I and Thou

There are two primary words that exist in human language and existence: they are combinations of words that together make up single-words realities. The first is “the combination I—Thou,” and the second is “the combination I—It” (12). The first combination is unalterable, while the second combination can be modified by replacing It with He or She. The existence of these two combinations determines that “the I of man is twofold” (12), since the I of the first primary combination differs significantly from the I of the second combination. Additionally, the self-referential I of each combination is assumed when humans speak of Thou and It/He/She since the existence of the latter presumes the existence of the former.

Human life revolves around two realities: the reality of experiences and the reality of relationship. This is the difference between Thou and It. Usually humans are said to experience the world, but this is not entirely true since it is not experience alone that makes up human reality. The world is experienced, but when it is, the world has no part in the process—experience is something that human beings do, and in which the world passively participates: “AS EXPERIENCE, the world belongs to the primary word I—It” (13).

The world of relation, however, is different. It is made up of three different spheres: human life in relation to nature; human life in relation to other humans; human life in relation to spiritual creatures. To make relations to an object more clear, one can consider the manner in which a tree is considered. One can look at a tree “as a picture,” one can “perceive it as movement,” or “classify it in a species” (14). Further, one could “subdue its actual presence and form” or “dissipate it and perpetuate it in number” (14). One can speak of the tree as It, and abstract its qualities and think of it as an object, or one can speak of it as Thou, creating a relationship between the knower and the thing known.

When an object of sense experience is encountered and abstracted, it is an It (and not a Thou) thanks to the manner in which it is experienced. When a human being is encountered, however, they are encountered as a Thou: “IF I FACE A HUMAN BEING AS MY Thou, and say the primary word I—Thou to him, he is not a thing among things, and does not consist of things” (15). The unity of the human person, in all their qualities, is the one to whom the Thou is uttered. If that person is broken down into their individual qualities, they are made into an object to be experienced, and then must become It, He, or She. What is more, the self in fact comes to be in this encounter with another Thou: “I become through my relation to the Thou; as I become I, I say Thou” (17, emphasis added). It is a direct encounter, and thus a direct relation; nothing steps in the way and nothing steps into the middle, as with objects that are experienced.

In this encounter with the Thou, all that exists is the present since the encounter is direct and immediate; the past exists in the realm of objects and experience. Love also exists only with the Thou; feelings exist with objects and with experience, but love itself is truth (not a metaphor), and in this manner exists in the present and in immediate relation to the Thou. Hate, in comparison, is only possible when directed toward an It, and occurs when the I “finds himself unable to say the primary word to the other human being confronting him” (20). The fateful necessity of existence, however, is that every Thou is fated to become an It.

The nature of language proves that human relation is primary and always comes first. The language of “primitive” cultures shows this to be true, and the actions of newborn children confirm this assertion. Children are relational first of all, and recognize the other presented to them long before anything else, and it is in relation to the other that children then are able to form their own identity as I. Once this relation is established, the I—Thou relation, then the relation of I—It naturally follows; the I is able to be separated out, and the three primary words are then made available as a foundational cognitive concept. The infant who reaches outwards demonstrates this innate desire for the other as Thou, even the nascent struggle to acquire language is imbued with this movement: “Little, disjointed, meaningless sounds still go out persistently into the void. But one day, unforeseen, they will have become conversation” (27).

Ultimately, the person comes into their own as I in relation to the Thou whom they encounter, and then maturation comes with the additional knowledge of the It as an object sensed in the world that can be part of a creation or order that is brought out of what is discovered, or imposed on what can itself be ordered. The Thou is too complex, too immediate to be subject to the imposition of order; only the experienced It, which stands over and against the self, admits of a definability and malleability that can be given a structure from an extrinsic source.

For human beings, there is a twofold order that is continuously encountered and lived. First, humans perceive what exists and happens in their proximity. This experience is a true one, but it is not genuinely received; it is passively encountered, “but it does not give itself” (30). Secondly, humans come into contact with pure being, simple and undivided. This is what cannot be ordered or defined, and occurs in the moving edge of the present; space and time slip away in the presence of the Thou, they are only recognized when the It is itself recognized. In the encounter with the presence of the Thou, time ceases to be intelligible. While experience with the It is absolutely necessary, it is not the only thing necessary, for it is only the Thou that allows human beings to be genuinely themselves: “[W]ithout It man cannot live. But he who lives with It alone is not a man” (32).