Personal Relationships, Defining Characteristics

Philosophical Approach to Defining Personal Relationships

The most famous and influential relational philosopher was Martin Buber, who grounded his approach in religion as well as philosophy. Buber argued that humans fundamentally see relationships in two ways. The first way of viewing relationships involves treating others as mere objects instead of as mindful people. Buber called this type of relating “I-It” because in this approach an individual (the “I”) views an Other as a depersonalized “It” and not as a soulful, reflective person. Consequently, Buber explained, the I-It approach to relationships fails to acknowledge the humanity and the personhood of the other person(s). Buber agued that when we engage in an I-It relationship with others, we deny their status as unique thinking creatures created by God, and they become something to be experienced as opposed to someone with whom to have a relationship. This approach, he felt, leaves out the personality and individual-ity—indeed, the humanity—of the Other.

One can see examples of this type of relationship in the service industry. People frequently interact with salesclerks, servers at restaurants, individuals who clean houses, and individuals who carry luggage as “Its” (or nonpersons), instead of interacting with them as human beings with unique qualities. In many cases, such people are fulfilling a role or performing a low-level, nonpersonal service and are not engaged in personal conversation except at the end of delivery of their services, when they are thanked personally. Often as they go about their business they are simply ignored as if they were not present at all, as when a hotel server delivers coffee and cookies to a room at an appointed break time during a meeting. The conversation in the meeting continues as if the server were not there, although the server may be thanked at the end of the delivery. It is important that such a person is performing a nonpersonal role in that many people would not even notice if the individuals [Page 1221]who perform these acts of service were replaced with simple robots, provided the robots would still perform the job as efficiently and discreetly as the humans currently doing those jobs. Although the person giving you a massage or teaching a class is also enacting a role, the role is more personal than the previous examples and needs to be considered differently, as in the next section. The impersonal role type of relating stands in contrast to the second way of relating discussed by Buber, which he called “I-Thou.”

...