The article makes clear in a moving way that objectifying and analyzing existential philosophy is not sufficient to understand or live Buber’s philosophy. While I agree that no cognition about dialogue is sufficient to understand or live it, I believe that models, ideas, rational discussion, even typologies, technical understanding, are a necessary part of preparing therapists and patients for the possibility of dialogue.
There is some irony in an abstract discussion of Buber’s philosophy not making a place for abstract discussion. Purcell-Lee makes clear that abstract thought, systematization, spectator perspective, or objective thinking does not represent the IThou; abstract thought does not illuminate the mysteries of ontological need, nor does technique open the door to the “intangible sphere of Being." But he does not make clear whether he thinks there is any useful place at all for them in preparing for the IThou. In stating that “A genuine existentialist’s attitude need have nothing to do with objective knowledge at all,” he seems to be eliminating any role for knowledge, thought, experience, and so forth.
Clearly these processes that are not “Thou” are not sufficient, but are they necessary? The IThou connection does not necessarily depend on cognition or spoken word, but my experience is that it can be supported by cognition and/or the spoken word and that the effective dialogic psychotherapist must operate at this level in a manner that paves the way for true IThou dialogue when it is possible.
Buber was clear that dialogue in psychotherapy and education required the therapist to use professional methodology, tools and concepts. Of course, the dialogic therapist discards or transcends them when the relational situation of patient and therapist make it possible. In the Purcell-Lee article a therapy of “intention, prescription and non-egalitarian helping relationships” is contrasted with presence and grace. I would agree that a non-egalitarian therapy in which the therapist, or therapist and patient, prescribe an outcome is not dialogic. I prefer to say that in a relational or dialogic therapy the therapist neither aims for nor is attached to a particular outcome but rather is prepared to meet the person of the patient with his own personhood and trust whatever outcome emerges from that interaction. A real dialogue in therapy requires that the therapist give up control of the patient and the outcome, building support for real dialogue, and surrendering to what grace provides.
Is there a role in a dialogic therapeutic encounter for the “therapeutic use of immediacy or the self-conscious development of genuineness?” I believe that with awareness a therapist can commit to presence, move with will and determination into removing the barriers to immediacy and genuineness, and allow immediacy to organize his or her perception and response. This is not yet IThou, but it is a stance that may lead to IThou. With this commitment, true presence might happen. By combining genuine presence with the use of phenomenological methodology the therapist can make it possible for a true I-Thou connection to occur, for himself or herself, and for the patient to grow into being able to dialogue. Then a true IThou connection might happen in the psychotherapy situation.
Purcell-Lee correctly states that the “IThou relationship cannot be willed” and that it cannot take place “through my agency.” True. But I can, by will, make a commitment to dialogue, attend to barriers to genuineness, and barriers to presence. Presence cannot be entirely willed, but a commitment to it can be willed. I can clear my mind to be receptive before the encounter begins, I can work in my own therapy on countertranferential interferences, and so forth. It may not be enough, but it is necessary to do no less if dialogue is to be likely, or even possible in psychotherapy.
