a lifelong activity. Learning, it is
argued, does not take place only within schools, colleges and universities, the traditional sites of formal education, but in many other circumstances and settings, not
least in recent years through the Internet. This interest in non-formal education as
an aspect of lifelong learning is found in both developing and developed countries
(Field and Leicester 2000). The former have used non-formal education as a flexible
way to tackle educational problems such as illiteracy, as did the developed countries
in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but have not, at least as yet, used it
much in other ways. In the developed world, non-formal education has been, and is
used as a means of stimulating basic education, general cultural development, active
citizenship and even the economy (Rose 2001; Morgan 2003). We suggest that
Bubers dialogical education is a useful perspective from which to consider three
core social matters, two of which are mentioned above; namely adult basic education,
active citizenship and inter-communal conflict. The usefulness of Bubers dialogical
views for inter-communal conflict resolution has already been pointed out by some
commentators, such as Morgan (2007), but the connection between Bubers thought
and adult basic education, active citizenship and non-formal education as mutually
reinforcing aspects of each other, is yet to be appreciated fully. These four issues
(adult basic education, active citizenship, conflict resolution and non-formal education) might be seen as more acute in the developing world, but the developed world

572

ALEX GUILHERME AND W. JOHN MORGAN

might also benefit from the use of a similar approach in tackling issues such as retraining, skills provision, overcoming learning difficulties, developing an increasing
awareness of the rights and duties of citizens, and fostering a sense of both individual
inclusion and communal social cohesion, for example amongst minorities and in
economically and socially deprived areas.
Let us first deal with the issue of adult basic education and non-formal education.
An important and well known example is the way in which non-formal education
based on dialogue has been widely and successfully used to overcome illiteracy
following the initiative of Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educator (Freire 1970; Freire
and Macedo 1993). The Brazilian experience has served as a template for many other
developing countries, such as Nigeria (Ojokheta 2007) and Bolivia (Fernndez
2007). The Brazilian project MOVA-SP (Movimento de Alfabetizao de Jovens e
Adultos da Cidade de So Paulo), conceived in the spirit of both Freire and Buber,
is one such non-formal education project tackling the issue of basic adult education,
and is worth mentioning here. This project represents an authentic partnership
between government and NGOs established in the city of So Paulo in 1989 to
combat illiteracy. Such partnerships ensure the continuity of projects for they are not
threatened by the whimsical moods of particular administrations and/or political
parties (that is, such partnerships cannot be easily shut down when a new administration or party takes power), and as such we suggest that ventures between governmental and non-governmental agencies may present us with a way forward in dealing
with the issue of illiteracy and basic adult education.
Freires approach has been in direct contrast to more rigid methodologies (onesize fits all ) based on rote learning and that had been used traditionally in tackling
illiteracy.3 The similarity between the educational philosophies of Freire and of
Buber is striking: both found their systems on dialogue and emphasize the importance of dialogue for education and for the community as a whole. Freire, an
academic and later educational administrator in Brazil, became very well known
internationally and there is now an extensive literature on him and his methods
(Roberts 2000). His basic philosophy is also one of dialogue and he advocates that,
at an early stage of a literacy project, the context of the community should be studied through informal conversations which identify both problems that are particular
and a vocabulary that is both common and relevant to the whole community.
Literacy training then takes place through the use of this common vocabulary and
through engaging people in discussion about solutions to the problems identified.
Such a method establishes a relation based on mutuality, on dialogue between
educator and adult learners (what Freire calls teacherstudent and student
teacher), as students learn to write and read, and to develop intellectual skills and
confidence using topical discussions under the guidance of an educator. The mode
of such classes is less rigid than in formal education and allows for more malleability
of organization and methodology to suit particular situations, communities, backgrounds and aims. The method also represents a democratisation of power between
educator and learners as they establish a relationship based on mutuality, with nonformal education through dialogue, a form of learning which is less intimidating for
those who did not attend formal education or who did so unsuccessfully.
As we suggested above, the similarity between Freire and Buber is striking,
and this has been acknowledged by various commentators (cf. Curzon-Hobson
2002: 188189; Rule 2004: 323; Lohrenscheit 2006; Shim 2008: 532533), but it is
interesting to note that some commentators go further and claim that Freire was

MARTIN BUBERS PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

573

influenced by and indebted to Buber (cf. Bingham 2002: 457; Bar Shalom et al. 2008:
180). Does this mean that the problems of the Freirian approach also apply to the
Buberian? Not necessarily. One of the most common criticisms raised against the
Freirian methodology is that its reliance on the teacherstudent/studentteacher
does not create real mutuality between teacher and student, rather it only masks the
teachers position of power. If this is indeed what takes place within the Freirian
methodology, then we think it reasonable to assume that Buber would take issue
with it, as it is not an authentic expression of the IThou relation, which he regarded
as so crucial for educating, but rather a disguised IIt relation. If this criticism is
mistaken and the Freirian methodology does allow for real mutuality to arise, then
we would say that, perhaps, Buber would also take issue with this for the following
reasons: for Buber, both IThou and IIt relations play a part in education, and
adult education in its various forms allows for a more symmetric interaction between
teacher and student, which makes it easier for IThou relations to arise; but this is
not to say that IIt relations are set completely aside and that there is a perfect mutuality between teacher and student for this would, in Bubers views, destroy the educational relation and deteriorate into friendship, as discussed previously.
That said, we believe that Buber and Freire differ in one vital respect. Buber saw
dialogical relations, IThou relations, as transforming relations for individuals and
communities in general, whilst Freire sees dialogical relations as directly connected
with political action, as a way for the poor and oppressed to gain critical consciousness
(that is, from the Portuguese conscientizao) to try to challenge and reform
oppressing sociopolitical structures (cf. Aloni 1997: 95; Rigney 2001: 194; Shim
2008: 532; Rule 2004: 323). It is conceivable that Buber would disapprove of such
particular confinement of dialogical relations, as this could lead to the objectification (through IIt relations) of those sections of society that are not considered part
of the set poor and oppressed, and this in turn could lead to an increase of conflict,
rather than its resolution. We discuss this in more detail below.
Despite these potential theoretical differences between Freire and Buber, it is
important to note that the Freirian experience is an example of the effectiveness of
dialogue in practice in non-formal education and adult basic education. We argue
that commentators have failed to appreciate that Buber was, just like Freire, also
very concerned about literacy, particularly Hebrew and Jewish literacy, which he saw
as fundamental to the communitys cultural health, continuity and development.
Mendes-Flohr (1991: 418) notes that the dramatic integration of the Jews into
European culture was hence paralleled by an equally dramatic decline of Jewish
literacy. The eclipse of Hebrew and Jewish learning also tended to strengthen the
secularity demanded, seemingly, by the modern cultural disposition Martin
Buber recognized this situation when he noted that the modern Jew typically
suffers a disjunction between his community of substanceethnic originand
his objective community of language, landscape, and mores (Lebensformen).
Commenting on the tasks of the Lehrhaus in the First Circular Letter of the Centre for
Jewish Adult Education, May 1934, Buber notes that while the early concern of the
Lehrhaus was for literacy and general knowledge, the coming to power of the Nazis,
obliged education to become an issue of survival, an ethical survival, of individuals
and community. Buber says:
The concept of Jewish adult education might have been understood even a
short time ago to mean elements of education or cultural values that were

574

ALEX GUILHERME AND W. JOHN MORGAN

to be passed on to those growing up and to the grown-upfor instance, giving

an idea of higher education to those who were privileged to obtain it, or to
initiate those not familiar with Jewish subjects into some general knowledge of
this community The issue is no longer equipment with knowledge but
mobilization for existence. Persons, Jewish persons, are to be formed, persons
who will not only hold out but will uphold some substance in life, who will
have not only morale, but moral strength, and so will be able to pass on moral
strength to others; persons who live in such a way that the spark will not die.
Because our concern is for the spark, we work for education. What we seek to
do through the educating of individuals is the building of a community that
will stand firm, that will prevail, that will preserve the spark. (1999: 5152)
Buber recognized that illiteracy prevents people from becoming active members of
society, and this in turn had implications for an individuals personal life and
community. It follows that active citizenship is a key issue that can benefit from the
practice of non-formal education based on dialogue. Very often deprived individuals and communities, whether in developing countries or elsewhere, are not aware
of the laws of the country, of their rights and duties as citizens and as human beings
(such as their right to education, right to vote, right not to suffer abuse, the duty to
look after the environment). As such, they are unable to engage in positive action
aimed at improving their communities and their standards of living on an equal
basis with others. Through non-formal education based on dialogue, individuals can
review the problems faced by their communities within local and informal settings
that are less intimidating than the formal and official settings from which they feel
effectively excluded. In turn, this encourages them to organize, to forge pressure
groups, to encourage community ties, to ensure that their rights are not ignored or
breached and to fulfil their duties as citizens, such as voting in elections or standing
as candidates.
Non-formal education through dialogue promotes active citizenship and, in so
doing, combats sexism, ageism, racism and other social phobia. Latin America
provides specific examples of such initiatives. Comunidades de Base (base communities) are a common feature of many Latin American disadvantaged areas. Such base
communities are usually set up as Bible or religious study groups in local Roman
Catholic parishes, but they also provide a venue where the community can discuss
its problems and organize solutions (Boff 1986). Such initiatives show that nonformal education based on dialogue should not be underestimated as a means of
sustaining and developing disadvantaged communities. Such initiatives improve an
individuals life within the community and the community itself; they are grassroots
movements aimed at the enhancement of life within the community, they identify
the problems faced by the community through discussions (and thus avoid a paternalist, one-size fits all approach which imposes on the community solutions devised
elsewhere); they encourage communities to find answers to their own problems;
they build a sense of achievement which can be taken directly to the heart of the
community. The example given above may be seen as the Roman Catholic social
principles of community and of subsidiarity in action (Tropman 2002), but each of
its features are to be found in Bubers statement in the First Circular Letter of the Centre
for Jewish Adult Education, May 1934, that what we seek to do through the educating
of individuals is the building of a community that will stand firm, that will prevail,
that will preserve the spark.

MARTIN BUBERS PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

575

Another concrete instance of the importance of dialogical education for active

citizenship comes from Bubers own experiences and was noted by Buber himself:
the kibbutz. For Buber, kibbutz life facilitates IThou relations for it is centred on
mutuality, on mutual respect and dialogue between participants within community
life. Commenting on Bubers stand on the kibbutz and kibbutz life, Friedman writes:
The most promising experiment in the Village Commune, according to
Buber, has been that of the Jewish communes in Palestine. These have been
based on the needs of given local situations rather than on abstract ideas and
theories. At the time they have not been limited to the purely topical but have
combined it with ideal motives inspired by socialistic and Biblical teachings on
social justice. The members of these communes have combined a rare willingness to experiment and critical self-awareness with an amazingly positive
relationshipamounting to regular faith to the inmost being of their
Commune. The communes themselves, moreover, have worked together in
close cooperation and at the same time have left complete freedom for the
constant branching off of new forms and different types of social structure, the
most famous of which are the kvuza and the kibbuz. Nowhere were men so
deeply involved in the process of differentiation and yet so intent on preserving the principle of integration. (2002: 255)
The case of kibbutz and kibbutz life, which Buber thought as epitomizing dialogical
relations and community, leads us to another key issue; that is, relations between
communities. In a globalized world faced by migration, by poverty and exploitation,
by the persistent outbreak of war and civil war, how are we to resolve conflict
between communities and peoples? Yet, as we observed earlier, the significance of
Bubers philosophy of dialogue for relations between communities in conflict
remains relatively unexplored (Morgan 2007). Cultural differences and attitudes
reinforced by breached rights and suffered injustices often aggravate intercommunal relations, sometimes leading to violent clashes and to a spiral of mutual hostilities. Bubers great insight was to recognize that it is only through sustained, constant
and tireless dialogue between communities in conflict that disputes can be overcome and the possibility of living in peace realized.
Specific instances of communities in conflict in the modern world are numerous,
regrettably, and it is worth referring to the two cases experienced by Buber: the
IsraeliPalestinian conflict and GermanJewish relations, especially post-Holocaust.
Buber was active in attempts at JewishArab dialogue through his participation in
the Ichud (Unity), a political and cultural movement that aimed at establishing a binational state in Palestine once the British mandate had ended. For Buber, such a
bi-national ArabJewish state could be achieved only through an educational model
based on dialogue. Bubers views were disturbing for both Jewish Zionists and Arab
Nationalists alike. After the 1949 clash between Jews and Arabs, which led to the
foundation of the State of Israel, Buber continued to argue for dialogue between
Israelis and Palestinians as a way of resolving their conflict. It is a prime example of
a lack of genuine dialogue between communitiesneither Israelis nor Palestinians
seem to be able to say Thou to each otherthis is at the heart of their dispute and
something Buber had warned against. The problem here is that neither Israelis nor
Palestinians are able to hold mutual respect, they simply objectify each other (IIt
relation) and in so doing they attempt to use each other as a means in the pursuit

576

ALEX GUILHERME AND W. JOHN MORGAN

of their own ends, which increases the potential for conflict. Buber was aware that
IThou and IIt relations have moral implications. Through mutual recognition,
human beings become persons with rights and duties and, as such, if mutual recognition is not established between human beings then this has serious ethical implications. That is to say, if two human beings are incapable of saying Thou to each other
(and always say It instead), then they will not see each other as persons and will not
ascribe rights and duties to each other. Such failure to ascribe rights and duties to each
other then opens the door for evil acts to be committed; for example, Palestinian
suicide bomber attacks on Israeli cities and Israeli aerial bombing of the Gaza Strip.
Similarly, Buber advocated dialogue between Jews and Germans soon after the
Jewish Shoah (Holocaust) as a way for reconciliation. Despite the heavy criticism he
received at the time, the dialogue between Germany and Israel, between Jews and
Germans that he advocated and, indeed, initiated, has led to a special working relationship between the German and Israeli governments and peoples, which has
created strong economic, educational and cultural ties and seen a modest revival of
the Jewish community in Germany. The dialogue between Germany and Israel after
the Second World War helped diffuse the potential for conflict between them,
despite the terrible atrocities committed by Nazi Germany against the Jews, whilst
the lack of dialogue between Israel and Palestine has fed the conflict between two
communities which yet have so many potential interests in common. Putnan (2008:
67) comments incisively that if Bubers Zionism involved a lifelong concern with
the rights and aspirations of the Palestinians, as it did, it was because for him an
immoral Zionism was a doomed Zionism.
Non-formal education based on dialogue is a pivotal instrument for promoting
conflict resolution between communities, not just because of its flexibility in aims,
settings, organisation and methodology, and not just because it can be taken to the
heart of communities, but also because it encourages people and communities to
discuss problems and grievances and to find points in common. Conflict can be
defused or corrected only through dialogue, through seeking points in common,
through getting people and communities to talk to each other, through allowing
them to share grievances, problems and views, and through encouraging people to
see each other as Thou, as fellow human beings with the same psychological, intellectual, emotional and spiritual make-up. It is only through dialogue that a peaceful coexistence can be established. Therefore, the importance of Bubers dialogical
theory for social and political thought and for community education should not be
ignored. A community, and a wider community (that is, a community of communities), established on dialogue, allows its members to coexist in peace, to respect
each other, and it also allows for the peaceful resolution of disputes through
discussion, joint educational initiatives and common experiences. Moreover, a
community established through dialogue allows for individuals and community to
develop intellectually, ethically, politically, economically and spiritually, because it
defuses the threat of conflict and removes uncertainty and disruption. As Morgan
has noted (2007: 1314), Buber advocates the development of an organic community that is nurtured rather than constructed mechanically, and that mutually respectful and cooperative relations between communities in conflict depend on a very
similar process. It is, however, much more difficult because of cultural difference
and hostilities that are often deep-seated. Bubers starting point is, as always, the
identification of common problems and the recognition of the need to address
them jointly. This is where dialogue begins, with cooperation in education and,

MARTIN BUBERS PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

577

especially at the beginning, informally and non-formally, is a fruitful way of taking

it further.
It is noticeable that developed countries have experienced a perceptible rise in
xenophobia or at least anti-immigration feelings due to increased migration, whilst
many developing countries continue to experience inter-communal conflicts that
are very often racially motivated or associated with ethnic disputes that are set
against a religious, political and economic background of perceived grievance. Such
situations can escalate if people do not talk to each other, if they fail to establish a
dialogue. This is easier said than done, yet, as suggested earlier, non-formal adult
education can be a powerful resource towards doing so, as it allows adult individuals
from the most varied backgrounds and ways of life to gather together and discuss
points in common, to build bridges of understanding between individuals and
communities and, in so doing, defusing the potential for conflict. Moreover, given
the nature of non-formal education, its flexibility of settings, organization, methods
and basic aims, it is well placed to reach those who are, perhaps, outside the scope
of formal education. It is for these reasons that non-formal education based on
dialogue is a fundamental tool in resolving inter-communal conflict.
Some recent and interesting instances can be divided into three categories: countries trying to integrate foreign national into society; countries such as South Africa,
which have experienced or are experiencing severe social fragmentation; and countries such as Israel/Palestine, whose very existence is based on the desire to separate
and to deny the others right to an authentic existence. Such categorization demonstrates that non-formal education projects based on dialogue are useful resources in
tackling different forms and levels of inter-communal conflict.
In the first category we find the buddy system used in the Netherlands, a system
where asylum seekers are matched up with a volunteer Dutch citizen to help integration, and also cookery classes in the troubled suburbs of Paris, where French
women meet immigrant women to share in cooking and life experiences. These
modest examples come from countries which, arguably, until recently enjoyed a
high level of sociopolitical stability and social cohesion and which try to integrate
foreign nationals, avoiding the potential for conflict.
An instance of the second grouping comes from South Africa. The Tuition
Project is a small scale project for young adults from disadvantaged backgrounds and established as an ecumenical church initiative in response to the
Soweto Uprising of 1976 to meet the needs of out-of-school youths, when students
were often highly politicized and at the forefront of the struggle against apartheid
education (Rule 2004: 327). For decades the South African state enforced a high
degree of social segregation based on apartheid, the separation of people according
to racial categories and colour. This led to the almost complete absence of dialogue
and to the increase of the potential for conflict between communities. The Tuition
Project was successful in helping students either to find employment or to enter
tertiary education and, as such, to re-integrate excluded individuals into society as
well as providing an environment where black and white people could interact. In
these important respects, the project helped to defuse the potential for conflict
between individuals and communities by re-incorporating the excluded into society
as well as by providing a forum for dialogue between individuals and community.
The case of Israel and Palestine or, as Buber (2005) described it, this land of two
peoples, is an interesting and singular one. Buber was very active in trying to achieve
JewishArab dialogue through his participation in the Brit Shalom (Covenant of

578

ALEX GUILHERME AND W. JOHN MORGAN

Peace in Hebrew) movement, which was established in the mid-1920s and which
later became the Ichud (Union in Hebrew), a political and cultural movement
founded in 1942, aimed at establishing a bi-national state in Palestine once the
British mandate had ended (cf. Heller 2003; Agassi 2006: 242;); a bi-national state
in which both peoples would enjoy an equal share in the political and civil administration of the country, regardless of their proportion in the general population
(Mendes-Flohr 1991: 201). For Buber, this bi-national ArabJewish state could be
achieved only through an educational model/system based on dialogue, where both
communities could gain an understanding of each other and meet. Bubers views
were upsetting for Jewish Zionists and Arab Nationalists alike. Following the war of
1948, Israelis and Palestinians set themselves apart and denied the others right to
exist and, with this, unfortunately, the possibility of a bi-national state became part
of history and the potential for conflict a reality that must be dealt with if these
peoples are to have a chance of peace. As such, Israel/Palestine provide us with a
very singular case; that is, of a society established on the desire to set itself apart from
the other and on the others denial of its right to existencegenerally speaking,
Palestinians who do not accept the existence of the State of Israel and Israelis who
deny the establishment of a Palestinian State.
However, despite the continuing rigidity of the majority on each side, encouraging examples of dialogue may be found. At the intellectual level, there is, the
Shared Histories Project where Israeli and Palestinian historians meet to discuss
the history of the region as it affects current events. A further such example is that
of the Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture. This is an independent
quarterly, founded in 1994, by Victor Cygleman and Ziad AbuZayyad, published in
Jerusalem and guided by an editorial board comprised of both Palestinians and
Israelis. The journals declared purpose is to promote rapprochement and better
understanding between the Palestinian and Israeli people, and it strives to discuss
all issues without prejudice and without taboo (Palestine-Israel Journal 2009). At a
more pragmatic level, there is the Circle of Health International Israel/Palestine
project, in which Israeli and Palestinian midwives meet to share their commitment
to the profession and to peace. It is worth quoting Putnan (2008: 67) again when he
says that if Bubers Zionism involved a lifelong concern with the rights and aspirations of the Palestinians, as it did, it was because for him an immoral Zionism was a
doomed Zionism. Analogously, it could be said that Palestinianism should involve a
lifelong concern with the rights and aspirations of Israelis because an immoral Palestinianism
is a doomed Palestinianism.

Conclusion
How can a non-formal adult education based on Martin Bubers philosophy of education and of dialogue be developed? We have suggested that such a philosophy has
great potential for improving adult basic education, encouraging active citizenship
and, not least, for the resolution of conflict between individuals and communities.
We suggest also that non-formal education should not be seen as a mere complement
to formal education. Instead, it has the authentic potential of being a full partner of
formal education, especially if learning is seen as a lifelong activity. Budgetary
constraints on education are problematic in the case of developed countries and are
an even greater problem, if not a moral problem, for developing countries, which

MARTIN BUBERS PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

579

very often spend more money servicing national debts to foreign and global institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, than on education directly (Archer 2007). Given such budgetary constraints, we also suggest that
future developments on non-formal education based on dialogue might take the
form of governmental and non-governmental partnership, especially through volunteering organizations and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Such examples provide opportunities for people to meet, as individuals and as
groups, to gain understanding of the other and to overcome, through dialogue,
mutually destructive impulses towards exploitation or towards revenge and counterrevenge. Such dialogue is essential to conflict resolution, to peaceful co-existence
and to communitarianism. They are not trivial examples considering how simple
they are to initiate, based as they are on voluntary commitments that can be multipliers. They are examples simultaneously of non-formal education, of active citizenship and, most importantly, of encounters where the Other becomes Thou.
Finally, further detailed research is needed into the usefulness and effectiveness of
such non-formal education based on dialogue and the encouragement of practical
projects based on the philosophy. This should not be limited to adult basic education, but could be extended to all aspects of non-formal education. This article is
presented as an initial contribution to that process.

Notes
1.
1.

2.
2.

3.
3.

It is important to draw attention to the German word Du of the original title of Bubers work, Ich
und Du. Walter Kaufman in his translation of the work points out that Du is the German personal
pronoun one uses to address friends or family, people with whom one has a close relationship, Du
is the informal personal pronoun; this is in contrast with Sie, which is the personal pronoun used to
address people one is not familiar with or that one does not have a close relationship with, or that is
used as a sign of respect (for example, with elders). This distinction is present in many languages
(French: Tu and Vous; Portuguese; Tu and Voce). The English archaic personal pronoun Thou
does not encapsulate the idea of informality present in Du and it is perhaps better translated as
you in English (something which Kaufman actually does in his translationhe only kept the original Thou of the title). This is perhaps an improvement in the right direction, though it is still problematic in our opinion as the English language has lost the distinction between formal and
informal pronouns. That said, we have opted to keep Thou throughout this article as this is the term
used in the wider literature (Buber, M. (1972) I and Thou (trans. W. Kaufman) (New York: Charles
Scribners Sons).
The IThou relation is not something exclusive to inter-human relationships for Buber, and thus it
is not something that only happens between two human beings. The IThou relation can take place
between human beings and nature, and between human beings and God, also. Since here we focus
on education we have allowed ourselves to ignore these other aspects of the IThou relation which
are not relevant to this article.
See for instance the recent report on literacy in Kenya by the UNESCO, Real Options for Literacy
Policy and Practice in Kenya. The distinction between Freires empowering method and basic literacy skills are well documented in the paper (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001459/
145956e.pdf).

References
AGASSI, J. (2006) The legacy of Martin Buber for an Israeli society after Zionism. In M. ZANK (ed.) New
Perspectives on Martin Buber (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck).
ALONI, N. (1997) A redefinition of liberal and humanistic education. International Review of Education,
43(1), 87107.
ARCHER, D. (2007) Education or banking? In Heribert Hinzen(ed.) Adult Education and Development (Bonn:
DVV International), pp. 912.

580

ALEX GUILHERME AND W. JOHN MORGAN

ARENDT, H. (2007) A guide for youth: Martin Buber. In J. KOHN and R. H. FELDMAN (eds.) The Jewish
Writings (New York: Schocken Books), pp. 3133.
BAR SHALOM, Y., DAAS, R. & BERKERMAN, Z. (2008) Where have all the Palestinians gone? International
Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 1(2), 172185.
BINGHAM, C. (2002) On Paulo Freires debt to psychoanalysis: Authority on the side of freedom. Studies
in Philosophy and Education, 21, 447464.
BOFF, L. 1986. Ecclesiogenesis: The base communities re-invent the church (New York: Orbis).
BUBER, M. (1925, 1961a) The address on education, In Between Man and Man (London and Glasgow:
Collins).
BUBER, M. (1939, 1961b) The education of character, In Between Man and Man (London and Glasgow:
Collins).
BUBER, M. (1947, 1961c) Between man and man, In Between Man and Man (London and Glasgow:
Collins).
BUBER, M. (1999) First circular letter of the Centre for Jewish Adult Education, May 1994. In YITZHAK
ARAD Y., GUTMAN, I. & MARGALIOT, A. (eds.) Documents on the Holocaust (Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press), pp. 5152.
BUBER, M. (2004) I and Thou (London and New York: Continuum).
BUBER, M. (2005) A Land of Two Peoples: Martin Buber on Jews and Arabs (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press).
COHEN, A. (1979) Martin Buber and Changes in Modern Education. Oxford Review of Education, 5(1),
81103.
COMBS, P. H., PROSSER, C. & AHMED, M. (1973) New Paths to Learning for Rural Children and Youth (New
York: International Council for Educational Development).
CURZON- HOBSON, A. (2002) Higher education in a world of radical unknowability: an extension of the
challenge of Ronald Barnett. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(2), 179191.
FERNNDEZ, B. (2007) The education of young people and adults (EYPA) and the current changes
in Bolivia. In H. HINZEN (ed.) Adult Education and Development (Bonn: DVV International),
pp. 7990.
FIELD, J. & LEICESTER, M. (eds.) (2000) Lifelong Learning: Education across the life-span (London and New
York: Routledge-Falmer).
FREIRE, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Seabury Press).
FREIRE, P. & MACEDO, D. (1993) A dialogue with Paulo Freire. In P. MCCLAREN and P. LEONARD (eds.)
Paulo Freire: A critical encounter (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul), pp. 169176.
FRIEDENTHAL- HAASE, M. (1990) Erwachsenenbildung und Krise im Denken Martin Bubers. Pdagogische
Rundschau 44, 655673.
FRIEDENTHAL- HAASE, M. & KORRENZ, R. (eds.) (2005) Martin Buber: Bildung, Menschenbild und hebrischer
Humanismus (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schningh).
FRIEDMAN, M.S. (2002) Martin Buber: The life of dialogue (London and New York: Routledge).
HELLER, J. (2003) From Brit Shalom to Ichud: Judah Leib Magnes and the struggle for a bi-national State in Palestine
(Jerusalem: Magnes Press).
HILLIARD, F.H. (1973) A re-examination of Bubers address on education. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 21(1), 4049.
LOHRENSCHEIT, C. (2006) Dialogue and dignity: Linking human rights education with Paulo Freires
liberation. Journal of Social Science Education. Available online at: www.jsse.org/2006-1/
Lohrenscheit_Freire.htm (accessed February 1, 2009).
LUNDAN, A. (2003) The encounter between the student and the teacher in general upper secondary
school. Finnish Journal of Education Kasvatus 34(5), 47687.
MENDES- FLOHR, P. (1991) Divided Passions: Jewish intellectuals and the experience of modernity (Detroit: Wayne
State University Press).
MORGAN, W. J. (2003) Public opinion, political education and citizenship. In W. J. MORGAN and S. LIVINGSTONE (eds.) Law and Opinion in 20th Century Britain and Ireland (Basingstoke and New York:
Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 931.
MORGAN, W. J. (2007) Martin Buber: Philosopher of dialogue and of the resolution of conflict. British
Academy Review, 10, 1114.
OLSEN, G. (2004) Dialogue, phenomenology and ethical communication theory. In Proceedings of the
Durham-Bergen Postgraduate Philosophy Seminar, II, 1326.
OJOKHETA, K. O. (2007) Paulo Freires literacy teaching methodology: Application and implications of
the methodology in basic literacy classes in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. In H. HINZEN (ed.) Adult
Education and Development (Bonn: DVV International) pp. 111120.
PALESTINE-ISRAEL JOURNAL OF POLITICS, ECONOMICS AND CULTURE (2009) Z. ABUZAYYAD and H. SCHENKER
(eds)
PUTNAN, H. (2008) Jewish Philosophy as a Guide to Life: Rosenzweig, Buber, Levinas, Wittgenstein (Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press).
RIGNEY, D. (2001) The Metaphorical Society: An invitation to social theory (Lanham, MD and London:
Rowman & Littlefield).

MARTIN BUBERS PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

581

ROBERTS, P. (2000) Education, Literacy, and Humanization: Exploring the work of Paulo Freire (Westport:
Connecticut and London: Bergin and Garvey).
ROGERS, A. (2003) What is the Difference? A New Critique of Adult Learning and Teaching (Leicester: National
Institute of Adult and Continuing Education).
ROSE, J. (2001) The Intellectual History of the British Working Classes (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press).
ROSENBLAT, H. S. (1971) Martin Bubers concepts applied to education. The Educational Forum, XXXV,
215218.
RULE, P. (2004) Dialogic spaces: Adult education projects and social engagement. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 23(4), 319334.
SCHUDDER, J. R. (1968) Freedom with authority: A Buber model for teaching, Educational Theory, XVIII,
133142.
SHIM, S. H (2008) A philosophical investigation of the role of teachers: A synthesis of Plato, Confucius,
Buber and Freire, Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 515535.
SMITH, M. K. (2000, 2009) Martin Buber on education. In The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Available
online at: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-buber.htm (accessed xxxx).
STEVENSON, W. T. (1963) I-Thou and I-It: An attempted clarification of their relationship. The Journal of
Religion, 43(3), 193209.
TAYLOR, J. & SHAW, W. (1987) Nuremberg Laws. In J. TAYLOR and W. SHAW (eds.) A Dictionary of the Third
Reich (London: Grafton Books), pp. 241242.
TROPMAN, J. E. (2002) The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Community (Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press).
YALOM, K. (1994) Martin Buber. In Z. MORSY (ed.) Thinkers on Education (Vol. 1) (Paris: UNESCO).
ZANK, M. (ed.) (2006) New Perspectives on Martin Buber (Tbingen: Germany: Mohr Siebeck).