The need for character education for those in public leadership is of unquestionable importance. Professor Christoph Stückelberger (University of Basel, founder of Globethics) has recently argued that ‘structural ethics’ (constitutions, policies and standards) have their merits, and that ‘there are no virtuous institutions, there are only virtuous people’. Stückelberger calls for the cultivation of virtues, especially the virtue of integrity. In recent decades, character education has received new attention. Those who call for character education most often draw from Greek traditions, especially from Aristotle. This article will explore a different source for the discussion of virtues and character. About 80 years ago, the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber proposed character education, based on what he called ‘Hebrew humanism’, as the foundation of nation-building. I will explore the continuing relevance of Buber’s view of character and character formation, taking his famous Tel Aviv speech on ‘The Education of Character’ of 1939 as a point of departure.
Freedom, community, global justice, equality, responsibility, participation, peace, sharing, solidarity, trust, tolerance and sustainability are all values outlined in a book entitled
Globethics.net offers institutions the opportunity to set their ethical standards and structures to strengthen ethics not only by focusing on individual behaviour but also on institutional mechanisms used to incorporate ethics within the organization. (n.p.)
From this, it follows that special emphasis is given to senior leaders in the public sphere, in global enterprises, in non-government organisations and in higher education. The aforementioned book not only outlines core values for institutions but also identifies ‘virtues in leadership’, such as honesty, respect, listening, courage, vision, reliability, compassion, gratitude, modesty, patience and integrity.
Christoph Stückelberger, a Swiss reformed theologian, founder and long-time executive director of Globethics.net, contributes a chapter on integrity to the book. It is based on a speech he had delivered in December 2015 at the Protestant University of the Congo in connection with the project ‘Training on Integrity in Responsible Elections’ in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Stückelberger
I use this speech by this renowned expert in leadership and ethics in the public sphere as a point of departure because he identifies a particular, often neglected or even ignored, issue, namely, the formation of virtues and character for those in leadership responsibilities.
Stückelberger (
People and organisations make decisions based on motivations which derive from various factors such as power, greed, opportunities, emotions, faith – or values and virtues.
In other words,
Stückelberger’s call is not new. Throughout the centuries, philosophers and theologians have pointed to the foundational significance of character formation. In this study, I turn to the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber (1878–1965) and his remarkable contribution to education. I am convinced that his insights into the formation of human beings are of timeless significance.
In 1938, Buber was forced to leave Germany and he moved to Palestine in order to contribute to the establishment of a Jewish nation. In this context, he gave his remarkable speech on ‘The education of character’ (Buber
This lecture by Martin Buber on the formation of character in the context of nation-building caught my attention many years ago. It was something like an invitation to look more carefully into Buber’s writings, searching for a deeper understanding of his contribution to character formation.
This leads to the question to be dealt with in this article: what are the potential and the continuing relevance of Buber’s view of character and character formation for today, especially in relation to public leadership and nation-building? After a short introduction to Buber’s life and work, I will identify several key components of his contribution to the formation of character. At the end, I will challenge recent developments in higher education in light of Buber’s call to character education.
The intention and the significance of Buber’s Tel-Aviv lecture of 1939 can only be captured if we first introduce the concept of ‘Hebrew humanism’. Buber points out that he used the term ‘Hebrew humanism’ already in 1913 (Buber
By using the term ‘humanism’, Buber positions himself within the European discourse on renaissance, enlightenment and humanism. At the same time, the qualifying adjectives ‘biblical’, ‘Hebrew’ and ‘believing’ put his worldview in critical distance from all forms of anthropocentric post-enlightenment humanism. In contrast to European humanism, Buber is not referring back to the classical Greek and Roman antiquity, but rather to the ancient writings of the Hebrew Bible (Volkmann
In his 1933 speech, he defines ‘Biblical humanism’ as follows (Buber
Biblical humanism is concerned with a ‘concrete transformation’ of our total – and not alone our inner – lives. This concrete transformation can only follow upon a rebirth of the normative primal forces that distinguish right from wrong, true from false, and to which life submits itself. The primal forces are transmitted to us in the word – the biblical word. (p. 47)
And in his address of 1941 on ‘Hebrew humanism’, he looks back and comments (Buber
When Adolf Hitler stepped into power in Germany, and I was faced with the task of strengthening the spirituality of our youth to bear up against his nonspirituality, I called the speech in which I developed my program, ‘Biblical humanism’, to make the first half of my concept still clearer. The tide indicated that in this task of ours, the Bible – the great document of our own antiquity – must be assigned the decisive role that in European humanism was played by the writings of classical antiquity. (p. 159)
This provides a frame of reference for all of Buber’s philosophical and educational writings. He moves beyond unworldly and even escapist piety, on the one hand, and a godless, purely immanent humanisation, on the other hand. His pedagogy was characterised by putting humans in relationship to the world
Over against European humanism, which refers to Greek and Roman antiquity as a resource for renewal and renaissance, Buber points to the more holistic anthropology of the Hebrew tradition. He states (Buber
[
Buber argues that European humanism focuses too much on the transformation of the mind, the intellect, the inner life. In contrast, Hebrew humanism views humans in their totality, including the mind and body, thinking and acting.
From this point of view, he also criticised the separation of the private and the public sphere, which he observed in many societies – not least in the political programme of Jewish Zionism in his time. From the point of view of Hebrew humanism, he argues (Buber
What it [
For Buber, the Hebrew faith is not a religion for the inner life, the spiritual sphere in a compartmentalised world. It is a way of life rooted in the truth revealed by God in the Bible, a way of life that comprises the entire life and affects all spheres of life, individual and communal, private and public. This is the reason why the formation of character became so central in Buber’s educational engagement. This leads us to his lectures on education.
Buber began his lecture on ‘The education of character’ with the following statement (Buber
Education worthy of the name is essentially education of character. For the genuine educator does not merely consider individual functions of his pupil, as one intending to teach him only to know or to be capable of certain definite things; but his concern is always the person as a whole, both in the actuality in which he lives before you now and in his possibilities, what he can become. (p. 104)
Education that only focusses on ‘individual functions’ of the person, on knowledge or skills, is – according to Buber – not worthy to be called education. Genuine education views the ‘person as a whole’ and focuses on his or her entire being; it ‘is essentially education of character’.
For Buber, character is what an individual
More precisely, he defines character with two terms ‘actuality’ and ‘possibilities’, or in other words, ‘reality’ and ‘potentiality’ (Buber
This leads to the term ‘responsibility’, another key concept in Buber’s understanding of character. By relating the term ‘responsibility’ to ‘response’, Buber gets at the heart of his understanding of responsibility. He says, ‘[a]n individual’s responsibility exists only where there is real responding’ (Buber
The fragile life between birth and death can nevertheless be a fulfilment – if it is a dialogue. In our life and experience we are addressed; by thought and speech and action, by producing and by influencing we are able to answer [
For Buber, ‘responding’ is an essential dimension of true human existence. Therefore, he emphasises the significance of ‘responsibility’ (in the literal sense of the term) for the realisation of true humanity. Character means that a person perceives reality as a call and that he or she responds in a ‘responsible’ way.
One of the most passionate and challenging definitions of education and the role of the educator can be found in ‘Education and world-view’. Buber (
The education I mean is a guiding toward reality and realization. That man alone is qualified to teach who knows how to distinguish between appearance and reality, between seeming realization and genuine realization, who rejects appearance and chooses and grasps reality. (p. 105)
Again, reality and realisation are at the heart of the educational goal. However, now Buber sharpens his argument by pointing to the difference between appearance and reality, between pretended realities and real realities. Persons with character are educated to distinguish between pretence and reality – and to choose reality. In ‘Elements of the interhuman’, Buber deals with the same issue under the title ‘Being and Seeming’, arguing that a mature person recognises his or her pretensions (‘what one wishes to seem’) and accepts and reveals what he or she ‘really is’ (Buber
In all of this, we have to take note that reality and realisation, response and responsibility have two dimensions in Buber’s thinking: human beings have to respond to the realities of this world and they have to act in a responsible way (this is what Buber calls ‘realisation’). However, reality should not be limited to the scope of what science (empirical reality) and philosophy (cognitive reality) can offer; it needs to be open to the transcendent (and yet immanent) reality of God.
Buber concludes his Tel-Aviv lecture with the statement (Buber
It is evident that for Buber becoming truly human includes the oneness of the person (integrity) ‘face to face’ with God. The relationship with the world and the relationship with God are fully intertwined. As we will see later in his essay ‘The way of man’, responding to the voice of God and responding to the demands of earthly realities constitute a holistic and character-forming education.
This has significant implications for the education of character. Buber argues that it is the educator’s task to help individuals to a ‘rebirth of personal unity, unity of being, unity of action – unity of being, life and action together’ (Buber
Furthermore, he argues that it is not sufficient to ‘talk about’ virtues and character in a distant and theoretical way (in Buber’s terms
In his essays ‘The way of man’ (1948/1964) and ‘Elements of the interhuman’ (1953/1982), Buber further develops the framework for a pedagogy that facilitates character formation.
Buber understands human existence as a journey towards full humanity. This implies that life must be conducted, shaped and formed. In ‘The Way of Man’ (
Heart-searching: the journey begins with a person being addressed by God (‘Where are you, Adam?’). We have to respond to three foundational questions: ‘consider three things. Know whence you came, whither you are going, and to whom you will have to render accounts’.
The particular way: we should not copy others but find and realise our personal calling.
Resolution: we need to unify our soul – body and spirit – so that we think and act purposefully, firmly and congruently.
Begin with oneself: we should not blame others if it is our responsibility to take the first step.
Avoid preoccupation with oneself: we should not remain focused on ourselves but approach the needs of the world in the realm of our responsibility.
Here where one stands: it is our responsibility to realise our personal calling here and now, at the place where we are. We should not always escape into day-dreaming about other, perhaps better places to realise life.
In this essay, Buber did not explicitly talk about character formation. Nevertheless, his reflections point to the heart of the education of character in the framework of Hebrew humanism. Again, the journey towards the realisation of true human existence begins with the encounter of the eternal Thou – with responding to the ‘voice’ of the creator. And again, the journey towards full humanity is a journey towards greater integrity, facing the realities of one’s personal life and of the surrounding world, and responding with one’s entire being to the demands of the situation in a responsible way.
However, how can such a character be formed? The most specific pedagogical suggestion we can find in Buber’s writing is connected to the term ‘dialogue’.
Buber is a storyteller and we best approach his pedagogical teachings by listening to one of his examples in ‘On the education of character’ (Buber
The teacher who is for the first time approached by a boy with somewhat defiant bearing, but with trembling hands, visibly opened-up and fired by a daring hope, who asks him what is the right thing in a certain situation – for instance, whether in learning that a friend has betrayed a secret entrusted to him one should call him to account or be content with entrusting no more secrets to him – the teacher to whom this happens realizes that this is the moment to make the first conscious step towards education of character; he has to answer, to answer under a responsibility, to give an answer which will probably lead beyond the alternatives of the question by showing a third possibility which is the right one. To dictate what is good and evil in general is not his business. His business is to answer a concrete question, to answer what is right and wrong in a given situation. This, as I have said, can only happen in an atmosphere of confidence. Confidence, of course, is not won by the strenuous endeavour to win it, but by direct and ingenuous participation in the life of the people one is dealing with – in this case in the life of one’s pupils – and by assuming the responsibility which arises from such participation. It is not the educational intention, but it is the meeting which is educationally fruitful. A soul suffering from the contradictions of the world of human society, and of its own physical existence, approaches me with a question. By trying to answer it to the best of my knowledge and conscience, I help it to become a character that actively overcomes the contradictions. (pp. 106–107)
From all we have seen so far it follows that the ‘interhuman’ – what happens between persons – is central in Buber’s anthropology and pedagogy. Buber calls it ‘the between’. In his address ‘Elements of the interhuman’, he identifies five aspects (Buber
The ‘social’ and the ‘interhuman’ should not be confused: the ‘social’ refers to all sorts of communal realities in which the individual can remain isolated and
Being and seeming: a person reveals to another his real being and not what he or she likes the other to perceive as his or her real being.
Personal making present: a person turns to another, is aware of the other person, affirms the other person in his or her being (not necessarily in all his or her thoughts and actions) and makes himself or herself accessible – in short, one is fully present with the other person.
Imposition and unfolding: a person does not impose ‘himself, his opinion and his attitude towards life’ on another person (forming copies through propaganda), but rather facilitates the becoming of the unique being of the creature face to face with the creator (growing originals through education).
In summary, there are six marks of genuine dialogue:
The turning of the being – turning my full existence to the full existence of the other. Receiving the other by affirming him as a person – even if I disagree with him. Bringing myself to the other – opening up and saying what needs to be said. Overcoming semblance – moving from ‘seeming’ to ‘being’. The ‘memorable communal fruitfulness’ – expecting, seeking and rejoicing what happens in the ‘between’, which is unique and could not be experienced by each one individually. Being silent – it is not always necessary to speak in order to facilitate genuine dialogue; be silent if appropriate.
According to Buber, it follows that any person who wants to provide the space for the development of character has to understand the sphere of the interhuman and acquire the competences of authentic dialogue. Such persons must be able to engage in deep-level relationships (cf. Buber
It is time to sum up and return to the foundational question provoked by Stückelberger at the beginning of this study: what are the potential and the continuing relevance of Buber’s view of character and character formation for today, especially in relation to public leadership and nation-building?
In the context of threatened Jewish identity in the diaspora and the establishment of a Jewish nation in Palestine, Buber fervently fights for character formation as the ultimate and only solid ground for any society.
Buber does not use classical Greek or Roman definitions of virtues and character. He even points to the insufficiency of such classical definitions as ‘absolute values’, ‘voluntary obedience to maxims’ or ‘the interpenetration of habits’ (Buber
Character and the education of character must be seen in the framework of ‘Hebrew humanism’, an anthropology that is shaped by the Hebrew Bible.
It follows from such an anthropology that inter-relatedness is not just a sociological reality or a pedagogical method, but rather the essence of humanity.
A person with character responds to God and the demands of life in a responsible way. He or she perceives reality and realises life with his or her entire being.
All educational efforts have to lead beyond
Becoming fully human (developing character) is a journey – Buber outlines the steps and stations of that journey (the way of man).
Genuine dialogue is the pedagogical centrepiece of character education.
Such dialogue is characterised by
At the heart of such an understanding of the task of character education is the
As theologians and leaders of the church, we have to respond to the question, ‘what is our task and our mission in any given context, in any society?’ Quite often in history and in the present time, Christian ministries and missions have been focusing on inner and private piety in view of some sort of eternal life after death and/or on social actions as a contribution to peace and justice in society. For some this used to be an either … or …, while others have tried to be holistic by emphasising both. It seems to me that Buber’s Hebrew humanism points to a third dimension of Christian responsibility in the world: the education of character as the formation of personal integrity and communal responsibility – helping men and women to become truly human, by responding to the call of the Creator and to the demands of life in the here-and-now. That is, in the words of Buber, assuming ‘personal responsibility for life and the world’ and developing ‘the courage to shoulder life’ by a life lived ‘in the face of God’.
Birgit Ventur accurately concludes her doctoral dissertation with the statement that the centre and the original contribution of Buber’s view of education is the ‘all-inclusive reference to God and the world’ (Ventur
In conclusion, I want to relate the findings of this research to the role and responsibility of the university and some recent development in higher education. It is the task of the university to train the elite of a given society, especially those in public leadership. At least this used to be the legacy of the European university from its founding in the 11th and 12th centuries (Bologna, Paris and Oxford) up to the modern university in the 19th century (Berlin). Building on the foundation of ‘general studies’ [
If we follow Martin Buber’s argument, the education of character must be at the centre of our educational efforts, as the primary nation-building force.
In the last 20 years, we have observed a dramatic shift in higher education – and it drives us away from the ideals of Buber and many other advocates of classical education. More and more we are doing exactly what Buber tells us is insufficient. We focus on partial knowledge and certain skills; in short, we concentrate on ‘individual functions’ required to fit into the economic system, and by doing so we lose sight of ‘the person as a whole’. We have invented impressive new terms like ‘fitness for purpose’, ‘output-orientation’ and ‘competences’ at the cost of earlier values such as virtues, character and wisdom.
Martin Buber outlines the parameters for education that forms the ‘the person as a whole’, which helps human beings to become fully human. This can happen in the sphere of a true encounter between professors and students characterised by
Buber’s Hebrew humanism even points to the very specific and essential task of faith-based education of character. ‘The way of man’, the journey towards the wholeness of life begins with the encounter with God, the Creator. It is, therefore, the task of the educator ‘to bring man back to his own unity’ by putting him ‘again face to face with God’.
Above all, this requires presence, personal encounter, true dialogue and trust. Unfortunately, the main currents of higher education drive us in a different direction. The fragmentation and modularisation of curricula, the credit accumulation system and the constant reduction of contact hours undermine personal encounter, deep dialogue and the integration of the whole of life. The proliferation of regulations, policymaking, assessment, reporting and accreditation, requiring immense administrative efforts, draws faculty and student services away from being present with students and forces them to sit behind their computers reading the most recent versions of policies and writing reports. The shift from the ‘community-model’ to the ‘client-model’ of education promotes an institutional culture which is characterised more by
It is short-sighted to make economic success and global competition the main purpose of education and to focus all educational efforts on making students fit for that purpose. In his time, Buber called education back to the essential responsibility of character formation as the only reliable foundation of any community, any society and any nation. I am convinced that this is a timeless call, worthy to be heard in our times.
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
B.O. is the sole author of this research article.
This article followed all ethical standards for a research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author.
This is stated even more explicitly in the German version of the lecture (Stückelberger
Translation by Bernhard Ott. Original text in German: ‘Dieses Eigentliche ist in dem umfassenden Gottes- und Weltbezug zu sehen, der Bubers Erziehungsdenken prägt’.