Buber and Freire share the belief that dialogue lies at the basis of a meaningful human existence. The concept of dialogue as a process of becoming more fully human does not suggest that humans cease to exist if not in dialogue, rather it offers a normative sense of being in world, and proposes a goal of becoming present and more fully human. This concept is not original to Buber or Freire, and has been explored by Gadamer (2013), Bakhtin (1984), Sartre (1945/2007) and others in European philosophic
traditions and relates to larger quest to understand humankind’s unique role in the world and what constitutes the ‘good life.’ Buber and Freire, perhaps due to their lived experiences of inequality and conflict, relate this term to peace and justice and what makes a ‘good life.’ Furthermore, Buber and Freire explicitly link this concept to education and learning and focus more
specifically on the transformational aspect of dialogue and intersubjectivity which render them more relevant.
At the basis of this concept of humanisation lies a deeper philosophical concern about the meaning of the ‘human’ within this broader dialogic process. While this thesis cannot fully respond to this question, it merits a brief discussion. Freire and Buber were writing during periods of time where humanity’s essence was often questioned, in both existentialism and in postmodernism, and build upon longer-standing religious and philosophical debates about the nature of human life and our relations to the human, natural and spiritual worlds. For this reason, Buber devoted himself to what he called philosophical anthropology, or an understanding of human life in ways that elude words or concrete observations (Silberstein, 1989) and though Freire himself may not have applied the same label, he also devoted himself to this process. This thesis focuses on only one way of constructing what it means to be human, through the dialogic relationships that exist in the world, though other approaches could be taken.
The concept of humanisation does not only have theoretical implications for peace and dialogue but concrete and policy oriented effects. Today,
international organisations including the UN and World Bank have committed to the idea of development as the attainment of individual well-being and human flourishing, including but not limited to economic growth or GDP
(Alkire, 2002; Stewart, 2013), a perspective derived largely from Amartya Sen (1999) and Martha Nussbaum’s (2000) capabilities approach. The creation of the Human Development Index and human development reports (e.g. UNDP, 2014) constitute a prime example of human development’s impact in this sector. Furthermore, approaches to education and international development have benefited from a more humanistic, justice-oriented theoretical framework (Flores-Crespo, 2007; Saito, 2003; Snauwaert, 2011; Tao, 2015; Walker &
Unterhalter, 2010) that inherently supports concepts of humanising dialogue.
A fuller concept of dialogue as humanisation could enhance educational and peacebuilding approaches by providing new ways to consider social
transformation and renewing views on relationships, daily life and rebuilding from structural and physical violence.
Building upon Bekerman and Zembylas’ (2012) terms ‘micro’ and ‘macro’
perspectives of conflict, where deliberation constitutes a ‘macro’ perspective and conflict resolution a ‘micro’ perspective, I posit that dialogue as
humanisation represents a hybrid perspective that can simultaneously provide a focus on individual human perspectives and critical analysis of structural and physical violence and injustice that accompany conflict. A humanistic offers a relevant framework to look for moments of true dialogue in every type of relationship and setting, including deliberative settings and conflict
resolution approaches.
Freire and Buber Together: Contributions to a Dialogue of Humanisation Freire and Buber represent a compelling choice to study together: Buber influenced the works of Freire, explicitly mentioned in Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1972), yet they are seldom discussed together. The most complete accounts are perhaps found in Morgan and Guilherme (2014) in
their discussion of dialogue, education and conflict resolution and in
Noddings’ (2013) chapter on Freire, Buber, dialogue and care ethic. Other brief discussions include Guilherme and Morgan (2009), Roberts (1999), Shim, (2008), Christians (2004, 2010) and Murphy (1988). However, most of these works do not provide a lengthy or detailed discussion. For example, Roberts (1999) argues that Freire gives a political meaning to I and Thou that did not exist in the original text but does not fully elaborate on Buber’s
influence on Freire or ways in which the two diverge or converge.
A main concern of Freire’s work, and one which I propose that Buber’s concepts can contribute to in order to develop a more complete concept of dialogue as humanisation, is the overtly political nature of Freire’s work. Freire believed that all education was political and framed his struggles for liberation within a Marxist-class-based political struggle, though as previously
discussed, this diminished in his later works. However, in global contexts, this may be constraining, and especially in conflict zones, if dialectic constructions of the world place two groups against each other or if teaching and knowledge
‘take sides’ (Jansen, 2009). Beckerman and Zembylas (2012, p.43) also suggest that ‘[k]nowledges and emotions in schools of troubled societies are forms of power, and therefore they are never neutral,’ and argue that instead of focusing on oppression, educators should ask ‘“Does this pedagogy humanize and connect people? If not, what are the consequences, and how can these consequences be alleviated?” This is a reminder that within Freire’s pedagogy, the emphasis should be on humanisation and liberation of the entire society as opposed to a singular group.
Freire’s dialogic pedagogy provides a unique pathway for exploring Buber’s infinitely adaptable concept of dialogue within the context of peace, education and dialogue. Unlike Buber, Freire’s pedagogy has gained international
popularity and has been enacted in multiple forms: critical pedagogy in North America and Europe, literacy programmes such as REFLECT (Archer &
Goreth, 2004; Newman, 2008) and has influenced research methodologies of Participatory Action Research (Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991; Kincheloe, 2009)
and has been argued to be the most influential pedagogical and theoretical approach to peace education (Gill & Niens, 2014; Reardon & Snauwaert, 2014). Buber’s concept of dialogue, on the other hand, largely remains in the theoretical sphere or more closely aligned with peace methodologies (e.g.
Steinberg & Bar-On, 2002). A link between the two can perhaps help to bridge divergent strategies on peace and education, as discussed at the beginning of this chapter.