The Schopenhauer Cure(77)

“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 ‘I-thou,’ fully present, caring relationship—as opposed to the ‘I-it’ encounter that neglects the ‘I-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 what that 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 ‘I-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 of you, personally, but of your method.”

“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 ask this 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 century B.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. ‘It is a joy for us,’ he says, ‘to 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 ‘why 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 ‘why 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 you got to be upset about this. And so what do you do? You come in here today and say to Julius: what’s your secret life? You want to knock him off his pedestal, level the playing ground. Same page?”