Together and Apart – Tools for Living in Diverse Communities
Together and Apart – Tools Living in Diverse Communities
Presentation by Dr. Elana Stein Hain at the 2023 Shoshana S. Cardin Leadership Symposium
Curated and commentated by Dr. Bill Robinson
Our Jewish community is diverse. We are constituted by groups of people with different experiences, identities, and aspirations, as well we understandings of Judaism and the Jewish People. And, yet, in order to break new ground in addressing the increasingly complex and uncertain challenges before us, we need to build common ground. How might we ensure the cohesion of our community while honoring its diversity?
Dr. Elana Stein Hain, during this year’s Shoshana S. Cardin Leadership Symposium, offers three tools from the Jewish tradition that we can use today. These are so important that I’ve taken the time to write this synopsis of her talk, with some additional commentary, so we can all benefit from what she shared. (To note, the practical examples below are my own.)
At the root of each is the fundamental idea that we are not truly sovereign individuals, with the ability to author our individual lives devoid of the influence of others. Rather, we are deeply embedded in webs of relationships that inform and impact who we are and how we act in the world.
Tool #1 – Learn from Difference
Dr. Stein Hain began with a text from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of pre-state Israel. He wrestled with how to create cohesion and collaboration among the very diverse and often antagonistic parties working to build a new homeland in the land of Israel.
Rabbi Kook wrote (before he became Chief Rabbi):
Three forces now wrestle within the Jewish People. The war is felt more strongly in the Land of Israel, but it derives from the life of the nation as a whole…holiness, nationalism and humanity – these are the three central demands which all life, ours and that of every human being in whatever form, are composed of….The synthesis of these three great demands is necessary for every group which hopes to have a future…
Each of these movements becomes fundamentally divided from the other due to the opposing side which each sees in its fellow… It is well understood that for a healthy situation all three of these ideals are needed together. And we must always strive for this healthy situation…that each should generously appreciate the affirmative task of the other. And this awareness should proceed to the point that not only does one recognize the affirmative task of each of these ideals…but it should proceed further to the point of appreciating specifically the opposition of the other ideals to one’s own ideal…for each group must be influenced by the opposing force of the other…this will save each group from the defects of fundamentalism and extremism…
In Rabbi Kook’s perspective, the State of Israel would grow because there are three different groups who advocate from three different perspectives or core value propositions – holiness, nationalism, and humanity. Only because all three are vibrant participants in the building of the State, engaging in continuing arguments for the “sake of heaven,” and continually changing in response to one another, will the State of Israel flourish.
This is a powerful perspective in which to understand ourselves in relation to those with whom we disagree within the larger community. Mainly, we are all needed if the community is to survive and thrive. Consider a three-legged table. Each leg must be relatively the same size as the other two, or else the table falls. If one leg grows too long, the others must respond by growing as well.
Now, consider that the (political, economic, social, cultural, technological, and environmental) ground under which this communal table stands is continually shifting. In order for the table to stay upright, its legs must adjust. In this case, it may not be that the legs should be the same length given the changing ground. But they do need to attain a level of coordination and tentative balance.
This may not occur through explicit negotiation, and we may not even be fully aware of why we respond to the changing ground or the actions of the “other” legs. It all occurs at a subconscious, relational level or, as Rabbi Kook may say, spiritually. One important take-away from this tool is that those with whom we disagree are not our enemies, but rather our partners in the continually shifting work of sustaining and growing our community. One could say, we are all part of the same ecosystem.
Consider your own family…
How might the way your partner behaves inform and impact the way you behave? Do you more often get to be the “nice one” with your kids because they are ensuring discipline? Or perhaps, you are always stepping up to ensure discipline because they (in your perspective) tend to be too lenient? Our choices are moves in a complex dance, sometimes rising to the level of explicit conversation with our partner, but often subliminal.
Now, what would happen if your partner stopped playing the role they play? Would only having parents who are the “nice ones” work or would chaos ensue? Would only having disciplinarians suffocate the spirit of your children? Both roles – emotional support and boundary-setting –
are needed at times in the family. The small arguments we may experience as we negotiate with our partner can also be seen as symptoms of the family system responding dynamically to internal and external changes, seeking homeostasis or evolving into new forms as our children grow.
Tool #2 – When to Welcome Diversity, When to Demand Conformity
As a community, we all need to make choices at times. A statement representing the community needs to be put out. We share meals with one another which require multiple decisions in regard to what to serve and what blessings to say. When we consider our smaller communities – such as congregations or the JCC (for example) – we need to make similar decisions, as well as those defining who is included and who may not be.
To consider how best to make these decisions in diverse communities, Dr. Stein Hain pointed to the Babylonian Talmud, which in Yevamot 14a offers the following dispute.
Do you think that school of Shammai actually acted in accordance with their own statement? The school of Shammai did not act in accordance with their own statement – the dispute was merely theoretical. And Rabbi Yohanan said: The school of Shammai certainly did act in accordance with their opinion!
This text creates an opening for us to consider the difference between what is theoretically right and what is practically right. To shed further light, she offered a text from Yale Professor Dr. Christine Hayes (in What’s Divine about Divine Law?, p. 174):
One may…believe in several authentic…answers but insist that the law must decide on a
single practical rule. Similarly, one may believe there is a single theoretically correct law, but because it cannot be determined or because of pragmatic considerations, one may allow a variety of practical rulings…
There are times when we may believe that we are completely correct in our viewpoint, but as a practical matter understand that we need to compromise or accede to a different perspective. Consider that certain decisions – while truthful or legally correct – that may hinder someone’s Jewish journey and are thus frowned upon. As the Torah commands, “do not place a stumbling block” (Leviticus 19:14); instead, allow people greater freedom to pursue the responsibilities of the mitzvot. Or consider, as Beit Hillel declared (paraphrasing): “All brides are beautiful on their wedding day.”
And then there are times when we cannot be certain of the correct decision, and yet need to put forth one. For instance, the complexity of ecological issues may preclude a definitive course of action for organizations desiring to be more “green” and yet an imperfect step forward is better than doing nothing. Similarly, democracy is built upon an assumption that there are different points of view all of which could be legitimate. And, yet, though voting some person or party ends up ruling for a time. That it is only “for a time” is crucial as this keeps the decisions from becoming existential – threatening the foundations of the democracy. Rather, like in Rav Kook’s example, the arguments among competing factions are best understood as machloket l’shem shemayim (arguments for the sake of heaven).
Again, consider your own family…
There are times to agree to disagree and yet a decision needs to be made. Do we send our child to a Jewish camp? Do we kasher our home? And, do we eat only locally-sourced food? Which synagogue (if any) do we join?
And, there are times to allow each member of the family to express a shared value in different ways. For instance, we may all refrain from work on Shabbat differently. One uses no electricity, another simply abstains from television. Still another begins the day with a walk in nature. In seeking to live ethical and socially-responsible lives, we all work to balance diversity and conformity every day of our life.
Tool #3 – Using Ambiguity to Bring People Together
There are times when we advocate for our position and times when we need to negotiate. And, then there are times when it is useful and healthy to put aside our differences – to leave them unresolved – in order to simply be together with one another.
To guide us in these situations, Dr. Stein Hain offered a text from Drs. Adam Seligman, and Robert P. Weller in Rethinking Pluralism: Ritual, Experience and Ambiguity (p95):
While ritual activity carries its own form of intentionality, it is important to note that ritual is not necessarily concerned with what we often call “sincerity.” In any ritual, as with saying “please” and “thank you,” performing the act marks acceptance of the convention. It does not matter how you may feel about the convention, if you identify with the ritual or not…What you are is what you are in the doing, which is of course an external act. This differs significantly from modernist concerns with sincerity and authenticity…Unlike ritual, the sincere – to which we wish to juxtapose it – involves a search for motives and for purity of motives. Sincerity privilege intent over action.
Sincerity plays across our days like an undercurrent, barely noticeable but always present. In conversation, we may wonder if someone is truly being honest with us. We periodically ask ourselves: Are we living in accordance with our values? And, yet, more regularly than we may think, we put aside sincerity.
Upon greeting a friend, we may ask “How are you?” and they would say “Fine” regardless of how they really feel. Thus, they are not being completely sincere. But, then again, we typically (though there are important exceptions) are not expecting a full accounting of how they feel. Rather, by asking we are simply saying “We see you” and in response we are simply saying “Thank you.” Rituals have their own norms of social discourse which often subvert or ignore values we hold, like sincerity.
A somewhat different example: We find ourselves having to put out a shared statement, and yet we cannot reach explicit agreement. Thus, we use ambiguous terms that each can interpret the way they want. Famously, in the writing of Israel’s Declaration of Independence, they chose to refer to the “Rock of Israel” in whom/which they placed their trust. While some saw this as a reference to God, others could interpret it differently. Unity was achieved through ambiguity. While not formally a ritual, it shares with ritual the notion of putting aside our differences to find momentary common ground.
Once again, consider your own family …
In raising our children, we all seek to nurture their unique selves – giving them the room they need to experiment, experience, and grow. So, we encourage freedom of activity and expression of feelings. Yet, we all have times when we go against this. For example, perhaps in your family, everyone needs to be at dinner sitting down together – or at least Shabbat dinner. In this instance, everyone is asked to suspend what they are doing and even feeling. We may not want to come to the table right now, but we do. And, by participating in this ritual, we affirm our belonging to a family.
Similarly, when we gather together as a community – such as studying text together during the Shoshana S. Cardin Leadership Symposium – we affirm our belonging to a community. We may have other tasks calling to us. We may not agree with others sitting around our table. And, yet, we are saying to one another: We are all part of this diverse Jewish community. Together, we seek ways to honor this diversity while creating common ground. Only in holding to both unity and diversity, will we break new ground as a community enabling us to address the challenges and opportunities before us.
