emotional relationship—I`m not there to love my client. Instead I am an
intellectual guide. I offer my clients instruction in thinking more clearly
and living in accord with reason. Now, perhaps belatedly, I`m beginning
to understand what you`re aiming for—a Buber–like I–thou encounter...”
«Buber? Who?» asked Tony. «Hate to keep sounding like a jerk, but
I`m damned if I`m going to sit here and not know what`s going on.»
«Right on, Tony,” said Rebecca. «Every time you ask a question,
you`re doing it for me too. I don`t know who Buber is.»
Others nodded agreement. Stuart said, «I`ve heard the name—
something about» I–thou “—but that`s it.»
Pam jumped in: «Buber`s a German Jewish philosopher, died about
fifty years ago, whose work explores the true encounter between two
beings—the вЂI–thou,` fully present, caring relationship—as opposed to the
вЂI–it` encounter that neglects the вЂI–ness` of the other and uses rather than
relates. The idea has come up a lot here—what Philip did to me years ago
was to use me as an it.»
«Thanks, Pam, I got it,” said Tony, and then turned to Philip. «Are
we all on the same page?»
Philip looked at Tony in a quizzical manner.
«You don`t know whatthat means?» said Tony. «Gotta get you a
dictionary of twentieth–century talk. Don`t you ever turn on your TV?»
«I don`t have a TV,” said Philip in an even, nondefensive tone. «But
if you are asking, Tony, whether I agree with Pam`s response about Buber,
the answer is yes—I could not have said it as well.»
Julius was fascinated:Philip uttering Tony`s and Pam`s name?
Philip complimenting Pam? Were these merely evanescent events, or
might they be heralding a momentous change? How much he loved being
alive, Julius thought—alive in this group.
«You still got the floor, Philip. I interrupted you,” said Tony.
Philip continued, «So I was saying to Julius...I mean, I was saying
to you»—he turned to Julius—right?»
«Right, Philip,” Julius replied. «I think you`re going to be a fast
learner.»
«So,” Philip went on, speaking in the measured tone of a
mathematician, «First proposition: you wish to have an I–thou encounter
with each client. Second proposition: an вЂI–thou` consists of a fully
reciprocal relationship—by definition it cannot be a unilateral intimacy.
Third: in the last couple of meetings people here have revealed a lot about
themselves. Hence my entirely justifiable question to you: are you not
required to reciprocate?»
After a moment of silence Philip added, «So that`s the conundrum. I
intended only to observe how a counselor of your persuasion handles a
client`s request for parity.»
«So, your motivation is primarily a test of whether I`ll be consistent
in my approach?»
«Yes, not a test ofyou, personally, but of yourmethod. ”
«Okay, I appreciate your position that the question is in the service
of your intellectual understanding. Now just one further query and then I`ll
proceed to answer you. Why now? Why askthis particular question at this
particular time? ”
«First time it was possible. That was the first slight break in the
pace.»
«I`m not convinced. I think there`s more. Again,why now ?» Julius
repeated.
Philip shook his head in confusion. «This may not be what you`re
asking, but I`ve been thinking of a point Schopenhauer made to the effect
that there are few things that put people in a better humor than to hear of
another`s misfortune. Schopenhauer cites a poem of Lucretius»—«first
centuryB.C. Roman poet,” Philip said in an aside to Tony—«in which one
takes pleasure from standing on the seashore and watching others at sea
struggle with a terrible storm. вЂIt is a joy for us,` he says, вЂto observe evils
from which we are free.` Is this not one of the powerful forces taking
place in a therapy group?»
«That`s interesting, Philip,” said Julius. «But entirely off the point.
Let`s stay focused now on the question of вЂwhy now?`”
Philip still appeared confused.
«Let me help, Philip,” Julius prodded. «I`m belaboring this for a
reason—one which will provide a particularly clear illustration of the
differences between our two approaches. I`d suggest that the answer to
вЂwhy now?` is intimately related to your interpersonal issues. Let me
illustrate: can you summarize your experience in the last couple of
meetings?»
Silence. Philip appeared perplexed.
Tony said, «Seems pretty obvious to me, Professor.»
Philip looked at Tony with raised eyebrows. «Obvious?»
«Well, if you want it spelled it out, here it is: you enter this group
and make a lot of deep–sounding pronouncements. You pull some things
out of your philosophy bag that we all dig. Some people here think you`re
pretty wise—like Rebecca and Bonnie, for example. And me, too. You
supply all the answers. You`re a counselor yourself, and it looks like
you`re competing some with Julius. Same page?»
Tony looked questioningly at Philip, who nodded slightly,
indicating that he should continue.
«So here comes good ole Pam back, and what does she do? Pulls
your cover! Turns out you`ve got a messy past. Real messy. You`re not
Mister Clean after all. In fact you really fucked Pam over. You`re knocked
off your pedestal. Now yougot to be upset about this. And so what do you
do? You come in here today and say to Julius: what`syour secret life? You
want to knockhim off his pedestal, level the playing ground. Same page?»
Philip nodded slightly.
«That`s the way I see it. Hell, what else could it be?»
Philip fixed his eyes on Tony and responded, «Your observations
are not without merit.» He turned and addressed Julius: «Perhaps I owe
you an apology—Schopenhauer always warned against allowing our
subjective experience to contaminate objective observation.»
«And an apology to Pam? How about Pam?» asked Bonnie.
«Yes, I suppose. That too.» Philip glanced fleetingly in her
direction. Pam looked away.
When it became apparent that Pam had no intention of responding,
Julius said, «I`ll let Pam speak for herself at her own pace, Philip, but as
for me—no apology is necessary. The very reason you`re here is to
understand what you say and why you say it. And as for Tony`s
observations—I think they`re right on target.»
«Philip, I want to ask you something,” said Bonnie. «It`s a question
that Julius has asked me many times. «How`d you feel after you left the
meeting the last couple of sessions?»
«Not good. Distracted. Even agitated.»
«That`s what I imagined. I could see that,” said Bonnie. «Any
thoughts about Julius`s final comment to you last week—about being
given a gift by Stuart and Rebecca?»
«I didn`t think about that. I tried but just felt tense. Sometimes I fear
that all the strife and clamor here is a destructive distraction taking me
away from the pursuits I really value. All this focus on the past and on our
desires for change in the future only makes us forget the fundamental fact
that life is nothing but a present moment, which is forever vanishing. What
is the point of all this turmoil, given the ultimate destination of
everything?»
«I see what Tony means about you never having any fun. It`s so
bleak,” said Bonnie.
«I call it realism.»
«Well, go back to that bit about life being only a present moment,”
Bonnie insisted. «I`m just asking about the present moment—your present
response to being given a gift. Also, I`ve got a question about our