Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy’s Contextual, Relational ethics approach

‘I want

that I that is I

to stay

but where does it begin

this being-I?

at the place

where the I is like you

or there where the I is other than you?’1

1. Introduction

Contextual Therapy is a psycho-therapeutic approach developed by Ivan Boszormenyi Nagy,

a Hungarian psychiatrist. Whenever Nagy uses context in this approach, he means: “The

organic thread of giving and receiving that weaves the fabric of human reliance and

interdependence. The human context extends into a person’s current relationships as well as

into the past and future. It constitutes the sum of all the ledgers of fairness in which a person

is involved. Its dynamic criterion is rooted in due consideration, not in a mutuality of give

and take. Multidirected partiality, contextual therapy’s chief methodology, allows for an

inclusive scan of each person’s entire context of essential relationships” (Ivan Boszormeny-

Nagy/ Barbara R. Krasner 1986: 414).

I will describe the theory behind the Contextual approach in this chapter. It is important to

hold whatever is described here in tension with the idea of individuals seated at the same

table, so to speak, who are trying to give expression to the visible unity inherent in their

commitment to each other. In the conversation that takes place, there is no-one who can

remain impartial. Each person comes from a particular context which demands that they

answer with both loyalty and justice. It is a dynamic process and one which requires give and

take from each participant in a context of trust.

In this chapter, in addition some biographical background, I will also indicate how Nagy

distinguishes his relational ethic approach. Nagy, like anyone else involved in the therapeutic

field, listens to facts, to feelings and emotions and to people and situations and connections:

all aspects that are extremely important in any pastoral-therapeutic conversation. But Nagy

also introduces an ethical dimension to the above-mentioned aspects, and he looks for

balance. The concepts that I will describe are all in the service of this ethical dimension. In

the ethical dimension Nagy refers to “naar de diep menslijke waarde en nood aan

rechtvaardigheid en billijkheid in relaties. Wat hij met ethiek niet bedoeld, is dat men

oordelen uitspreek over wat wel goed of niet goed is in menslijke relaties. Het oordeel over

wat wel of niet goed is bij de mensen die sich tot elkaar verhouden, ligt bij henzelf. Alleen zij

kunnen in de dialoog met elkaar uitmaken wat wel of niet rechtvaardig is in hun onderlinge

verhouding. (Michielsen/in Mulligen/Hermkens, 2010:280) These concepts thus serve as

important lenses that the reader/therapist/pastor must put on in order to see a more fully

1 From: ‘Waar ek jy word’ Antjie Krog: 2009. Translation, 2009 Karen Press

coloured image of the interaction between the conversation partners.

2. Biographical background

Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy was born in Budapest, Hungary on 19 May 1920. He was the son of

liberal Roman Catholic parents (Meulink-Korf/van Rhijn 2005:10). His grandfather was a

philosopher; his father a lawyer, and there were many other lawyers in his extended family.

The question of rights and justice thus shaped much of the conversation that took place

around the dinner table. Ivan grew up during an era in Hungary where strong family ties

played a significant role: three generations lived under one roof in his home.

Intergenerational connectedness was thus a common thread that ran through his own life,

together with loyalty as a core value (Van Doorn 1996: 5). Ivan studied medicine and

psychiatry.

In 1948 he immigrated to Austria, and then to the United States of America (USA) in 1950.

He became particularly interested in the diagnosis of people suffering from Schizophrenia.

Their plight really touched him, and he wanted his research to do something to alleviate their

suffering. Influenced largely by Kalman Gyarfas, a fellow Hungarian who was also in the

USA, Ivan paid particular attention to the relationships in which psychiatric patients found

themselves. Nagy, together with his likeminded colleagues, developed the notion of

community health. Ronald Fairbairn (1889-1964) had a particularly significant influence on

Nagy’s thinking.

In the post-Freudian era, increasing emphasis was being put on the therapeutic value

contained in the connectedness between one individual and another. Nagy was one of the

first to focus on the influence which interpersonal relationships had on the family (ibid,

2005:11). He, together with a few colleagues, began to involve family members in a patient’s

therapeutic care. They quickly realised that they could not limit this involvement just to the

patient’s nuclear family. They also needed to explore the interactions of previous generations,

and how this impacted on the patient. Thus was birthed the notion of the extended family

over multiple generations (ibid, 2005:11). Figure 1 illustrates how no person is an island.

S/he stands in relationship of connectedness with generations from the past, the present and

the future.

Fig 1

3. No person is an island

It is important to understand what Nagy means by contextual and relational ethics.

3.1 Contextual

No person exists as an isolated unit in relation to the world. No-one simply is, without an

address from the past. Each person is a son or a daughter of a mother and a father. Each

person is connected, and thus s/he is always in the plural (see Fig 2). Similarly, parents also

have an address: they are also the son or the daughter of a father and a mother. In this way

every single human being is linked by vertical threads to previous generations.

Fig 2

This is an existential connectedness which no-one can undo. Nagy writes: “My father will

always remain my father, even though he is dead and his burial ground is thousands of miles

away. He and I are two consecutive links in a genetic chain with a lifespan of millions of

years. My existence is unthinkable without his” (ibid, 1986:3). This is what Nagy means by

contextual. He is not referring to the situational context. In terms of Nagy’s therapy,

contextual has nothing to do with where you are positioned in relationship to a particular city

or country or continent. Rather, contextual refers to the place where your thread is woven

into the tapestry of loyalty to those with whom you are connected. Thus within this network

the question is: how are you caring for those with whom you are connected, and how are you

being cared for by others in this network? One listens for the voices of those who are

trustworthy, and to one’s trustworthiness towards others. Contextual has to do with the

existential love and pain that exists between people who are connected to each other, and how

this is manifested.

3.2 Relational ethic

Nagy’s psychotherapeutic focus is on the family, but also on the family system that is larger

than the family (ibid, 2005:24). He searches for small jewels of hope (see Fig 3). For

instance, what prompts someone to choose a direction diametrically opposed to the one s/he

has received – or not received – from his/her family of origin? What motivates someone to

behave in an unexpected way that enables him to break free from an oppressive situation

which is against his self-interests and with no prospects of a future? It would appear that

within the reality of our daily lives a space exists in which every person can make free and

responsible choices: we are not confined to a closed and predictable system.

Fig 3

Nagy is particularly interested in the gap that opens up in the midst of a seemingly closed

situation. He calls this gap the relational ethic. For Nagy, this does not mean some kind of

dogma or morality that is forced on the individual from outside, but the relational ethic refers

an intrinsic justice that is determined by a dynamic balance of give and take within important

existential relationships (see Fig 4). “People use each other, are used by each other, and

accept or fight against particular usage of each other. This is the essence of close

relationships. Relationships can be trustworthy as long as the partners’ use of each other is

multilateral and equitable. The notion of ethics here is rooted in the ontology of the

fundamental nature of living creatures, i.e., life is received from forbears and conveyed to

posterity. Life is a chain of interlocking consequences linked to the interdependence of the

parent and child generations. In human beings, relational ethics require people to assume

responsibility for consequences. But consequence per se constitute unavoidable, existential

reality” (ibid, 1986:420).

Fig 4

This ethical perspective is not predictable, nor is anyone predestined. The ultimate destination

of all people – and thus the motivation of each individual – is the search for balance. Such

balance is never static; it is always dynamic, and it constantly being placed on the scale by

each party. The needle oscillates - little bit more… a little bit less… first by you and then by

the other. Balance is that fine point in the midst of constant motion (see Fig 5).

Fig 5

Nagy’s unique and particular contribution to psychotherapy is the concept relational ethic -

an ethical perspective that is not a closed system but stands open to the future. Practising

this ethic not only requires sensitive listening to the other, but also the recognition that you

are not only receiving the narrative given to you by this person but, in a certain sense, you are

also in conversation with everyone else who is in conversation with this other (see Fig 6).

Thus this calls for more than an empathetic and sympathetic listening stance from you; it also

calls for more than unconditional love of your neighbour. A relational ethic requires the

attitude of multidirected partiality (ibid, 2005: 27).

Fig 6

What is particularly important about this approach is that Nagy is not focused on what is

making the system sick. He does not ask about pathology, look for symptoms or try to

identify scapegoats or victims. His focus is on the sources of trust that are given and received

within the intimate circle. He asks: How can a person be a subject, in the midst of other

subjects? “…the most important dimension of close relationship systems evolves from the

multigenerational balance sheet of merit and indebtedness” (ibid, 1986:8). He then focuses

on the fibres, those individual threads, and searches for how each is expressed in words and is

ultimately understood. Thus the approach is not so much about unmasking who does the

least, but rather to understand each person in the midst of the others that together make up the

fibres of the tapestry (ibid, 2005: 16)

What makes this approach particularly special is that each person is positioned against the

backdrop of his/her family of origin. In his/her voice you will also hear – or not hear - the

voices of their significant others. In this way one can look at each other with ‘softer’ eyes,

and can listen to the ways in which you say what you say, and do what you do. To whom are

you loyal? Etc.

Throughout his approach, Nagy uses concepts such as loyalty, justice, fairness, balance, debit

and credit, guilt, exoneration, legacy and de-legacy and revolving slates etc. These concepts

will be described later in the chapter.

4. Contextual Perspective: four dimensions

If context is thus understood as the dynamic connectedness of a person with significant others

within different generations, it is then possible to distinguish four dimensions within this

network of relationships (ibid, 2010:19). You will need four different lenses to see these

differences: “The four dimensions represent relational paradigms. Each of the paradigms

contains a valid realm of understanding and inquiry into relational reality. Knowledge of the

basic premises of relational reality is a precondition to a therapist’s ability to mobilize hidden

relational resources, the core of contextual therapy. It provides guidelines for therapy that

include a concern for individuals and their relating partners. The impact that their origins and

transactions have had on them, their behaviour and their relationships; the real and potential

consequences of each person’s impact on posterity; and the existential conflicts that are

intrinsic to interpersonal relationship” (ibid, 1986:44).

4.1 The first dimension: the facts (see Fig 7)

Fig 7

When you listen to the life story of someone, the first thing that you will hear is the

biographical information. Where s/he was born, went to school and whether s/he did any

further study or not. You will hear about events such as work promotions or retrenchments

or land dispossession. You will take note of milestones such as marriages, birth of children,

the death of parents. You will be told of illnesses, or perhaps natural occurrences such as

earthquakes or floods, economic depressions or wars. Events such as the battle of Andringa

Street or the Soweto Uprising in 1976 (Stellenbosch). These stories are not limited to this

particular generation, but also embrace those stories that have been told and heard by

previous generations. It gradually becomes clear how something that happens in a parent’s

life will have consequences for the children, and quite probably for their children in turn

(ibid, 2010: 20).

But the process of probing the facts will not yield a complete picture for the therapist or the

observer. Facts are not simply loose fragments that can be placed alongside one another to

yield a clear picture of the person in front of you. And yet facts remain of great importance,

and can easily be avoided, but then you will lose something of that person. Facts are

experiences that have taken place in the past. They are part of a person’s story, and the

impact on the person will be dealt with in the subsequent dimensions. They are thus

incontestable parts of a person’s relational reality. But one can already begin to get some

insight into the dynamic balance of credit and liability. It is particularly important for Nagy

that this should not be seen as some kind of deterministic power that shifts the individual

around like a pawn. Nobody has to be a victim of what happened in the past. The future

stands open. ‘De eerste dimensie kun je beschrijven asl een zakelijke nuchtere optiek die naar

onze evaring extra waardevol is omdat hulpverleners maar ook pastores deze ‘basale’ manier

van kijken en denken wel eens dreigen over te slaan’ (ibid, 2005:19).

4.2 The second dimension: individual psychology

Fig 8

As one listens to a person’s life story, how the world of facts have impacted the person

himself gradually begins to unfold. Here we are dealing in the area of affects and emotions

and passions and needs. What you are hearing is the consequences of the facts on someone’s

development, his self-image and his social adaptability. How does he feel about himself?

What does he think about himself? How does he experience himself (ibid, 2010:21). In the

second dimension we are also investigating our defence mechanisms, our fantasy life, our

opinions and conduct. Various psychodynamic models can be useful here, and Nagy made

selective use of these. But for Nagy, psychology was not enough. He thus did not centralize

psychology, but enriched it with his understanding of interpersonal reality.

4.3 The third dimension: the interactional and the transactional (Fig 9)

Fig 9

Nagy calls this third dimension the systemic approach (from systems theory), a domain

clearly guided by the classical tenets of systems and systemic family therapy. The

connections between a particular group of people is more than the sum of their individual

psychological realities. There are interactions that take place within this group that influence

mutual behaviour and which form clear patterns of communication (ibid, 2005:23). Each

group has a unique dynamic between its members, and their interactions take place according

to their own ‘rules of the game’. The third dimension embraces the individuals’ observable

behaviour and mutual conversation. It reveals where each individual positions him/herself

within the system. It also has to do with the way the roles are allocated, and with sub systems:

who sides with whom, and who stands against whom; coalitions and alliances; power and

labelling. Within this system, each member is in motion relative to the other, and each one

contributes to the balance (homeostasis) within the system. In a certain sense this makes it a

safe space. But the opposite can also be true. The rules of the game can become rigid, and

thus incapable of adapting to changing times. This can have an inhibitory impact and can

contribute towards a dysfunctional system. What happens then?

4.4 The fourth dimension: the relational ethic (Fig 10)

One cannot answer this question simply by looking at the bare facts (the lifespan of the

person); or the psychic equilibrium of each individual (emotional balance); or the

transactional conduct within the mutual dynamic of the group (survival of the group). If there

is to be therapeutic help given to an individual, then Nagy does not choose between an

intrapsychic approach over against an interactional one, or vice versa, but opts for both/and.

Nagy regards any approach that attempts to stand as an observer of the dynamics provided by

the framework of the first three approaches – as if one could predict or ‘diagnose’ an

individual’s behaviour – as an oppressive, closed system (ibid, 2005:25) In order to escape

from this, Nagy looked for a fourth dimension that could place the individual’s freedom and

responsibility alongside the facts and the emotional and the transactional domain – a

dimension that embraces rather than cancels out the first three. It cannot, because it is a given

and thus inseparable from each other: “In sum, the four dimensions of the relational context

indicate that contextual therapy integrates rather than opposes the spectrum of valid

therapeutic approaches and methods. Though its guiding consideration relies on Dimension

four – the Ethic of Due Consideration: Merited Trust – it accommodates considerations and

methods based on the other three dimensions.” (ibid, 1986:47)

Fig 10

Nagy was particularly inspired by the philosopher Martin Buber’s concept of “I and Thou”

(1922). He called the fourth dimension – which includes the first three dimensions - the

dimension of the relational ethic. Buber discovered that the unique interaction that takes

place between individuals through dialogue provided the gap necessary to ‘escape’

particularly from the second and third dimensions (Buber: see Chapter 3).

Fig 11

In the ethical dimension you are thus fundamentally conscious of the other (Fig 11). If

something is to go wrong between people it is precisely at this point that it will go wrong.

This is where concepts such as trustworthiness, rights and merits and loyalties come into

play. The second and third dimensions help us to understand people. But it requires the

fourth dimension to motivate people to change. A person’s participation in relationships is

deeply influenced by what is right and fair (ibid 2010:23). ‘het etische is niet een toevoegsel

aan het naruurlijk (natuurlik?) of feitelijk gegevene, maar datgenee waardoor mense temidden

van feiten, driften, gevoelens en interacties ten diepste worden gemotiveerd’. (Meulink/van

Rhyn 2005:25). For Nagy, the relational ethic has to do with the justice within existential

relationships. The spotlight thus falls on the balance between what given and what is received

within relationships not only within families, but also to a large extent within the ‘invisible

big book’- the ledger - in which a record of the balance of credits and debits between the

individuals is kept. Here one finds a dynamic present that can act as a fulcrum to bring about

improvements for the future or the opposite – the continuation of destructive patterns of

relationship. This dynamic interested Nagy, and thus his focus on the relational ethic.

People have a responsibility towards each other. This is a communication event – a word and

a response – and whoever ignores this will cause an imbalance in any relationship. This holds

true even for a child. Nagy thus introduces ethics into psychotherapy (ibid, 2010:23), and

works mainly from this dimension. It is within the relational ethic that one can detect the

traces of shortfalls within relationships, and how these could possibly be restored through

weaving new connections between the fibres and threads of the fabric: “trying to understand

people’s motives for action, we consider the first three dimensions: material facts,

psychological needs, and transactional ‘game plans.’ Yet, another often decisive factor

remains: justification. Justification includes consideration of all three other dimensions but it

adds a new, fourth social reality” (ibid, 1986:57).

5. The Relational Perspective: Trustworthiness

Within the network of relationships between people, relationships derive their value and

meaning according to the fairness of the relationship. We have already mentioned that this

has to do with the balance between give and take, but it goes even further to include

appropriate give and take (see Fig 12). “Trustworthiness accrues on the side of the reliable,

responsible, duly considerate partner in a relationship and is a characteristic of realistic,

deserved trust. From an ethical perspective, trustworthiness is always earned over the long-

term by balancing the consequences of give and take between two relatively reliable

partners” (ibid, 1986:422).

Within the dynamics of the give and take of relationships, there are times when there are

shortfalls: those who feel that they have been deprived – or so they think – by those who

seem to have experienced abundance or sufficiency. How things happen within the

relationship differs from relationship to relationship: a kind of reflexivity takes place.

Fig 12

This reciprocity has a triadic character. It is not a question of:‘I give to you so that you will

give to me’ as much as: ‘I give because it has been given to me … by you or by

another/Other.’ The content of what has been given can be care – like that of a mother – or

security – like that given by a father. It can also be significant – existential ethics. Something

is given because the other has given it and, because the other has given it, s/he makes me

indebted. S/he expects something in return, and thus I give back (ibid, 2005: 26). The events

contain in themselves the source of hope for healing through the gift of trustworthiness.

Nagy regards this as the third element in an ethical triadic structure.

Nagy regards this as dialogue. But such dialogue is not just the rattling off of words, but

rather the search for justice and fairness between people who want to draw alongside each

other. What happens in this dialogue is not necessarily only verbal - it can also be non-verbal

– but it has to do with credits and debits between them. This is where the unpredictability

lies for Nagy, and this is what distinguishes the ethical perspective. The balance between give

and take is always in motion. Thus the balancing is continually in motion (see Fig 13) as

well as the possibility for dialogue to restore what has been damaged.

Fig 13

The distinction between humans and animals is the knowledge that I am committed to the

other and that the other is committed to me. For Nagy, ethics is not something that has been

added on, but is fundamentally present. He regards ethics as an existential, universal human

given, based on an honest division of rights and responsibilities in the dynamic movement

between people (van Doorn, 1996:13).

For the purposes of this study one could take as an example the situation that existed in South

Africa during Apartheid, in particular the way in which the Dutch Reformed Church was

divided into separate churches for each race. For many years the white DR Church was

known as the ‘mother church’ and the DR Mission church (Coloured), the DR Church in

Africa (Black) and the Reformed Church in Africa (Indian) as ‘daughter churches’. It has

only been since the late 1970s that this situation changed, and reference was made to the

‘family of DR Churches’ – although they were still separated on the grounds of colour. From

a relational ethics perspective, it is inevitable that the effects of these distinctions between

members - together with the labelling and positioning that ensued - would filter through to

the transactional dimension and influence it. Naturally, one also wonders about the

psychological effect on members and how these divisions touched them emotionally – thus

the psychic dimension. But it would also place the facts – the first dimension – under

pressure. The DRC in South Africa was originally a community that worshiped together until

the decision taken in 1857 that opened up the space for separate communities to be

established. The reality of these divisions – and their effects – is something that will be felt be

the next generation, and the next and the next (see Fig 14).

Fig 14

Nagy’s focus was always on subsequent generations. The destructive cycle must be

interrupted by sticking the proverbial spanner in the works. This spanner is symbolised in the

encounter between parties and the dialogue that accompanies this encounter (see Chapter 4)

or, to use Nagy’s well-known adage: “We benefit from the past; we owe to the future.”

5.1 Concepts as guideposts to trustworthiness

Nagy’s theory makes use of core concepts in which one can hear something of the legacy

from his own family background. He was thus influenced contextually (ibid, 1996, 14). The

concepts he uses are mostly reminiscent of the vocabulary of the legal world, nor is this

strange, coming as he did from a family of lawyers and advocates. The concepts all have to

do with the search for and motivating towards the restoration of violated human justice. Nagy

considers it very important that each individual achieves his/her rights because he/she has

been treated fairly. Naturally it is important first to be aware of who steps towards each other

in the relationship, who stands on the receiving end and who is on the giving side, who is

debited and who profits, and who is trustworthy.

Ivan Nagy’s most important publications are: Invisible Loyalties, published in 1973 in

collaboration with Geraldine Spark, a social worker and family therapist; Between Give and

Take, published in 1986 together with Barbara Krasner, a psychotherapist and philosopher;

and Foundations of contextual therapy – Collected papers (1987).

I will deal with the following concepts: loyalty; credits/merits and debits; legacy and de-

legacy; Justice; multidirected partiality; guilt, guilt feelings and exoneration; self-

delimitation; trustworthiness.

5.1.1 Loyalty (see Fig 15)

Fig 15

There is an unbreakable and lifelong bond between parents and children. It is relational

existence that cannot be chosen and which serves as a life-giving orientation point. You can

never be disloyal to your parents. This is not something external, but in your blood, and

intrinsically given. The connection between parents and children exists, and cannot be

broken, although it can be denied. Loyalty is thus not a feeling, but a synsgegewe. Nagy

writes: “Conventionally it has been described as a reliable, positive attitude of individuals

towards what has been called the ‘object’ of loyalty. The multipersonal loyalty fabric, on the

other hand, implies the existence of structured group expectations to which all members are

committed. In this sense loyalty pertains to what Buber called ‘the order of the human

world’. Its frame of reference is trust, merit, commitment and action, rather than the

‘psychological’ functions of ‘feeling’ and ‘knowing’” (ibid, 1984:37). Loyalty is thus

completely within the dimension of relational ethics.

In the asymmetrical relationship between parents and child it could be illustrated as follows:

Parents care for the child: this is their responsibility firstly because they have conceived the

child. The child may, on the grounds of his/her existence, make claims upon them for love,

care and education. Through providing for these claims in a responsible manner, parents

deserve even more loyalty from the child. Thus, in addition to the existential loyalty, the

parents achieve even more loyalty. The opposite is also true: namely, if the parents who

conceived the child do not care for him/her and fall short of his/her just claims, then the

child’s loyalty towards his/her parents will be placed under enormous pressure. “Loyalty

pertains to what Buber called ‘the order of the human world’. Its frame of reference is trust,

merit, commitment, and action rather than the psychological functions of ‘feeling’ and

‘knowing’” (ibid, 1986:37).

5.1.2 Conflict of loyalties

When children are placed in the care of those other than blood relatives, it is likely that the

child will be torn in two whenever his existential loyalty (parents) and the acquired loyalty

(his caregivers) are placed opposite each other. Conflict of loyalties becomes the order of the

day (see Fig 16). “…. Loyalty commitments are like invisible but strong fibres which hold

together complex pieces of relationship ‘behaviour’ in families as well as in larger society.

To understand the functions of a group of people, nothing is more crucial than to know who

are bound together in loyalty and what loyalty means for them. Each person maintains a

bookkeeping of his perception of the balances of past, present and future give and take” (ibid,

1984:39).

Fig 16

Nagy makes a clear distinction between vertical and horizontal loyalty. Grandparents,

parents and children are connected to each other by an asymmetrical vertical loyalty. It is thus

intergeneration and irreversible. This means that in the first place the child is justified in

receiving more than s/he gives in the balance, while the parents are responsible for giving

more than the child. The choice between individuals within the same generation (friends,

partners, colleagues etc.) is horizontal loyalty: this loyalty is symmetrical and reflexive. Both

parties carry just as much responsibility for a fair balance: this connection is reversible.

Whenever new relationships come into existence, there is an encounter between the vertical

and horizontal loyalties. Any relationship that exists – whether it be within families,

friendship circles, colleagues or church networks – bring about new expectations and duties

that intersect with the vertical loyalties that are already in existence (ibid, 1996:15). The

challenge in this connection is to have the skills to invest again in the balance of loyalties in

such a way that each person can continue in freedom. We speak of a conflict of loyalties

whenever that balance is not achieved successfully.

Conflicts of loyalty are a given within the daily lives of every individual, both in the way

he/she cares for those who share the gift of life and also in the care of self. Conflicts of

loyalty are thus not something we must try to escape, but should rather be seen as an

opportunity to search together for a balance between given and take within our connections

with each other.

Conflicts of loyalty frequently play a role in the work environment. One can also imagine the

extent to which conflicts of loyalty are at work in relationships within the church, especially

in South Africa. What goes on around the church and with the church in each person’s home

of origin? What is taught, what is spoken about, what is modelled by the parents? What

happens when we then introduce the horizontal loyalty with regards to the cultural group,

race, or friendship circle? Thus any conversation about the church and its unity in our country

needs to be a sensitive space where personal loyalties can be expressed. The question needs

to be asked: If you support this proposal, whose beliefs will you be honouring and against

which will you be disloyal?

Nagy writes about the connection between himself and his father, and its impact on him as

follows: “… his person imprinted an indelible mark on my personality during the critical

stages of emotional growth. Even when I rebelled against all that he stood for, my emphatic

‘no’ only further confirmed my emotional involvement with him. He was obligated to me, his

son, and subsequently, I have become existentially indebted to him” (ibid, 1984:3).

Whenever the situation is of such a nature that it is impossible to be open about personal

loyalties, then we need to find ways in which it can be done in an unconscious, invisible way

(see Fig 17). This immediately places an inhibitory weight on the relationship which is now

no longer reflexive. Frequently the frustration of this skewed relationship spills over onto an

innocent third party.

Fig 17

Any new situation or change brings vertical and horizontal loyalties alongside each other –

even conflicts between both. It is understandable how a choice or decision that does not

concur with what has been given and received in the family of origin could cause feelings of

disloyalty. But behaving differently from your parents does not necessarily mean that you are

disloyal: it could even mean that you are being appropriately loyal to them. This is why Nagy

emphasises the importance of dialogue. (Chapter 3)

There is also the concept of split loyalty. This occurs in a family when the parents are going

through a divorce and the child is given the choice as to where s/he would like to live. It

might involve the parents playing off each other in front of the child, thus placing pressure on

the child to make the choice. They are behaving in this way in order to win the child’s favour.

The child stands with one leg on the father’s side, and the other on the mother’s and, as the

gap between the two increases, the child is literally forced into a ‘split –relation’. This

splitting of loyalties is also possible in horizontal relationships, such as friendships, and even

within the church.

It is thus clear that within the domain of a contextual approach there is the concern not to

judge any situation only on what is seen and heard on the first level. Such a leisurely, patient

and respectful approach requires that one listens to the manifestations of various threads

(loyalties) that are present within each individual’s network. This is important, precisely

because each individual is an exponent derived from a family in which there are inseparable

hereditary properties. This communal inheritance comes from previous generations and

frequently is made up of unwritten and unspoken expectations, family rules and even family

myths. Nagy calls this a legacy.

5.1.3 Legacy (See Fig 18)

Fig 18

A legacy is the ethical obligation to take the inheritance received from previous generations,

and to integrate it into the present in such a way that it can make a constructive contribution

to future generations (ibid, 2010:29). The legacy functions as a bridge between the past, the

present and the future. The same holds true for the opposite of a legacy: a de-legacy. This

occurs when the preferences or beliefs about what is important for one generation (parents)

weigh heavier than those of the yet uncultivated potential of the next generation (children).

These are then unconsciously projected onto the children as expectations to be fulfilled,

thereby shifting what is of importance to the children into the background, and bringing the

parents’ to the fore.

Nagy considers the following factors, besides race and gender, as having a progressive or

retarding effect from generation to generation:

Biological- and blood relationships

A divided family history, which brings both acquired assets and liabilities from a

previous generation

Traditions, faith traditions, norms and values, beliefs around justice, the

arrangements and rules of the family system, and roles etc. that have been passed

down from previous generations

The conservation and continuation of life (procreation) (ibid, 1996:21)

A legacy is like a baton that is passed from one generation to the next, with the expectation

that it will be passed on to the following generation. This can contain great blessings and

securities – one only has to think of family traditions.

Nevertheless, the content of a legacy can also be accompanied by expectations that pressurize

and can even be experienced as a burden. One immediately thinks of children who have been

adopted and raised by a couple who are not their biological parents. Or children from broken

marriages. Or of children who were raised in extreme poverty during the Depression or

during World War II. Or of that generation that was born during the height of the Apartheid

era after 1948, whose parents were supporters of the National Party (Nats), or the United

Party (SAPS) or the African National Congress (ANC) or the Pan African Congress (PAC) or

the United Democratic Front (UDF). Think of those children whose parents were part of the

Soweto Uprising of 1976, and those who were born after the fall of Apartheid in 1994 and the

birth of the Rainbow Nation. Think of children whose parents have been imprisoned; children

of alcoholics; children of rapists; children who do not know who their father is. A child has

to integrate all this into his/her network. “zij krijgen vaak de rekening gepresenteerd die ten

laste zou moeten komen aan het voorgaande geslacht en worden zo letterlijke kinderen van de

rekening” (ibid, 1996:21).

This does not necessarily mean that children are doomed or condemned to go through life

like a robot. One can also learn from a legacy, and grow and change in remarkable ways.

Once one has understood what the legacy entails, one can also make adjustments for future

generations. The value of becoming conscious about this is precisely because the new

generation can take what has been passed on to them from a previous generation and use it in

new, transformative ways. In this way the future of the new generation can be strengthened

by the past. Thus a legacy can also be seen as the key that opens the door to the future. This

brings us to the heart of Nagy’s contextual approach. He places great emphasis on the future

and on subsequent generations. He is serious about the fact that there is no generation in

which things have only gone right. In his approach he does not focus only on the

shortcomings in relationships, but is always tuned in to the importance of the other. This is

where the chance that it can be different is discovered. He looks for what will bring hope …

what will open up the future… the unborn generation.

5.1.4 Assets and Liabilities (Fig 19)

Fig 19

A just/ fair relationship is a one in which in the long term there is a balance kept between

what is invested in a relationship and what is received from another in terms of the

relationship. It is a relationship in which an account is kept of my needs, and in which I keep

an account of the needs of the other. There is reciprocity: I am trusted to give what I need to,

but the other is also trustworthy in giving what is due to me. We have already referred to

Nagy’s Big Book (ledger) of ‘merits and credits’.

Nagy writes: “entitlement is a key concept of contextual therapy. It is an ethical ‘guarantee’

that can arise only within a relationship and which can accumulate merit on the side of a

deserving contributor. Constructive entitlement, the result of continuing to care about

earning entitlement, and destructive (or vindictive) entitlement, (See Fig 20) the result of

refusing to care about earning entitlement, are two opposing kinds of clinical consequences.”

(ibid, 1986:416)

Fig 20

The needle of the scale is always in motion, and never static. It is not so much that what has

been given must be evenly balanced in return. The situation is always changing; each person

gives what s/he is able, according to his/her ability at that time. Sometimes you have to give

more, and sometimes less. In the parent-child relationship, the parent initially gives more than

the child. This does not mean that the child does not give at all. But where the right of the

child to give is not noticed, then this can have two consequences: the child remains indebted

to the parent; and the parent takes up a position of giving more than what is asked for,

thereby depriving the child of the right to give. Where recognition is given to the child’s

contribution of giving, then the child receives the right to exist, thereby balancing out the

movement in the relationship.

This is one of the refreshing insights of the contextual approach. By becoming involved in

the care of others, you earn the right to be cared for by others. This is referred to as ‘entitled

claims or merits’ (See Fig 21). It can be painful when you have given something, but what

you have given is not noticed. Any recognition contributes to self-worth, and this is

particularly valuable in your relationships with others. It creates the possibility of self-

delimitation: you are able to say “Yes” to others, and to give appropriately; but you are also

able to say “No” on certain occasions because you value yourself. Obviously this is always

done while keeping the other in mind.

Fig 21

A positive spiral of mutual trust develops where there is appropriate giving and appropriate

receiving: trust given and acknowledgement received for that trust (ibid, 2010: 27). It is

particularly important here to introduce another concept used in the contextual approach:

parentification.

5.1.5 Parentification (see Fig 22)

A child is entitled to trustworthy parenting – an appropriate balance of give and take in the

parent/child relationship. Parentification occurs when a parent expects a child to give more

care to the parent than the child is capable of giving. If this care is not acknowledged by the

parent, then the parent/child roles are reversed: the child cares more for the parent than the

parent cares for the child. This does not necessarily have to be negative. But if the trust that

the child deserves to be given is not returned with trust, then this is known as destructive

entitlement / justice. “In consequence a child is justified in seeing the adult world as his

debtor. He is in no position to make the world own up to his debt, however. Worse is any

attempt the child might make at a later, substitutive vindication of his rights. For here the

child (or grown up) becomes the source of new injustice” (ibid, 1986:415).

Fig 22

In this way parentification of a child can cause that child to grow up distrusting others: s/he

believes that the debt owed by his/her parents should be settled, and thus seeks revenge on

others in ways that can be destructive to all his/her relationships. Nagy refers to this process

as the revolving slate: the adult child “pays back” the debt owed to him by his parents

through destructive actions, either to self or to others. Destructive entitlement can manifest

itself in two ways - either to choose not to give or to choose not to receive – and both will

have a stagnating effect on any relationship. Such a person neither notices his/her own

destructive behaviour, nor opens up space for another to restore the balance. While the

reality is that this debt is often passed on to subsequent generations (see Fig 23), it can also

be restored. The very fact that this injustice is acknowledged can enable the person to decide

to break the negative spiral and to respond differently towards himself, his children and

subsequent generations (ibid, 2010:29).

Fig 23

In his contextual approach, Nagy believes that it is extremely important to look for relational

resources that can be used to redress the imbalance that has been caused by injustice, thereby

strengthening those involved in a positive way. Nagy calls this resource trustworthiness, but

understood in a relational ethics way rather than psychologically (ibid 1996:25). Following

Buber (Chapter 3), Nagy emphasised the importance of trust in the encounter between the

relevant parties, and thus focused attention on mobilising all possible sources of trust (see Fig

24). He first tries to enable the parties to get some understanding of the injustice that has

been done, and ultimately to give acknowledgement of the suffering this has caused to the

person concerned. He also helps the parties to look for tiny jewels of hope – those occasions

on which the person concerned had received care, however small, and where s/he had been

able to give care. Nagy is committed throughout to the search for trustworthiness as the most

important resource for the restoration of genuine dialogue.

Fig 24

In this way the negative spiral of distrust is reversed in the direction of a constructive future

(ibid, 1996:20). This can enable individuals to risk investing trust in relationships, not just to

safeguard themselves but also to open up space for the needs of others, and to be able to stand

up for his/her own needs.

5.1.6 Guilt, guilt feelings and exoneration

Nagy’s relational ethic is concerned with trustworthiness and justice. Trustworthiness is

regarded as that which emerges in the balance between give and take. Through giving, you

deserve trust, and through receiving you acknowledge the trustworthiness of the other. Thus

each of us are born within a context in which at times we are justified in receiving and at

others we are obliged to give. This is an ongoing process in a life of commitment to

relationship. This requires continual sensitivity regarding when to give and when to receive;

when to be focused on your own needs, and when to notice and acknowledge the needs of

others. If this process of give and take is thus central to relational justice, then we also need to

make space for something that damages this, namely the phenomenon of guilt and guilt

feelings.

Within a contextual approach, true guilt exists when I am not prepared to pay attention to the

need to give to the legitimate demands of the world and the world on me. This is linked to

the choices I make as an individual in terms of my connectedness to the people around me.

For instance, I might take myself as the point of orientation, and do not pay much attention to

the expectations and feelings of others. Or vice versa: I do not pay sufficient attention to my

expectations and feelings in relationship to those around me, thereby not giving myself

sufficient acknowledgement as a valuable part of the encounter. Life challenges us to make a

conscious contribution to a process of reciprocal give and take (ibid, 2010:6). This

reciprocity is balanced on a knife-edge: to be able to hear ‘your’ truth but also to remain

faithful to ‘my’ truth and to be able to articulate this.

According to Nagy, true guilt exists when something has actually happened: one part has

behaved towards another in such a way that has left the other feeling vulnerable and hurt. Just

as we can speak of a relationship that feeds, cares and builds up, we can also speak of a

relationship that wounds and breaks down. When this happens, the order of our humanity is

violated (Buber – Chapter 3). Nagy asserts that it is important for the account of guilt to be

settled. This guilt does not only rest with the person, but in the transaction that has disturbed

the order – namely, in the relational reality. This is why it is important that the account be

settled, and thus can only occur when the person who has damaged the relationship is

involved in the process of healing. Guilt is existential – it is part of the natural order of

humanity – and thus cannot be localised to a feeling. Guilt feelings involve the anxious fear

of being caught, of being rejected, thereby damaging one’s sense of self-worth or self-image.

But true guilt is the honest acknowledgement and recognition that the order has been

damaged through one’s actions.

This raises questions around the notion of punishment. Nagy had difficulty accepting that

any punishment that did not fit the debt that was incurred would be able to restore the

damaged order. Punishment had more to do with addressing the sense of injustice (ibid,

1996:29), but did not address the damage done: what the person had broken still remained.

How should we deal with a guilty party? Is acknowledgement and the consequent acceptance

of the acknowledgement by offering forgiveness for the transgression what is being asked for

here?

Acknowledgement of guilt requires more than mere words. Acknowledging guilt means

addressing the existential guilt – an acknowledgement that will involve grieving what has

happened and what has been broken. The forgiveness that accompanies such a process is also

not something that happens quickly or can easily be spoken. Any forgiveness that does not

break through to the core issue that has damaged the order of humanity will not be sufficient

to restore that damaged humanity (ibid, 1996:29). The one that has been damaged must also

be made un-guilty.

Note the potential for power play involved this process. The transgressor confesses his

transgression – something that has arisen out of the power relation (self-created) over the

other. The one who is on the receiving end of the deed offers forgiveness. The person who

has damaged the order of humanity is thus the one who should forgive. The person who has

committed the deed is not in the position to forgive. This lies with the one who has damaged

the order. Forgiveness depends on the generosity of the forgiver (ibid, 1996:29). Now the

power rests with him/her. Forgiveness in itself does not lead to a balance in the relationship,

but rather to a reversal of power, thereby leaving the situation in the domain of guilt feelings.

The tragedy is that there has been no true encounter and even less attention given to the

process of making the guilty party un-guilty. He has not been set free from his guilt. (Fig 25)

Fig 25

When Nagy makes use of the concept of guilt and ‘forgiveness’, he is not using it within the

context of faith as the space in which reconciliation can happen. Nagy was not linked to any

church. For Nagy, the main focus is obtaining insight into what caused the guilt and taking

action to address this. Exculpation (verontskuldiging) is not a concept which he used. The

guilt is caused by a deed that has been done which has damaged the order of humanity. It

cannot simply be moved out of the way. Nagy’s aim is to spread the guilt. He does not want

to load the guilt onto one person and then excommunicate the guilty party from the

community. To do this would mean placing what has been done and what has caused the guilt

within the context of the person … within previous generations. Here Nagy makes use of the

concept of exoneration: “Exoneration is a process of lifting the load of culpability off the

shoulders of a given person whom heretofore we may have blamed. It differs from

forgiveness. The act of forgiveness usually retains the assumption of guilt and extends the

forgiver’s generosity to the person who injures her or him. Offering forgiveness, a person

now refrains from holding the culprit accountable and from demanding punishment. In

contrast, exoneration typically results from an adult reassessment of the failing parent’s own

past childhood victimization. It replaces a framework of blame with mature appreciation of a

given person’s past options, efforts and limits (ibid, 1986: 416) [also see the following point:

multidirected partiality] Nagy’s aim is that in therapy there should at all times be an

encounter together with dialogue: this is what ‘trust based therapy’ (ibid, 2005:16) requires

for healing to take place.

5.1.7 Multidirected partiality (see Fig 26)

“Multidirected partiality is contextual therapy’s chief therapeutic attitude and method.

Methodologically, multidirected partiality takes the form of sequential siding with (and

eventually against) member after family member. The therapist tries to emphasize with and

credit everyone on a basis that actually merits crediting” (ibid, 1986:419)

Fig 26

Every person living on earth exists within a network of relationships – relationships in which

s/he is connected by loyalty - visible or invisible. Relationships that succeed have found a

balance between appropriate giving and appropriate receiving. In these relationships, trust

supports the order of humanity in a way that maintains homeostasis. The opposite can be true

too: there are those relationships in which this order has been damaged and the trust

destroyed. These relationships buckle under weight of the guilt that arises from an experience

or existence of destructive entitlements/rights. Whenever you are in a conversation with

another, you are also indirectly in conversation with all those who are not present. In

repairing a relationship, it is not possible alas to stand behind the chair of one person and to

be judgmental and accusatory towards the other parties… “meerzydig partijdig zijn betekent

begrip kunnen opbrengen voor wat elke person in zijn context geïnvesteerd heft in de

balansen van relaties of niet kon investeren, en wat hij ontvangen heft of niet durfde

ontvangen. Degene die onrecht deed, is daarom geen moster dat wetens en willens heft willen

kwetsen” (ibid, 2010:31). This requires an attitude of impartiality, and the ability to create a

space in which all those who are potential sources of help will feel safe. The interests and

contributions of each person carries weight. The whole purpose is to gather as much

information as possible from each participant in order to paint a clearer picture. Everything is

focused on getting to the nub of questions such as: What has been given and what has not?

Who was entitled to trust and who has deprived others of trust? What was reasonable and

what was unreasonable? Who has given appropriately and who has taken appropriately? In

this way everyone in the network can become motivated to care realistically for each other.

Multidirected partiality does not mean that you are impartial. You are partial, but it is

directed in many ways (ibid, 1996:27). This enables everything that is locked into the

narrative to come to the surface, and to look for connections and balances which make

healing possible. It is particularly important that everyone who is part of this network of

relationships is treated as a subject, and given the opportunity to speak: “You listen them

into speech”.

The way in which language is used in this contextual approach is extremely important. We

speak of connecting language. This is relational language that does not reject or break down,

but expresses the courage to touch fragile and painful situations. For instance, one would not

just ask, “What does your father mean to you?” without also asking, “What did you mean to

your father?” The whole purpose is to keep others reasonably accountable but at the same

time to remain sensitive towards the interests and perspectives of all those involved (ibid,

2005: 43). The aim is not just to confirm the negative, but also to look for the positives in the

relationship and to name these too. Nagy looks for the gap that will open up the future.

Language that connects thus strives to enable those involved to really see each other – to

acknowledge each other’s humanity and even their fragility – and what, in spite of this, they

have been able to give and receive from each other. Thus the search is for trustworthiness as a

tiny light that shines in the midst of the darkness. “Zo ligt toekoms in de bereidheid van

mensen om verantwoordelijkheid voor het verleden op zich te nemen” (ibid, 1996:28).

5.1.8 Self-definition/delimitation, trustworthiness and moratorium (see Fig 27)

When a person finds himself in a vulnerable position in relation to others, it is easy to

understand how distrust and a hesitancy to give of himself comes to characterise that person’s

dealing with others. Similarly, if someone’s self-worth has been wounded in some way, then

it is understandable that he might be uncertain how to invest himself in or to sustain other

relationships. The contextual approach involves a leisurely search together for small

moments, hidden resources, tiny fragments of trustworthiness and possible relationships in

which trust can be invested. “Trustworthiness accrues on the side of the reliable, responsible,

duly considerate partner in a relationship and is a characteristic of realistic, deserved trust.

From an ethical perspective, trustworthiness is always earned over the long term by balancing

of the consequences of give and take between two relatively reliable partners” (ibid,

1986:422). Any relationship in which an individual is involved requires firstly the ability to

clearly define the self over against the non-self: “… a person’s capacity to define his or her

individual, autonomous self. It includes boundary formation between the self and the not self

with which it enters into a relationship. The self forms over against the ground of otherness.

It encompasses the content of its own identity formation as well (ibid, 1986:421).

Fig 27

Any relationship takes place between two or more parties; and each party in the relationship

is unique, with his/her own distinctive context. The one is not the same as the other. The

difference between ‘I’ and the ‘other’ is an ethical one. The less respect there is for either the

distance or for the closeness between the parties, the more difficult it is to practise

multidirected partiality. It is two subjects in conversation with each other. This involves an

‘I’ and a ‘you’ (I-Thou: see Chapter 3). I speak to you and you speak to me. The self-

delimitation of each individual is thus of cardinal importance. You address me and this

requires a response. This demands obedience from me. I cannot be indifferent to your

address. But I also need to know who I am.

If I see the other as the same as me – thus ignoring the otherness of the other –this then gives

rise to disloyalty and to what is known as ethical fusion: “self-delineation en self-validation’

beschrijven het geskeiden subject-zijn van het Ik en het gescheijden subject-zijn van ieder

van de anderen. De dialoog gaan over wat er ligt ‘between give and take’ en daarin wordt de

gemene maat van een rechtvaardigheid die distributiewe en retributieve aspecten beziet,

gezocht” (van Rijn/Meulink-Korf, 2001:284). Two subjects in dialogue together creates a

new time for each other (see Fig 28). But it remains each person’s task to fill the new space

created for him/herself. If one person objectifies the other by labelling s/he deprives the other

of his/her humanity.

Fig 28

On those occasions when the relationships are on the rocks, leaving the individuals feeling

vulnerable and unable to restore the relationship, Nagy’s contextual approach makes

provision for a moratorium to be placed on dialogue: “… a step in a therapeutic method that

tries to guide clients towards considering the benefits of a new relational attitude and utilizing

the benefits of waiting until a person is spontaneously motivated toward that new relational

attitude. A moratorium is an active therapeutic input. It remains a desirable, uncompromised

goal without a disregard for the client’s own timing” (ibid, 1986:418). Another way of seeing

a moratorium is to call for “time out”. A moratorium is an active – and not a passive –

position: it requires a kind of care for the other’s vulnerability. The interruption involved in a

moratorium is not a delaying or avoidance tactic; in a contextual approach, its purpose is

ultimately to restore the dialogue that has become derailed.

6. Conclusion

‘All the world’s a stage

And all the men and women merely players:

They have their exits and their entrances;

And one man in his time plays many parts…’

This quotation from ‘As You Like It’, a play written by William Shakespeare in 1599, likens

life to a play, in which people are actors who come and go in the various roles they will play

over their lifespan: baby, school-boy, lover, soldier, an experienced man, a wise old man and

a dying man, in his second childhood.

Nagy opts for a metaphor taken from weaving to describe our life on earth. Each person is a

thread of cotton – each with his/her own colour, strength and rights – but which has no

meaning if isolated from the rest. From our earliest days, we are all woven within a web of

connections, which have the potential to give acknowledgement, respect, love and care – or

not!

This motif is not primarily an aesthetical one. It is not so much what is visible or measurable

that matters, but precisely those ‘invisible loyalties’ that cannot be seen (ibid, 1973). Nagy is

more interested in what is ‘healthy’ rather than what is sick or has made sick. Nagy is

concerned with the relational ethic – an attitude of give and take. Although based on a

psychodynamic model, contextual therapy emphasises the importance of ethical principles as

an integral part of the therapeutic process. Trust, loyalty and mutual support form the basis of

both the family and other relationships. These form the cement that keep everything intact.

Where these are interrupted, then relationships are damaged and made vulnerable (Nichols &

Schwartz, Family Therapy: Concepts and Methods. 4th ed. Allyn & Bacon, 1998).

The relational ethic focuses particularly on the contents and organization of reciprocal

connections, care, reciprocity, loyalty, legacies, justice, responsibility and trustworthiness

between and within generations. It is not a set of prescribed rules and norms that can simply

be externally imposed. It operates from a foundation of basic needs being expressed within

honest relationships with concrete results. It provides a significantly clarifying as well as

motivating dynamic within both constructive and destructive situations between individuals,

families, social groups and the wider community.

The distinctive methodology of a contextual approach is ‘multidirected partiality’. Its

purpose is to bring about a dialogue between the various parties (in the family or group).

Multidirected partiality consists of adopting an attitude of empathy towards each member

which conveys both respect as well as acknowledging accountability. It requires standing as it

were behind each person and ‘hearing them into speech.’ This means displaying

unconditional acceptance of each person’s ledger book of entitlements (merits) and

obligations (debits) – not only the obvious victim, but also the one who has committed the

offence.

Nagy focuses on those broken places in relationship – this is also where the sources of

healing lie concealed (see Fig 29).

Fig 29

In the light of the scope of this research, it is important to make the following observations.

For Ivan Nagy the focus is on the parent-child relationship. Although he is concerned about

the dynamic that exists between generations, he is primarily concerned about what gets

transmitted to a future generation. He is concerned about what the parent gives the child, but

even more concerned about what the child gives the parent, and whether or not this giving is

acknowledged. Loyalty is at play here. Loyalty conflicts - such as split loyalties and invisible

loyalties – are investigated. Nagy is convinced that children never intend to be untrustworthy

or disloyal to their parents. The question is thus: what is given and what is received; what is

taught and what is learned in a family. If the legacy is everything, then Nagy emphasizes that

each new generation has to choice to continue with the legacy in its totality, or not. What was

experienced as painful does not have to be continued. The legacy can also open up surprising

new possibilities. It can be constructive and contain within it the promise of a new future.

In the whole debate around unification, one can never turn a blind eye or be deaf to the voices

that come from the families of origin of those parties involved. As a baby, school boy, young

adult or wise old man, each of us are on the stage of life as in individual – a ‘being-I’ – but

also as someone with a context who is woven into a network of relationships with the ‘other’.

This requires a willingness to listen to each other in an impartial, reasonable and non-

judgmental way. The weight on the scale must continually be adjusted (see Fig 30).

Fig 30

Interestingly, in his methodology of practical theology, Osmer writes: “…the honouring of

the patriarchs and matriarchs in families, churches, and local communities. This takes place

through storytelling, homecomings, memorials, statues, and other rituals and symbolic

markers. Such activities and monuments are important ways of building corporate identity

and maintaining ties with the past (ibid, 2008:6).

In the next chapter I will use the concepts I have mentioned above to focus on the

experiences between the parties of an encounter. Here Nagy’s approach is influenced by the

philosopher Martin Buber’s concept of the ‘justice of the human order’. He writes:

“Contextual therapy is based on the healing evoked through due concern, a refinement of

‘healing through meeting’ (ibid, 1986:20… instead of stressing the exploitative aspects of the

human relationship, Buber focuses on its mutual conformative potential” (ibid, 1972:6)

CHAPTER 4

Relational balance

‘overwhelmed by the whisper of our

capacity to grip

this kneadable earth’s mantle

can I not be not-you

you not be no-one

we not be nowhere

the unheard-of befitting word

not be unsaid by us

My heart falters – more weightless than before

yet bridgeable

there where I am other than you

I begin

it’s true

but there where I am you

have become you

I sing beyond myself

light pulses of quicksilversong

a thing cast beyond all humankind’2

2 From Antjie Krog ‘Waar ek Jy word’ Translation 2009: Karen Press

1. Introduction

In Chapter 1 I indicated how, according to Nagy, no person is able to exist as an isolated

individual: we are all subjects in relation to other subjects. An individual is like a thread of

cotton that is woven, together with other threads, to make up the fabric of life. Whenever

there is an encounter between two subjects and a dialogue is entered into, each of them are

also in conversation with all those others that one’s conversation partner converses with – and

this conversation extends over generations.

Nagy writes: “In contextual therapy dialogue describes a dialectical rule of relational balance

rooted in a mutuality of commitment. Here the term goes beyond the popular denotion of

open, ongoing exchange between partners. For us, dialogue goes beyond satisfying

emotional expectation of fulfilment in relationship to a requirement of genuine equitability”

(ibid, 1986:415).

Ivan Nagy’s work can provide useful guidance to us in Africa. His thought has been strongly

influenced by that of Martin Buber, the Jewish philosopher. In his book Ich und Du (I and

Thou), Buber makes particular reference to the inhabitants of African (more specifically, the

Zulu) and how they position themselves in relation to each other (see below). It was the

contents of this book that put me onto Nagy’s track as a possible resource for our own church

situation.

Buber in turn was influenced by the legends and stories of the Hassidic Jews (see 2.4). In one

story, when God created the world and looked at the work of his hands, golden sparks

(Shekinah) fell out of his crown onto the earth. These sparks were collected and put into

containers and to this day are still ‘prisoners’ which must be liberated from their containers

(kelifot) (see Fig 31).

Fig 31

Only human beings can speak the word that liberates and enables the holy sparks to return to

their origin. Hassidic people are called daily to restore everything to a holy unity: only in this

way will the world become whole. The key lies hidden in the how of the one’s encounter with

the other and with life itself. The Rabbis believed that this movement did not involve

withdrawal or isolation from the world and life, but the total opposite: eyes wide open! It

concerns how we are addressed in life and how we answer this address. Life is dialogical and

community creating. When true encounter occurs, then the sparks – the Shekinah – return to

their origin (Colpaert, 2008:25) and the brokenness is restored once again.

This chapter focuses specifically on how Martin Buber’s thought influenced the theoretical

content of Nagy’s contextual approach. Buber places great weight in the encounter that takes

place between parties, and regards what happens in trust in the interaction between the two as

foundational. Nagy writes: “I do not just happen to be around with the one whom I address

with Buber’s ‘Thou’. The other thus addressed is not just an implement for my or his

emotional expressiveness, but at least for the time, the “ground”, the dialectical counterpart of

my existence. But even as ground for the other, the person is a distinct I for himself” (ibid,

1984:7).

In this chapter we focus even more sharply on the how the African philosophy of Ubuntu

shapes consciousness within both Africa and South Africa. Die VRS is in Africa. What do

we on the African continent have to offer?

To narrow the focus even further: what is the purpose of unity within the Ring?

2. The dialogical paradigm… Ivan Nagy follows in the footsteps of

Martin Buber

2.1 Justice as the guarantee of good order

The concept of ‘the justice of human order’ – a very important aspect of Nagy’s approach –

was in fact coined by Martin Buber:

“… (it) implies the possibility of a conceptual quantification of exploitation, considering that

he whose action impinges on existential guilt toward the other ‘injures an order of the human

world’ whose foundation he knows and recognizes as those of his own existence and of all

common human existence. The criteria of violating the order of the human world reside in

what the individual feels he is committed to as the innerly recognized foundations of all

common human existence, including his own. In order to objectify these criteria, we must

define and, ideally, quantify the give and take of human relationships. We need not seek

objective measurability from the vantage point of outside observation, but rather from that of

intersubjective consensual validation. A synthesis of each partner’s comparative gratification

as a function of his needs and expectations with the other’s obligations and ‘giving’ in turn

will determine the dialectic of the justice of the human world” (ibid, 1984:65).

Buber’s dialogical paradigm plays a significant role in Nagy’s thoughts on human relations.

Nagy makes frequent use of three phrases from Buber’s work: ‘Ich und Du’ (I and Thou);

‘Healing through Meeting’ and ‘Guilt and Guilt feelings’.

For Buber, a relationship between individuals is much more than a characteristic of humanity:

a relation is an encounter. It is a dialogue only when ‘I’ create trust in the hope of the other

trusting me. This encounter occurs in the present: it is unrepeatable. Something happens to

the parties in the encounter in the present moment. This something cannot be dictated from

outside, and thus no one is able to grasp what course it will take or predict what the outcome

of the encounter will be. It is a unique encounter, which does not leave the parties

unaffected. The encounter is thus never futile.

2.2 From objectification to encounter

Buber’s ideas around the encounter between ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ have shaped Nagy’s contextual

approach. He endeavours to guide people from the West’s orientation towards a relationship

of individualism – where one objectifies and labels the other – towards viewing the

relationship as an encounter. Within such an encounter lies the potential for the images which

people have in their minds regarding the other to be shattered by the image that the other

actually gives of him/herself.

According to Nagy, what happens in the encounter between two people is extremely

important. I can have an image of the other in my head – but this is actually the ‘objectified

other’. The real other is in the present. S/he can speak and I can hear in such a way that

makes the old image history. Encounter is necessary if we are both going to step out of the

past into the present and continue into the future together. “…geven en ontvangen worden

daarbij dialectisch beschouwd: er bestaan een geven door te ontvangen, evenals een

ontvangen door te geven” (ibid, 2005:17).

2.3 Martin Buber: Biographical background

Martin Buber was born in 1878 to a Jewish family living in Vienna, Austria, and died in

Jerusalem in 1965 (ibid, 2010:36). His parents divorced when he was three years old. When

his mother left, he moved to live with his paternal grandparents in Lemberg, which is now in

the Ukraine, just near the Polish border. Buber was raised bilingual – he spoke German and

Polish – and would stay with his father during the summer vacations. His grandfather

Solomon Buber taught him the secrets of the Haskala (the Midrash and Rabbinic Literature),

a Jewish kind of Enlightenment in which the intellect and reason played a central role. Buber

read the works of Kant, Pascal, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, but was particularly influenced

by the Hasidic Jews – a liberation movement established in the 18th

century by Baal Shem

Tov (the Master of the Good Name). Most of the Jews involved in this movement were poor

and illiterate, but they wanted to live a life that was holy and completely God honouring.

They approached life in a mystical and narrative way, believing that if they lived simple and

honest lives each person could contribute towards the redemption of the world.

According to Buber, life is about the encounter with the other, in the here and now of the

present. As such, he is concerned not so much with what a person does, but how s/he does it

(ibid, 2008:26).

Buber’s thoughts about humanity and dialogue have their origins in two historical events that

displayed ‘non- humanity’ and ‘non-dialogue’ (Vrielink, 2005). First, the horrors of the First

World War, which were playing out in ‘the world as macro-world’; and second, the micro-

world that played out in the relationship between a mother and her son.

(1) Buber was shocked by what he observed during the First World War, particularly the

way in which people could be objectified into an object: an it. He wrote his well-known

‘I and Thou’ in 1923, in which he enabled people to look with new eyes at the dynamics

that occur between people in their dialogue with each other. Buber considered it

impossible to make my ‘I’ an object. This is always the centre from which I look at

everything. How can I then do that to others? The two subjects together are an ‘I’ and

another ‘I’: ‘Ich und Du’. I always seen the other from the outside, and the other sees

me. But when two subjects really see each other, then an encounter occurs. Buber

speaks about a ‘begegnung’: “een ik dat alles maar alleen maar als een object (Es, hét)

ziet, mist de essensie van de werklikheid en zink weg in eenzaamheid en verschraling.

En een cultuur die zo handelt en kijkt, is eenzelfde lot beschoren. Een ik dat het andere

óók als een ‘jij’ (du) ziet, komt tot leven en transformeert zichzelf” (ibid, 2008:26).

From about 1923 Buber began to warn that an increase in the objectifying attitude

towards reality would hinder our capacity to form connections with each other, resulting

eventually in a systematic orientation towards totalitarian thought and behaviour. The

outbreak of the Second World War confirmed this warning. Buber is not completely

against objectivity or distance: indeed, in some circumstances these are necessary. But he

did emphasise that in the long term this would not form the connections that are actually

the goal of our existence. He attempts to create a balance between I/it relationships and

I/You relationships. For Buber, the only way of living a genuinely meaningful life is by

developing the capacity to move towards I/you relationships. Where this does not

happen, people become alienated from each other: “The Thou meets me through grace –

it is not found by seeking. But my speaking of the primary word to it is an act of my

being, is indeed the act of my being, the Thou meets me. But I step into direct relation

with it” (ibid, 1950:11).

(2) One day Buber had a conversation with the neighbour’s daughter on his grandfather’s

balcony. At one point the conversation focused on his mother, who left him when he

was three years old, and disappeared from his life. The girl said, “She will never

return.” He admitted that this threw him for a moment, but that he also did not doubt

what had been said. It became part of his life, and each year it weighed heavier in his

heart. After a number of years he tried to describe this by using the word

‘gegegnung’ … a kind of mis-encounter. It is the failure of a genuine and real

encounter between people. Buber wrote: “Ik vermoed dat alles wat ik in de loop van

mijn leven als echte ontmoeting (Begegnung) ervaren heb, zijn oorsprong heft op dat

moment op het balkon” (Buber, 1974:10) One can hear something in this of distance

and abandonment; and in the contextual approach one can also detect how the

relationship of trust did not exist between his mother and himself. Even though a

relationship of trust existed between Buber and his grandparents and, later on,

between him and his father, nevertheless for the most part of his formative years

Buber was committed to himself. The sense of abandonment made it difficult for him

to enter into dialogue with others as a conversation partner.

2.4 The urge for connection through dialogue

2.4.1 I-Thou vs I-It

Buber begins his book, “Ich und Du” with the following: ‘to man the world is twofold, in

accordance with his twofold attitude.

The attitude of man is twofold, in accordance with the twofold nature of the primary words

which he speaks. The primary words are not isolated words, but combined words.

The one primary word is the combination I-Thou.

The other primary word is the combination I-It; wherein, without a change in the primary

word, one of the words He and She can replace It.

Hence the I of man is also twofold.

For the I of the primary word I-Thou is a different I from that of the primary word I-It” (ibid,

1950:3).

In the primary word I-It, ‘it’ is an object (‘gegenstand’). It is something that can be

experienced, touched, thought, expressed, desired and felt. All these qualities form part of the

sphere of ‘it’.

In the primary word I-Thou, ‘you’ are wholly other (gegenwart). Whenever a speaker says

the word ‘you’, s/he is not referring to an object or a thing. Where there is an object/thing,

there are also other objects. Each ‘it’ is limited by another… named by others. When you are

truly addressed as ‘You’, then ‘you’ are no longer a ‘thing’. ‘You’ are not limited. When

‘you’ are expressed then the speaker has nothing, but assumes a position in a relationship. It

is momentary, and in the moment – and that is why the encounter turns on what happens in

that moment between I and You (ibid, 1950:4). At this point they are liberated from the

environment and the world of objects. Now it is no longer about men or women, tall or short,

white or black or whatever, but rather the encounter is about the direct dialogue (direct

speech and direct address). There is nothing in-between – no idea, no foreknowledge, no

threat, no motive: where the in-between falls away, encounter (begegnung) begins (ibid,

1950:12). This true encounter cannot be orchestrated: the only way you can proceed is to try

to ensure that there are as few obstacles that could derail the encounter as possible.

That moment - the here and now - occurs only through the fact that you encounter him/her as

‘Thou’: “…the I of the primary word I-It, that is the I faced by no Thou, but surrounded by a

multitude of ‘contents’ has no present, only the past … objects subsist in time that has been.

True beings are lived in the present, the life of objects is in the past” (ibid, 1950:13). One

could say that in the primary word ‘I-it’ one is dealing with the past tense: what has been

dealt with, what has happened. But in the primary word ‘I-Thou’, one is ‘in the moment’: the

conversation is happening. The one speaks to the other and there is an expectation of an

answer. In this way both parties are open to the future. Buber is particularly concerned about

what happens between ‘I’ and ‘you’. Genuine encounter occurs in the ‘between’ of the

‘time’. During this time, whoever is not able to relinquish the world of I-it – who continues

to objectify the world around him/her and to hang labels around the necks of others – will

never be able to enter into a true dialogue with the other. Instead, they carry only an ‘image’

of the other: this makes them anxious and unliberated. But once one is able to enter into the

liberating encounter with the other, then the shell of isolation is broken thereby ensuring

one’s participation in reality. This is where response-ability is learned – responsibility

towards yourself and towards the other. This is not something static, but a dynamic

experience in which conversation partners are continually oriented towards ensuring that the

other is treated fairly. This is what Buber calls ‘healing through meeting’: the encounter is

not healing; what is healing is the shift that happens between the two parties who see each

other in the moment, and thus start the process of healing (ibid, 1986:9).

The reality of our daily existence makes it urgent that we must not close the possibility that

there can be an encounter – shaped by responsibility - between all people. The prerequisite

for such an encounter is trustworthiness. For Buber, trustworthiness is in the ‘tussentyd’ – the

time in between -and thus can be played out. The interim is only accessible to those who are

connected to the dialogue.

The relational world is found in three spheres: the relationship with creation; the relationship

with other human beings; and the relationship with a spiritual being. In the first sphere, the

relationship is beneath the level of words. We live in a world with all sorts of other living

beings, but they cannot speak to us. In the second sphere, the relationship with people, we

use language to create interaction. I can give and I can receive to and from the ‘Thou’. In the

third sphere, the spiritual world, we are not able to see a ‘Thou”, but we feel addressed and

are able to answer: “…we speak the primary word with our being, though we cannot utter

Thou with our lips. In every sphere in its own way, through each process of becoming that is

present to us we look out toward the fringe of the eternal Thou; in each we are aware of a

breath from the eternal Thou; in each Thou we address the eternal Thou” (ibid, 1950:6). This

is where we can detect Buber’s Jewish heritage, and the Hassidic influence on his thought.

Each encounter is a window that opens up to an encounter with the Eternal Thou.

For instance, look at the words in this song by Rabbi Levi Yitzak of Berditchev:

“Wherever I go: you!

And wherever I stay: you!

Just you, only you,

Again you, but you!

You, you, you!

When something’s good: you!

When, it’s bad: you!

Only you, Again you, always you!

You, you, you!

In heaven: you

On earth: you

Above: you

Below: you

Wherever I turn

Wherever I go

Even to the farthest end,

Only you, Again you, always you!

You, you, you! (ibid, 2007:25)

According to Buber, the ‘You’ is present in all spheres. The relationship takes the form of

language – word over against counter-word; word and reply; speaking and listening. Buber

regards speaking - addressing each other in words – as central. To address someone - to call

him/her by name – involves abandoning yourself to relationship and is thus an invitation to

freedom. This is the way we are called out of isolation. This enables one to make decisions

and choices for yourself and for the lives of others.

2.4.2 Life as a multi-person fabric

Buber’s ideas in this regard influenced Ivan Nagy’s notion of life as a ‘multi-party fabric’.

This then poses the question: on what level are you standing? (See Fig 32) Do you see reality

only from your perspective, or do you have a perspective on our reality… and do we together

have a perspective on a mutual ethical foundation that we can use to guide ourselves? Are

we open to each other? Dialogue occurs when the self does not cling to his own perspective.

If he does, then the other becomes an ‘it’ and the whole encounter will revolve around power

and threat. There is no possibility of respect being built between the two parties. Dialogue is

depends on a reciprocity that is never equal (Nagy 1986:73-92). I am not you and you are not

me (asymmetrical).

Fig 32

The one confirms the other without damaging the self. It is all a movement between subjects.

The two ‘selves’ must always be kept in mind. This is what Nagy meant by multi-directed

partiality. You don’t just do multi-directed partiality… you are multi-directed partiality!

All four dimensions (Chapter 2) are necessary to detect why a dialogue flounders. What is

disturbing the relationship?... Listen once again to the facts; listen to the psychology…; listen

to the effect of the disturbance on all the parties involved …; listen to the inter-subjectivity …

the alliances, the supporting networks; and lastly, listen to the presence or absence of a

relational ethic.

What then is indispensable for dialogue to take place? According to Nagy, three aspects are

necessary:

Polarisation

Symmetry/Asymmetry

Multi-party involvement

2.4.3 The necessity of self-delimitation: the subject in the midst of inter-

subjectivity

In short (ibid, 1986:73-88), dialogue is dependent on a reciprocity that is never equal. I am

not you and you are not me (asymmetrical). The one confirms the other without damaging the

self: “relationships can be properly understood only if due recognition is offered to the

significance of individual strivings” (ibid, 1986:75). What is required is that we can remain

open to each other, and that a dialogue can take place in which the self does not elevate

him/herself above the other – otherwise the other becomes an ‘it’, and this means that

everything will revolve around contracts and threats and power arrangements. Respect can

never be built on this.

Differentiation – getting distance – enables one to get an outline of each part of the whole

picture: “The aspect of genuine dialogue offers two major options for individuation or

personality formation through the mutual definition of otherness. One is self – delineation:

The use of relationships for defining one’s self vis-á-vis the other as ground. The other option

is self-validation: The validation of self-worth through entitlement earned by offering due

care” (75). Nagy acknowledges that the ‘other’ is ‘other’. This is what enables dialogue to

take place. You need to know your reason for existence. You need to acknowledge your self-

worth. You need to delimit yourself from the other. Polarisation is the isolated subject in

relationship, and is necessary for dialogue. Polarisation is the opposite of ‘fusion’ –

enmeshment. Fusion occurs when the ‘I’ and the ‘you’ are so intertwined that it is difficult to

distinguish the individuality of each. What is required is to keep the balance in the

distinction between asymmetry and symmetry. This is the dialogical moment. The moment

that you delimit yourself, your self-worth escapes. This shakes the ground on which you are

standing – this is holy ground. You are who you are, and no-one can take this away from

you. No-one can take my unique place. Thus all dialogues are asymmetrical.

When the rights of the other are ignored, it leads to indifference and exploitation. Similarly, if

I forego my own ‘other-ness’, I place myself in a vulnerable position where I can be

exploited. I am then placing myself at the service of the other’s interests. I must never lose

sight of both my own ‘other-ness’ as well as the ‘other-ness’ of the other. If this happens,

then the ‘holy ground’ is lost: this leads to self-objectifying and self-diminution. You do not

see who you are. You have made an image of yourself that does not exist. You do what the

other says you must do. Ultimately, you are no longer able to take responsibility for the

relationship, and this damages it. You die from the relationship… and the relationship dies.

This is why self-delimitation and validation are key to any dialogue process.

2.4.4 The necessity for fairness and justice

Genuine dialogue is dependent on the reciprocity of responsible care. An intervention aimed

at restoring a broken relationship can either be guided by what is observable from the outside,

or it can look at the inside – the framework that holds all the parties together like muscles and

ligaments. One must be aware not only of the facts, the feelings, the behaviour patterns, the

roles and the motivations, but also of the big ledger book of fairness and justice that forms the

foundation of trustworthy relationships.

“As one self becomes an antithesis to another, a relational dialectic requires implicit and

explicit accounting of credits and debits” (ibid, 1986:76). The self is not an autonomous,

inviolable and absolutely separate entity. This is not disconnected from the dialectic of

relationships. Whenever one person becomes an antithesis to another, it require a dialectic

that opens an account of debits and credits (see Fig 33). This is precisely where Nagy’s

ethical dimension comes into play. He is more concerned with the inner structure of

trustworthy connections. The focus is not just on the facts and problems and symptoms, but

on the quality of the mutual relationships. He searches for the tiny jewels of mutual care, love

– those experiences of hope and trust. Trustworthiness is the fulcrum of vital relationships.

Fig 33

2.4.5 The necessity for trustworthiness

Mistrust shatters relationships: ‘People are inevitably psychologically invested in the

trustable integrity of formative and generative relationships. Here the test of integrity is more

concrete and definable than in superficial relating’ (ibid, 1986:80). One could say that

relational integrity is the capacity to cultivate the ground on which you stand.

Caring for the ‘other’ not only satisfies a psychological need, but at the same time also

enlarges your own worth and credit – give + take = credit. According to Nagy, it is all about

the balance of give and take. This is the way that you earn trust: it is the acknowledgement of

what you have received and what you have given in return.

In the give and take of the ‘other’, it is also extremely important to keep an account of the

contents of the other’s needs. If you do not keep an account of the content of the needs and

rights of the other, then you do not have a reliable gauge of what is the other deserves in the

context of his/her relational ledger (ibid, 1986:78).

Nagy’s third point – multi-sided involvement – is indispensable to the dialogical experience

between parties. Buber is well-known for saying that whenever I am in conversation with

someone, I am also in conversation with all the other people with whom this person is in

conversation (see Fig 34). It requires an appropriate multi-sided engagement: this means that

you listen non-judgementally to everyone’s stories. Each person is part of the ‘human fabric

of life’. You look at everyone with ‘softer eyes’: neither objectifying nor labelling but

impartially, regarding everyone as a ‘you’ facing another ‘you’.

Fig 34

2.5 Connectedness and interconnectedness

2.5.1 Point of contact

Once one becomes familiar with Buber’s thought – such as those mentioned above – and also

more familiar with the African philosophy of Ubuntu, one wonders whether Buber visited

Africa before writing “Ich und Du”. He begins the book with: “In the beginning is relation.

Consider the speech of ‘primitive’ peoples, that is, of those that have meager stock of objects,

and whose life is built up within a narrow circle of acts highly charged with presentness. The

nuclei of this speech, words in the form of sentences and original pre-grammatical structures,

mostly indicate the wholeness of a relation” (18). He then refers to the Zulu who describes

someone who is ‘distant’ as “there, where someone cries out: ‘O mother, I am lost’.”

He also refers to the manner in which they greet each other and what is meant by this: “We

greet the man we meet, wishing him well or assuring him of our devotion or commending

him to God. But how indirect these worn-out formulas are! What do we discern even dimly

in ‘Hail!’ of the original conferring of power?” (ibid, 1950:18). He refers to the greeting

which we find amongst our own compatriots – for example the Zulus and others: “I see you”

or its equivalent from the Americas: “come and smell me” (ibid, 1950:18).

Let’s look a little closer. In the Zulu language the greeting ‘sawubona’ and the reply

‘Ngikhona’ means: ‘We see you’ to which the reply is: ‘We are here.’ Note that the plural is

used. Even if the greeting is taking place between individuals, it is never isolated from the

presence of the ancestors and spirits: “…my eyes are connected to a dimension of reality we

call ancestral. My seeing include the ancestors … also the divinities in celestial spheres.

Therefore – ‘sawubona’ … ‘we see you’” (Orland Bishop Watts). “The unity of the

community – equally the living, the living-dead (or the remembered-dead) and the yet-to-be-

born – a unity that is the community’s life in the fullest sense, is the paramount good. The

opposite constitutes the paramount destructiveness” (Magesa, 1997:65).

Whenever two people greet each other with the gesture of ‘sawubona’ this acknowledgement

of ‘we see you’ constitutes the encounter. To see each other is ‘dialogue’: “…it establishes

you as a witness to some phenomenon that can also be a witness to your own presence. ‘We

see each other’ becomes an agreement because we are obligated from that point to affirm the

reality that seeing has empowered us to investigate our mutual potentials. It invites us to

communicate: why are we here at the same time?” It is an invitation extended to each other

to share in each other’s realities. To see each other also places on each person the duty to

give what is required at that moment for the life that we hold in our hands (ibid).

2.5.2 Nagy’s relational ethic and the African ethic

In South Africa there are eight basic or particular properties of human beings. In Zulu these

are:

Umzimba – body, flesh, bodily structure

Umoya – breath, life

Umphefumulo – spirit, soul

Amandla – power, energy

These are the properties that humans and animals share in common. But then there are also

the four basic properties that are supernatural, divine

Inhliziyo – the heart as the seat of emotions

Umqondo – understanding, thoughts

Ulwimi – speech, language

Ubuntu – fellow humanity, community

All eight of these basic properties need to be present for a person to be fully human. If the

last four are fragmented in some or other way, then the person becomes into: a thing. If the

first four dominate, then the person becomes isilwane, an animal, and a danger to the

community (Booth, 1977:64-66).

These basic properties must be present in a balanced way in order to make that person fully

human. But what is extremely important as far as the African perspective is concerned is the

fact that the individual, the solitary human being, is not really a person at all. K.A. Opoku, (as

quoted in P.Bock: Exploring African Morality in Cross Currents XXVIII: 4, p.483) expresses

this even more clearly: “Life is when you are together. Alone you are an animal….We cannot

understand persons, indeed we cannot have personal identity without reference to other

persons… The notion of being-together is intended to emphasise that life is the actuality of

living in the present together with people, other creatures, the earth.”

Rein Brouwer, in his lecture on: “‘Where I became you’ A practical reading of Antjie Krog’s

concept of interconnectedness” delivered during a conference on Human Dignity hosted by

Stellenbosch University’s faculty of Theology in Kampen, the Netherlands in October 2010,

suggests that: ‘Already the Khoi-san people practised interconnectedness, and somehow this

worldview survived and is still visible. Mandela for instance, regards white South Africans as

part of his interconnectedness. And Tutu’s Christianity is embedded in this world view. Tutu

redefines Christian community in terms of interconnectedness. Also the work of Pumla

Gobodo-Madikazela on the act of forgiveness by victims is about interconnectedness. This is

different from a white Western worldview. Community is ‘more fluid and more inclusive’ in

African terms. One becomes human as part of the community and by welcoming the stranger.

Central to Krog’s experience of interconnectedness is the story of Cynthia Ngewu, an

example of superior humaneness. In her testimony to the Truth and Reconciliation

Committee (TRC) about the death of her son, she said: ‘…this thing called reconciliation …

if I understand it correctly…if it means this perpetrator, this man who has killed my son, if it

means he becomes human again, this man, so that I, so that all of us, get our humanity back,

…then I agree, then I support it all.”

At the same conference on Human Dignity, the late Gerrit Brand delivered a rebuttal to the

lecture “The Hermeneutics of Dignity.” He said to Frits de Lange, amongst others: “…the

centrepiece of your answer is that dignity should be thought of in relational terms. I find this

answer largely compelling. It reminds me of perhaps the most widely known of all African

proverbs. In the Sotho languages it is “Motho ke motho ka batho’, but equivalents exist in

most African languages, at least in Southern Africa. The proverb literally means that a human

is a human through humans. In other contexts the word ‘ka’, which I translate as ‘through’, is

used in instrumental terms. One chops wood with (ka) an axe; you write with (ka) a pen; etc.

In the concept of ‘botho’ (‘ubuntu’ in the Nguni languages), which can be translated as

‘human-ness’, it would seem that humans (‘batho’ or ‘banto’) are the ‘tool’, the ‘means’ by

which I am human (‘motho’) If I deny or threaten the ‘botho’, the humanity, of others, I

thereby lose my own. Dignity, if it is anything, is a relational concept.”

2.5.3 Ubuntu

“I am not defined without you” a statement taken from the documentary “I am because we

are” echoes the above. At a particular moment in the dialogue, someone says: “The moment

we ceased to hold each other; the moment we break faithfulness with one another, the sea

engulfs us and the light goes out.” I am because we are. Ubuntu. Archbishop Emeritus

Desmond Tutu, in an interview states that: “…Ubuntu is a concept that we have in our Bantu

languages at home. Ubuntu is the essence of being a person. It means that we are people

through other people. We cannot be fully human alone. We are made for interdependence, we

are made for family. When you have ubuntu, you embrace others. You are generous,

compassionate. If the world had more ubuntu, we would not have war. We would not have

this huge gap between the rich and the poor. You are rich so that you can make up what is

lacking for others. You are powerful so that you can help the weak, just as a mother or father

helps their children. This is God’s dream” (Desmond Tutu).

“I am because we are.” Sindima expresses it as follows: “We cannot understand persons,

indeed we cannot have personal identity without reference to other persons… The notion of

being-together is intended to emphasise that life is the actuality of living in the present

together with people, other creatures, the earth” ( H. Sindima, 1990:144).

The idea that a person is only fully human in relationship with other people forms the

foundation of an African ethic. Our fellow humanity and community (relationships) form the

cement that binds the whole community together – the living, the ancestors and the future

generations. A person with Ubuntu, with fellow humanity, is someone who cares about

others, someone who is humble, friendly, respectful, hospitable and generous.

These qualities are not just gifts given by God, but can also be developed through education

and the discipline of the community. It is thus impossible to have real Ubuntu without the

community and the tribal culture. The positive qualities of Ubuntu are developed within the

tribal and communal culture. Children are taught from early on to show respect, to share

what they have with others, and above all else, to place the well-being of others and

especially the community above their own interests.

A person is what he does or, to put it differently: a person is known by his deeds. A person

whose life is characterised by good deeds is umuntu olungile, a good person.

A person who shows no respect or does not take others into consideration is actually an

isilwane, an animal. He does not treat other humans as abantu but as izinto, as things. His a-

social and anti-social behaviour leads to tension within the community, and ultimately to

things like sorcery and witchcraft. He thus becomes a danger to the community (C Greyling:

dictation).

2.5.4 Africa’s gift to the world

Daniël Louw, in his book Cura Vitae asks “What is really ‘African’ in an African approach to

pastoral care?” and then answers his question in the following way: “When I use the concept

of ‘Africa’, it does not denote so much a continent, race, ethnicity or merely a culture. Africa

is a philosophical concept which describes the complexity and diversity of different cultural,

local and contextual settings as related to a state of being and mind. The reference to ‘Africa’

is an attempt to describe the unique contribution of the rich diversity of modes of being in

Africa to a global world.

‘Africa’ is also a spiritual category. It is an inclusive category describing the ‘spirit’ of

people living in Africa. Africa functions as a hermeneutical paradigm indicating a unique

approach to life that differs from the analytical approach emanating from Western thinking

and Hellenism. Africa is an attempt to describe and interpret how different cultures contribute

to a better understanding of the dominant features of a mode of living and a philosophy of

life; it refers to, among other things, the needs and unique struggles of people in this

continent.” He concludes with a quote by Kenneth Kaunda, the former Zambian president:

“Let the West have its technology and Asia its Mysticism! Africa’s gift to world culture must

be in the realm of Human Relationships (19672: 22)” (Louw 2007:98).

To be human means to be bound together in the bundle of life; and to be bound up in this way

implies a connectedness with others that finds its expression in interpersonal connectedness.

No one can exist as an island. “The African paradigm is therefore about life and human

events of interconnectedness and relatedness. Life never stands on its own but is embedded in

the dialectics between life events and death. ‘Life is a thesis and death is its antithesis. Life is

to embrace and death is to depart and to isolate. The synthesis between life and death is

becoming’ (Kahiga, 2005:190). Human life is seen as an infinite becoming or progression

and each human person ought to be an agent of this traditional cultural reality” (ibid,

2007:103).

The traditional African understanding of humanity see ‘life’ as communal (König 1993:33–

34). Life is one big whole, in which everyone participates communally. Each generation is a

link in an endless chain. The individual knows that he is part of the stream of life which has

its source somewhere in the distant past, which flows through the present and through his

family, and in which unborn future generations will also participate. The individual thus

receives a portion of life in the here and now, and is duty bound to play a role in the

transmission of this life to a future generation.

If life is the thesis and death the antithesis, then it is the mandate and vocation of each person

to outwit the antithesis to life. Fruitfulness, the production of life, and passing it on to a new

generation all emphasise the important place and role of each individual within life and

within the community. ‘I am together with and through others’ (Ubuntu). ) “In the search for

a true African paradigm in an epistemology, Van Binsbergen’s (2003) view is very

illuminating. He argues that the concept of ubuntu within the processes of interculturalisation

and globalisation can be paramount in terms of the process of a globalised reframing of what

it means to be ‘African’ in a post-colonial and post-apartheid era (ibid, 2007:103). Ubuntu is

a tool for transformation in a context of globalisation. As an ethic rendering in a globally

mediated format, it has emerged, and takes its form and contents in the realities of post-

apartheid South Africa today” (Van Binsbergen, 2003:446).

Louw cautions nevertheless that we need to be vigilant against over-romanticising the spirit

of Ubuntu and of over-estimating its capacity to create a new identity in post-apartheid South

Africa (ibid, 2007:104).

Nagy’s contextual approach will form the background against which one aspect of the

African view of humanity now will be highlighted. According to Mbiti (1971:101), humanity

consists of larger and smaller units. The biggest unit is the tribe or the nation. The nation is

subdivided into smaller units, of which the extended family is the basic community in which

a person exists (König, 1993:34). This family includes deceased generations as well as future

unborn generations. It also includes the living: grandparents, parents, children, uncles, aunts,

brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews and cousins. The individual has a place within this

wider community. It gives him a sense of belonging, but also responsibilities.

2.6 Individuals in the unity talks

While the notion of the extended family as the basic unit of community might be an African

phenomenon, it is also part of any family in which the one generation follows the other,

where people are bound to each other by ties of loyalty, where family stories connect each

other like cotton threads, and influence and limit a person’s ‘legacy’ or ‘de-legacy’. Anyone

who attempts to break out of this way of being or attempts to cut a new course will be

questioned, opposed and sometimes even rejected… or respected. The essence that needs to

be explored is the aspect of connectedness. It has to do with whether this connectedness with

each other and between each other occurs… or does not. This is the ‘between’ to which

Nagy and Buber referred. This is a dialogical moment. It is not speaking about each other

but with each other. Within this encounter – this being-connected with each other – both

parties are able to step out of the past into the present and continue into the future together. It

is a give and take from and to each other that ultimately gives each party an authentic image

of the self.

Swinton and Mowat write about qualitative research as follows: “the world is not simply ‘out

there’ waiting to be discovered. Rather, it recognizes ‘the world’ as the locus of complex

interpretive processes within which human beings struggle to make sense of their experiences

including their experiences of God” (Swinton and Mowat, 2006:30).

2.6.1 Individuals with an address of origin

The following question could be posed to every member of the Stellenbosch Uniting Ring:

Towards whom are you being trustworthy by participating in the unity process, and towards

whom are you being disloyal? I would like to put the latter question in perspective.

In opposition to the traditional African view of humanity, another understanding of humanity

also exists in Africa – one borne out of the oppressive colonial and apartheid eras (ibid,

1993:32). It is a view of humanity that is borne out of reaction – a reaction to a situation in

which people were forced into circumstances that humiliated them and stripped them of their

humanity. A situation which made them spectators to the safe, prosperous and free life of

white people (ibid, 1993: 43).

A situation of pain that separated people from each other and denied them of the opportunity

for reciprocal encounter and enrichment. Those on the receiving side of this humiliation

were forced to withdraw themselves, reluctantly, into their own world - with their parents and

partners and children – where they lived and taught each other from their culture under the

shadow of an ‘us and them’. Let us call it by its proper name: ‘white and black’.

But despite the pain, there were certain individuals who stood up for their beliefs within their

homes and communities. They sought ways to find open dialogue and relationships with the

other that respected their humanity. Similarly, there were those individuals who viewed

whites with suspicion and hate, regarding them as racist, blamed them and protected what

was theirs against their tyranny. It is inevitable in the dialogue between parents and children

and grandchildren that make up this network of relationships in the family and in the

community - and from the reality of trustworthiness, loyalty and the ledger of credit and debts

- perceptions and images have been created and transmitted that with either contribute

towards the healing of the land or towards maintaining the separation through intolerance.

Nagy writes: “…the concept of loyalty is fundamental to the understanding of the ethics, i.e.,

the deeper relational structuring of families and other social groups…. Members of a group

may behave loyally out of external coercion, conscious recognition of interest in membership,

consciously recognized feelings of obligation, and unconsciously binding obligation to

belong. Whereas external coercion can be visible to outside observers and consciously felt

interest or obligation can be reported by members, unconscious commitments to a group can

only be inferred from complex, indirect clues, often only after prolonged acquaintance with

the person and the group concerned” (ibid, 1984:39).

How conscious were and are the members of the two Rings when they decided to reach out

towards each other and take each other’s hands? May I also ask whether the two moderators

of the two churches in their conversations with each other were aware of this and thus

sensitized towards listening to each other? This is the background to the above-mentioned

question.

2.6.2 Individuals who are on their way to the future

Nagy sensitizes us to the transmission of ‘batons’ as the legacy of one generation to the

generation that follows it. He sensitizes us to the establishment of loyalty – vertical loyalty

(see Chapter 2). These are my connections with my parents and grandparents and their

parents, as well as my loyalty to my children and their children and those generations that

will follow that I will not see or encounter. I have not chosen these: they are a given. And

they are inalienable and unbreakable. But then there are also horizontal loyalties. I live

amongst people and can choose how I want to live in connection towards them. It is precisely

these choices that can give rise to conflicts of loyalty. My choices can transmit what has

been given to me from my vertical relationships and thus display my loyalty. Ivan Nagy is

concerned for those generations which are to come. What do I want to transmit to them?

I can make a choice that conflicts with what has been given to me and which can be viewed

by others as being disloyal. Ivan Nagy is fascinated by those situations in which individuals

stand up against everything that has been given to them from their past, and strike out in an

opposite direction.

2.7 Conclusion

Initially all interpersonal relations are asymmetrical – even those which are an I/you

relationship. One person cannot take the place of another. Even though I do not get

acknowledgement from the other for what I do and give, I still have to continue doing and

giving what I need to. In this lies the positive freedom of each unique personality. Keeping

silent is not a dialogue. Peace and healing come when I speak and when I do. What drives

people is an ‘ethic’ and this is an ethic of justice. It is a surrender to and a receiving of the

other with his/her vulnerability as well as with mine. The theologian Henri Nouwen speaks

about creating a space “…where strangers can enter and discover themselves as created free;

free to sing their own songs, speak their own languages, dance their own dances; free also to

follow their own vocations…” (Nouwen 1975:69).

I have been deeply influenced by Nagy and Buber’s approach. Even though it was ‘birthed’

during the previous century in post-war Europe, it is nevertheless universal and resonates in a

remarkable way with the cultural legacy we have received in our country. But even more – it

is the Good News! We are not created to exist alone and solitary. We are created as beings

in relationship. The other is an ‘I’ like me (Gen 1:26, 27 and 2:18). Whenever I come across

another and greet him/her, I am encountering a human being like me. In the noticing of each

other we are inviting each other to dialogue – direct speech aimed at an address. When we do

this, we will be speaking openly with each other and not about each other.

Ethically speaking, I am accountable for to share the fate of the other. HL Fouché, in his

book on the ancient history of Genesis 1-11 writes: ‘die taak van God se verteenwoordiger is

daarom nie dat een mens of een volk oor ander mense en volke sal heers nie, maar dat die

mense saam oor die diere moet heers, die aarde moet bewoon, bewerk en beplant om

sodoende lewensruimte te skep. Wanneer mense saamspan en saamwerk word lewensruimte

geskep; wanneer mense teenoor mekaar werk en op mekaar neersien, word mense in die

noute gedwing” (Fouché, 1992:19).

The task of God’s representative is thus not that one person or one nation should rule over

other people and nations, but that human beings should have dominion over the animals,

inhabit the earth, cultivate and plant in order to create a living space. Whenever people pull

together and work together, then they create a living space; but whenever people work

against each other and look down on each other, then people are forced into a tight corner.

Fouché writes: ‘Mens-wees is saam-wees, is met-mekaar-wees en met-mekaar-leef. Eers in

verhouding met die ander word ‘n mens mens. So skep die God van die Bybel ons, en so gee

Hy ons aan mekaar as medemense om saam te leef en vreugde te ondervind’ (ibid, 1992: 42).

Being-human is being-together, it is being-with-each-other and loving-one-another. It is only

in the relationship with the other that a person becomes a person. This is the way the God of

the Bible has created us; and this is how He has given us to each other as fellow human

beings: to live together and so to experience joy.