At La 0001466984

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 14

RE-READING MARTIN BURER AND JANUSZ KORCZAK: FRESH IMPULSES TOWARD A RELATIONAL APPROACH TO RELIGIOUS EDUCATION1 Reinhold Boschki

University of Bonn, Germany

Abstract
With the help of a relational approach to education in general, this article works out the possibilities and chances of a relational approach to religious education in particular. It argues that such an approach can make an important contribution to religious education in a pluralistic world. In education theory, the relational approach is associated above all with the work of Martin Buber (1878-1965). Whereas Buber comes from a philosophical background, another Jewish author begins his educational reflections with detailed observations of children and young people themselves: Janusz Korczak (1875-1942). The works of both Buber and Korczak give major impulses toward a relational understanding of religious education. The child isn't stupid. There are no more fools among children than among adults. Let us respect their innocence... Let us respect their attempts to find knowledge... Let us respect their failures and tears Let us respect the present hour and the present day... Let us respect each single moment because it will fade away and never come back. When I play with a child or talk with a child, two equally ripe moments of his and my life are melting together. (Korczak vol. 4,1999, 402ff)

In such radical and moving phrases, the Polish pediatrician and educator Janusz Korczak (1875-1942) expressed his "pedagogical credo," as he called it. His life, which ended in the gas chambers of a Nazi extermination camp, was devoted to children in general, and particularly to the Jewish orphans for whom he cared throughout his life and whom he helped to stand on their own feet in an environment of hostility and poverty. In his reflections on education, he created a pedagogical
The author thanks David Kelly, a professional translator, for correcting my English and giving helpful advice on how to express what I have to say in that language.
Religious Education Vol. 100 No. 2 Spring 2005 Copyright The Religious Education Association ISSN: 0034-4087 print DOI: 10.1080/00344080590932391
J

114

REINHOLD BOSCHKI

115

work that is unique and, although still little known, stands out among twentieth-century education theories. In Korczak s basic assumption that educator and child must meet at the same level, and not with the older one claiming a superior position, he laid the foundations for a pedagogy of equality between young people and adults. This makes his approach a radically relational one. His work is best understood if we first examine the work of another important Jewish thinker of the last century: Martin Buber (18781965), the founder of relational and dialogical thinking in philosophy and educational theory. All these investigations are undertaken from the perspective of religious education. The starting thesis of this article is: Religious education is a process that involves all dimensions of a person's relationships. Without a clear theoretical concept of personal relationships, we cannot understand the mechanisms of religious education and formation. Furthermore, if we are not aware of the fundamental meaning of relationships for religious education, we will fail to find appropriate ways of making a reality of a modern form of religious education that tackles the problems of a pluralistic world.

FIRST APPROACHES TO EDUCATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS Education is based on relation. Relationship is the dominant theme of any educational process. No education can take place without relationship between adults and children, adults and adults, and so on. These insights are the result of a large number of intensive phenomenological investigations and reflections of the field of education. Since the major philosophical work of Edmund Husserl (18591939) we have been aware of the importance of perception as a philosophical method of investigating reality. In the 1930s, this philosophical phenomenological method was adapted to social philosophy and sociological theory, especially by Alfred Schtz (1899-1959), a student of Husserl who escaped in 1937 from Nazi Germany and Austria to emigrate to the United States (Schtz 1967; Schtz and Luckmann [1975] 1989). The dominant theme that Schtz took over from phenomenology is the concept of "lifeworld." Lifeworld is not merely everyday living and the everyday world of people. Lifeworld is the concept, the understanding of life and world that people have in their minds. By observing the behavior of people in social situations, we

116

RE-READING BUBER AND KORCZAK

can deduce the understanding of life and world that underlies their acts. In phenomenological investigations of the lifeworld, especially of children and young people, one can find out four fundamental dimensions of relationship: relationship with oneself, with others, with society and history, with time (Boschki 2003). These four dimensions are also reported in psychological investigations. For example, developmental psychology has discovered that young people have (at least) three essential "developmental tasks" during puberty and adolescence (Fend 2000): (1) to find a new relationship with themselves, (2) to build new relational bonds with other people (especially peers and parents), and (3) to construct a (new) relationship to the social and historical context in which they live (neighborhood, township, city, society, and history). In all these dimensions, "time" is a predominant element. Such an understanding goes along with a social-ecological view of everybody's lifeworld, especially that of children and young people. Urie Bronfenbrenner developed a social theory of understanding individuals within their social context in different social systems: the microsystem (face-to-face relationships), the mesosystem (institutional level, such as neighborhoods, schools, and jobs), and the macrosystem (political and social situations as represented in the mass media, for example, in television and on the Internet). Later, Bronfenbrenner added a forth dimension: the chronosystem (biography and history) (Bronfenbrenner 1979; Bronfenbrenner and Morris 1998). All these systems represent special levels of social activity, and all of them must be taken into account if we are to understand and interpret the life of individuals. These thoughts and investigations are the starting point of a relational approach to educational theory, as well as to the theory of religious education. Dealing with the terms "relational" and "relationship" in anthropological, philosophical, and educational thinking, we must first refer to the work of Martin Buber (1878-1965), who is the central figure in thinking human beings in relational and dialogical terms.

EDUCATION AS RELATION: MARTIN RURER'S THEORY OF EDUCATION Educational theory, since Jean Jacques Rousseau and Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, has stressed the importance of the pedagogical

REINHOLD BOSCHKI

117

relationship. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the reflections on education of Martin Buber, Herman Nohl, and Janusz Korczak made a special contribution to our understanding of the relationship between educator and student. But how can we define this relationship, and what is its significance for religious education? Martin Buber stood for consistent dialogical thinking in philosophy, in philosophy of religion, and in education. It was he who introduced the concepts of encounter and relationship to modern philosophy, defining them as basic principles of all human life: "I require a You to become; becoming I, I say You. All actual life is encounter" (Buber [1923] 1984, 15). Even more: "In the beginning is the relation" (Buber [1973] 1984, 22). In "I and Thou," Bubers basic work of his philosophy of dialogue and relationship first published in 1923, relation appears as principle of all being. The terms he uses for this I-Thou relation are encounter, (real) dialogue, and relationship. The terms are not clarified in Buber s work. He uses them synonymously. Interestingly, Buber did not leave these insights to philosophy alone. In his speeches on education he points out that the same principle is valid for education as well, thus pushing educational theory forward to a deeper understanding of the process of education (Ventur 2003). He is convinced that the principle of education is always relation (Buber [1925] 1986,30), a fundamental relationship between educator and child. The real encounter with a concrete person, with the educator, has its special significance for the child. It is for him and for her a basic experience, an "elemental experience" (Buber [1925] 1986, 36) that constitutes the educational process and stimulates development and maturity. Here we find a basic dimension of relationship: the personal relationship with others. It is only one among many dimensions that belong to relationship. In the educational relationship, we can find a dimension that is at least equally important: the relationship with the cultural and religious heritage, with the very culture that comes to the children in the encounter with the teacher. Buber s understanding of education is a broad one: education is the whole impact of "the world" on a person. But "the world" does not directly "encounter" the child or the pupil. In between the world and the child stands the educator, the teacher.
The teacher makes himself the living selection of the world, which comes in his person to meet, draw out, and form the pupil The teacher is able to educate the pupils whom he finds before him only if he is able to build real mutuality between himself and them. This mutuality can come into

118

RE-READING BUBER AND KORCZAK existence only if the child trusts the teacher and knows that he is really there for him. (Friedman 1993,186)

This trust is the basis of every relationship, especially of educational relationships. "Trust, trust in the world, because this human being exists that is the most inward achievement of the relation in education" (Buber [1925] 1986,40). Buber takes all elements of the I-Thou relationship to describe the educational relationship, with one significant exception, which I will discuss soon. What are the elements of the I-Thou relationship? Relationship is more than sympathy. Relationship means absolute acceptance. Relationship means responsibility. Relationship is really encountering and assimilating (Vergegenwrtigung) the reality of the other person. Relationship is mutuality (Gegenseitigkeit). Whereas the first three do not need further explanation, the last two encounter and mutualityneed some reflection, because in both we find the intensity and greatness of Buber s educational thinking, as well as the problems. In Buber s terms, encounter is a kind of mutual gathering. The same is true for education. Buber wrote, "In order to be or to remain truly present to the child, the educator must have gathered the child's presence into his own existence..." (Buber [1925] 1986, 40). This encounter is an act that happens IN TIME. It occurs in the present, it brings the presence of the child and the presence of the educator together in the same moment (Vergegenwrtigung). In the very moment of encounter, nothing is present except the presence of the other. This act of encounter is the basis for a deep educational relationship. Here we find another dimension of relationship: the relationship with time that characterizes human beings. Animals do not have a conscious relationship with time, because they live by instinct. Only humans can relate to time, meaning to their own biography, to history indeed, only they can measure time at all. But there is a danger in Buber s thinking that was pointed out by Franz Rosenzweig (1886-1929), the Jewish philosopher with whom Buber translated the Bible into German, and later on by the French Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Lvinas (1906-1995). Rosenzweig and Lvinas also think of relationship as part of the concept of Time,

REINHOLD BOSCHKl

119

butand this separates them from Buberin such a way that the time of one person never coincides with the time of the other. The other always is understood in his or her otherness. His or her time can never fuse with my time. The problem in Buber s thinking is that two persons who stand in personal or educational relationship to each other are seen in complete fusion, in an intense closeness where almost nothing divides them. The encounter is complete and total. For Lvinas, this is an act of violence: the total encounter could end in a totalitarian encounter, and this is definitely a danger in an educational relationship. The second point that needs some clarification and critique is Buber s understanding of mutuality in educational relationship. In Buber s thinking, the relationship of mutuality is an unequal one. It is asymmetric. There is a big difference in level between the educator and the child. So, unlike the relationship of friendship, the educational relationship must be largely one-sided: the educator becomes the senior partner. To understand why Buber thinks like this, one needs to remember his Hasidic background. In the Hasidic tradition, the rabbi stands in an exalted position in relation to his pupils. The relationship is very close and very much based on dialogue, but there is always a gap between teacher and student. Buber probably did not want to formulate this difference in level in his educational thinking. But he always visualized the encounter between two human beings as an encounter between adults. He belonged so strongly to this Jewish tradition that, despite his dialogical thinking, the difference in level in an educational setting always remained with him.

ON THE SAME LEVEL: JANUSZ KORCZAK'S PASSIONATE INTEREST IN CHILDREN In opposition to such an asymmetrical understanding of the educational relationship, Janusz Korczak, the so-called Pestalozzi of Warsaw, came from his specific background to more radical conclusions for the theory and practice of education (Lifton 1988; Langhanky 1993; Kirchner 1997; Beiner 1999). Janusz Korczak was born Warsaw, Poland in 1878, the child of an assimilated Jewish family. As a small boy, he was already in close contact with the poor children of the back streets. His passion for helping disadvantaged children continued throughout his life. He studied medicine in Warsaw between 1898 and 1905, and in Berlin from 1905

120

RE-READING BUBER AND KORCZAK

to 1906. After graduating, he became a pediatrician. He also wrote for some Polish-language newspapers. Several times during his life he was forced to serve as an army doctor. His most important work was to found and manage orphanages for Jewish children in Warsaw. He and the other teachers lived in a real community with these children: they shared their meals and work, and came together for assemblies (a kind of children's parliament). The children had the right to hold their own courts, and they published a newspaper. Korczak himself often travelled to Palestine and visited several kibbutzim from which he got the idea of a democratic children's republic. In his spare time he wrote novels for children and essays about his educational ideas. In his main books on pedagogy How to Love a Child (1919) and The Child's Right to Respect (1929), he condensed his experiences and thoughts but without working out a specific educational theory. His books are rather an appeal to adults to change the way they relate to children. Under the Nazi occupation of Poland, Korczak and his orphans had to move into the Ghetto and were forced to live under inhuman conditions. In August 1942, Korczak was deported together with 200 of "his" children to the Treblinka extermination camp where they were murdered. Korczak was given the chance to save his own life and go abroad, but he refused to do so in order to remain with the children and share their fate. Devoting his whole life to childreneven his death in the Nazi gas chambershis educational work became even more powerful and significant than the writings of his aforementioned contemporary Martin Buber. Korczak abandons all asymmetrical thinking about education. Sharing the children's and young people's life day and night in the orphanages founded and headed by himself, he was convinced that the relationship between adults and young people must be an equal one otherwise it would be inhuman and destructive. Teachers and children must live and learn together on the same level, not with teachers seeing themselves as at a superior level. Korczak, thus, creates a pedagogy of radical "respect for the child" (Korczak 1996ff.). His approach to children is free of any romanticism and idealization because he saw children in their everyday life characterized by absolute poverty, social disadvantage, and very bad health conditions. Therefore, childhood for Korczak is never a perfect situation. The children are always seen in their social setting, which determines their opportunities and the shape of their life. Relationships among children and adults are embedded in their relationship with the social and historical context. Here we have a dimension of relationship that transcends the mere face-to-face

REINHOLD BOSCHKI

121

relationship: Korczak's view of children includes the social and political situation. Korczak also saw every day that children themselves were not "perfect." They failed in their social behavior just as much as adults do. Korczak's vision of a renewed educational relationship with children was always realistic, never romantic. Korczak derives his ideas from his own phenomenological approach to the lifeworld of children. Sitting in the dormitories of the orphanages he had founded, he observed the children sleeping. The next day he saw the same children playing and quarrelling: during assemblies, in the refectory, during common work, during communal singing. Everywhere he discovered one basic rule that became the core of his educational anthropology. When he was only 21, he formulated the basic "educational credo" on which all his later educational writing was founded: "Children don't turn into people, they are people already" (Korczak 1996, 475). At that time, people thought that children turn into full human beings only as a result of their education. In direct opposition to this commonly held view, Korczak developed his concept of children's rights (Korczak 1996, 45): 1. The child's right to die. 2. The child's right to live for today. 3. The child's right to be what she or he is. Korczak based a fundamentally new relationship between adults and children on these three rights. Only a relationship at the same level can properly respond to children's needs. The educator does not stand above the childrenshe or he has no position of superiority. On the contrary, "the teacher must look up to the children. He or she must try to soar, must stand on tiptoe to reach up to the children's feelings" (Korczak 1996, 49). Children and young people can even function as pre-educators for the educators. Children's education, thus based radically on equality in principle between adults and children, puts young people at the center of education, not the adult world of norms and controls. The relationship is based on mutual trust and respect. This again sounds romantic and idealistic, but Korczak's own experiences with the children proved the correctness of his radical ideas every time. Children, for example, have a very fine sense of justice and injustice. When one of the community members (even a teacher!) failed in his or her behavior, the children themselves called an assembly

122

RE-READING BUBER AND KORCZAK

to "judge" the offenderbut, in most cases, the judgment was an appeal never do it again, and the offender was forgiven. Korczak found that if you put trust in children, you get trust in return. In his approach, Korczak had many points of contact and overlap with Martin Buber s educational thinking. Both based the education of children on the person and on dialogue. Both conceived of education as dialogue (Kemper 1990), in which dialogue is not just conversation but personal encounter and a relationship based on trust. But Korczak went further, seeingand livingthe pupil-teacher relationship as a strictly mutual happening between persons on the same level. The educator learns just as much from the children as the children learn from the educatormaybe even more.

CONSEQUENCES FOR THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION Both thinkers were rediscovered at the end of the twentieth century, and their thinking has been "reconstructed" and revised in relation to the challenges of todays society. The basic insights of Buber and Korczak have proved tremendously modern: education cannot be understood as a technical process, where the younger person learns from the older simply by accepting what she or he is told. No, education in a broad and integral sense implies personal relationship! If education is to mean not only cognitive training and instruction but extensive personal development, it must be linked to personal bonds between educator and educandus. Today, educational theory is being enriched by interdisciplinary research on personal relationship (Auhagen and Salisch 1993; Duck 1993, 1996; Asendorpf and Banse 2000; Ickes and Duck 2000). We have learned that relationship is constitutive for the lifeworld of every individual, and especially of young people who are still seeking their own identity. For this reason, it is possible to integrate the elements of personal relationship into a relational theory of education. The educational process occurs inside various dimensions of relationship: relationship with oneself, with the educator(s), and with the social context. All these insights can have a great impact in providing fresh impulses toward a relational approach to religious education. Although religious education is not a major preoccupation of either Buber or Korczak, they are both open to the religious dimension

REINHOLD BOSCHKI

123

of personal relationship. For Buber, the task of the educator is to bring the individual face to face with God (Friedman 1976,180). For Korczak, the educator is not an intermediary in the relationship with Godeveryone has to build and manage their own ("Alone with God": Korczak 1997). To sum up: having re-read Buber and Korczak, and gotten at least some insights into the social phenomenology of relationship, we have all the dimensions that constitute the process of religious education. In a multidimensional relational approach to religious education, derived from the investigations and reflections discussed, the process of religious learning has at least five dimensions (Boschki 2003): 1. Religious education provides impulses that help (young) people to be sensitive in their relationship to themselves. All religions focus on this basic relationship, which is central for one's own concept of identity. The way somebody sees himself or herself, the self-knowledge and self-confidence, the sensitivity for one's own strengths and weaknessesall these things need a lot of inwardlooking reflection and contemplation of oneself. Korczak gave the children he looked after a great deal of self-confidence and a feeling of their own value; the religious educator must focus on this very point. Religions offer a forum where people may tackle some of these tasks: meditative elements, symbolic acts, and exercises in silence should be part of any religious education, whether in public schools or in the parishes. All this may help people to become aware of their own relationship with themselves, and hopefully to find a positive self-concept. 2. It is obvious that the process of religious learning and teaching must include the dimension of personal relationship with others. This dimension is dominant in both Buber s and Korczak's work. There is no religion without extensive ethical teaching and implications, no religion that does not focus on face-to-face relationships. But social learning and ethical learning are only possible "by doing," that is, in real interactions with classmates, with peers, with persons belonging to one's own and to other religious and cultural traditions. The greater the frequency and diversity of such action sequences, the greater the impact on the individuals religious and ethical learning. The basic insight of Buber that personal identity is only found in encounter with other persons is also true for the encounter between members of different religions and cultures. Religious learning should always imply encounter: not only

124

RE-READING BUBER AND KORCZAK

to teach and learn theoretically about Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions, but to encounter members of such religions in a non-competitive setting, leading to concrete learning sequences on the side of (young) people. 3. Religion implies a special relationship to the world around us. Religious education must be aware of the wider setting, of the social and political context (see Korczak!), and of the world as a whole. Religious education must help people to become sensitive to their relationship with the tradition in which they were born (even if they do not have close bonds to it) in order to have a basis for understanding others in their tradition. If children are to come to terms with the experience of cultural and religious diversityand also for the sake of peace and tolerancechildren need a type of religious education that helps them to develop positive and appreciative ways of being with other children from culturally and religiously different backgrounds. This is why religious education cannot be limited to the task of supporting identifications, but must also include personal encounters with others who come from such backgrounds (Schweitzer and Boschki 2004). 4. In all these dimensions, the relationship with God is intertwined (Heyward 1982; Sattler 1997). Religious education must give impulses to think about and maybe find one's own relationship with God and the Ultimate. If this dimension is lacking, education may be anything you like, but it is not religious education. Children and young people ask the basic question about God (the Ultimate): Does God exist? If so, in what relationship does he stand to me, and I to him? Is he watching me? Can I count on him? Where is he when people suffer? Is he waiting for us after death? and so on. Many of these questions are not answerable in one sentence, and not even in lengthier teaching sessions. They can only be answered by each individual within a specific religious tradition. Young people learn to give their own answers to such questions by encountering persons who live (or at least try to live) a religious life. Encounter is more than information and less than indoctrination. 5. Religious education stresses our relationship with Time, meaning our own lifetime and biography, as well the time of others, and of society, and of history. People ask: Where do I come from? What was before my beginning? What will be at the end of my life? What will be after my death? Are the relationships in which I live in danger of coming to an end? In this sense, we can say that time crosses all the other dimensions of relationship.

REINHOLD BOSCHKI

125

Religious education means becoming aware of these five dimensions, and of the fact that all dimensions of relationship are closely interlinked. The process of religious education is characterized by becoming aware of, or becoming sensitized to, all dimensions of relationship. This teaching and learning process should not be only an intellectual one. When Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) noted that messages have both content and relational themes, they were pointing to something that is essential for communication theory as well as for everyday communication. Especially in the field of religious education, these insights are of great importance. Religious teaching that puts the stress only on information ("content") forgets about the relational and emotional aspect of religious learning. Emotional impulses should be part of religious education courses. The very best way to include such affective impulses lies in encounter (see Martin Buber). Encounters with persons who live in a religious tradition can be a help to self-identification for those who are born into the same tradition. For others, the encounter with them offers the possibility of learning authentically from a representative of another denomination or another religion how he or she understands and lives his or her own religious life. If these encounters happen in a noncompetitive setting and on the same level (see Janus Korczak), meaning not with persons seeing themselves as in some sense superior, they can be a starting-point for a positive personal relationship. This will enrich religious learning tremendously. Religious learning in its depths, either in one's own tradition or in exchanges with another religious tradition, happens in such personal relationships. They should be "passionate relationships" (Nohl [1933, 1935] 1988,169) between educator and pupils or students, and include an absolute respect for the child and sensitivity to his or her own religious ideas, questions, doubts, and fantasies; that is, to "children's theology" (Hull 1991). To paraphrase the words of Martin Buber quoted earlier (Buber [1923] 1984,15, 22): I require a You to become a religiously educated person. Becoming a religious I, I need a religious You. All actual religious education is encounter. Even more: In the beginning of religious education is the relation.

Reinhold Boschki is Associate Professor for Religious Education at the Department of Roman-Catholic Theology, University of Bonn, Germany E-mail: [email protected]

126

RE-READING BUBER AND KORCZAK

REFERENCES
Asendorpf, J. B., and Banse, R. Eds. 2000. Psychologie der Beziehung. Bern et al.: Verlag Hans Huber. Auhagen, A. E., and Saliseli, M. von. Eds. 1993. Zwischenmenschliche Beziehungen. Gttingen: Hogrefe. Beiner, F. 1999. Korczak-Pdagogik. Legitimation und praxis erzieherischen Handelns. Pdagogische Rundschau 53(5):665-681. Boschki, R. 2003. Beziehung als Leithegriff der Religionspdagogik. Grundlegung einer dialogisch-kreativen Religionsdidaktik. Ostfildern (Germany): Schwabenverlag. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The ecology of human development. New York: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U., and Morris, P. A. 1998. The ecology of developmental processes, pp. 9931028. in Handbook of child psychology, Volume I, edited by R. M. Lerner. New York: Wiley & Sons. Buber, M. [1923] 1984a. Ich und Du [I and Thou], in Das dialogische Prinzip. 5th ed. Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider. [1923] 1984b. Elemente des Zwischenmenschlichen [Elements of the Interhuman], in Das dialogische Prinzip, 5th ed.: Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider. ([1925] 1986. ber das Erzieherische, in Reden ber Erziehung, 7th ed. Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider. Duck, S. W. Ed. 1993. Social Context and relationships, London: Sage Publications. Duck, S. W. Ed. 1996. Handbook of personal relationships 2nd ed. New York: Wiley & Sons. Fend, H. 2000. Entwicklungspsychologie des Jugendalters. Opladen: Leske & Budrich. Friedman, M. 1993. Encounter on the narrow ridge. A Life of Martin Buber. New York: Paragon House. Heyward, C. 1982. The redemption of God. A theology ofmutual relation. Washington: University Press of America. Hull, J. M. 1991. God-talk with young children: Notes for parents and teachers. Derby: CEM. * Husserl, E. [1902, 1903, 1984]. Logische Untersuchungen, Gesammelte Werke [Husserliana], vol. XVIII, XIX/1, XIX/2. Dordrecht: Den Haag. Ickes, W, and Duck, S. W. 2000. Ed. The social psychology of personal relationships. New York: Wiley & Sons. Kemper, H. 1990. Erziehung als Dialog. Anfragen an Janusz Korczak und Piaton-Sokrates. Weinheim/Mnchen: Beltz. Kirchner, M. 1997. Von Angesicht zu Angesicht. Korczak und das Kind. Heinsberg: Dieck. Korczak, J. 1996ff: Smtliche Werke (16 volumes). Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus. Langhanky, M. 1993. Die Pdagogik von Janusz Korczak. Neuwied/Berlin: Luchterhand. Lifton, B. J. 1988. The king of children. A biography of Janusz Korczak. London: Chatto & Windus. Nohl, H. [1933,1935] 1988. Die Theorie der Bildung, in Die pdagogische Bewegung in Deutschland und ihre Theorie. Frankfurt/M.: Klostermann. Sattler, D. 1997. Beziehungsdenken in der Erlsungslehre. Bedeutung und Grenzen. Freiburg: Herder. Schtz, A. 1967. The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston HL: Northwestern University Press. Schtz, ., and Luckmann, Th. [1975] 1989. The structures of the life-world. Evanston III.: North western University Press. Schweitzer, F., and Boschki, R. 2004. What children need: cooperative religious education in German schoolsresults from an empirical study. British Journal of Religious Education 26(1): Ventur, B. 2003. Martin Bubers pdagogisches Handeln. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Watzlawick, P., Beavin J., and Jackson, D. 1967. Pragmatics of human communication. A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes, New York: Norton.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

You might also like