Rabbi Laura Metzger
First there was a note in my mailbox asking me to attend a neighborhood meeting. Then the emails began, going from neighbor to neighbor on our street. Backyard conversations. Fence side confrontations. It’s all about the garage under construction on our corner. This is, right now, a two and a half story structure, rather taller and bigger than anything else next to the street. It doesn’t meet zoning laws. A building permit was issued. You can tell there are conflicting views here.
Work was halted and a zoning variance hearing was scheduled. That led to zoning citations up and down the street. More meetings. More emails. Another hearing, a lawsuit or two. This has gotten ugly.
We used to feel comfortable with our neighbors. We knew and trusted each other. We could ask each other to watch our kids, take in our mail, water our gardens, tend our pets. It’s not that way right now. People are taking sides; though some have tried to stay out of it, even they are feeling the animosity.
Situations like this happen, where people, working to meet their own needs, step on the needs of others. Sometimes people work them out. Sometimes they don’t. This isn’t working out well at all.
Both sides have reasons. Of course they do. They need a garage. They need an attractive and safe neighborhood. You can understand their points.
I do have an opinion about this; I have supported a position. But I’m saddened by how ugly this has gotten the way so many disagreements do, because we somehow can’t resist piling feelings on top of facts, adding in all the previous differences, inferring a few new ones.
You know how that works in a family. You get arguments like this (not from my house, I assure you): “You didn’t take out the garbage and now it’s overflowing and stinking up the kitchen. You never take out the garbage. You never do anything to help around here. You just don’t care about me. You’re just like your father. Your whole family. People from Slobovia.”
See the escalation from fact to problems coming from the fact to yesterday’s complaint to generalization, exaggeration, and character assassination. When feelings are strong, we fight dirty.
Take the New York City example, the Muslim center. Strong opponents used exaggerated associations: Abe Foxman of the Anti Defamation League invoked Auschwitz and Newt Gingrich referred to Pearl Harbor. You still see and hear mainstream news media call it The Mosque at Ground Zero. It’s neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero. It’s a multicultural Muslim community center with worship space.
So now on my street, it’s not only the garage people complain about, but the driving, the parking, the fencing. And then, in case it hasn’t gotten heated enough, the accusations about what so and so meant in doing this or that. He told me this but he always meant that. They had it in for me because I didn’t …)
Each side reads into the actions of the other some misleading, misrepresenting, malevolent, underhanded … intent. As if one could know what someone else intended when all we can see, all we can ever see, is what they do.
Dr. Patricia Roberts-Miller of the University of Texas is an expert in rhetoric. She calls this kind of thinking motivism, this ascribing motives to the other person, and then assuming their motives to be base while being sure that our own are sound. Here’s how it works (and I’m quoting from Dr. Roberts-Miller’s paper on Demagoguery):
Imagine that I am a cat fanatic, and I loathe dogs. If a dog bites me, I say, “See, that’s typical of dogs—they’re vicious.” If a cat bites me, I say, “Oh, that poor kitty, it must be having a bad day.” Anything bad the dog does is because of their essential badness, while anything bad a kitty does is explained away as something particular about that cat or that moment. It doesn’t reflect on cats in general.
Maybe you don’t see yourself in this, but research suggests that we all do this to some extent. Dr. Roberts-Miller again:
For instance, drivers who do something rude or unsafe explain that incident as an exception to their otherwise good driving method but other driver’s rudeness or bad driving moves as a sign that the other person is a jerk or stupid.
What we have now on our street is a legitimate difference, caused by conflicting needs (and complicated by sloppy bureaucracy). This has been intensified with piling up of complaints, related and not, exaggeration, distortion and mind reading.
And this is wrong. When we exaggerate we distort truth. That’s lying. When we carry our disputes from house to house, that’s tale bearing. When we don’t listen to the other side because we’ve already made up our minds to disagree, that’s refusing to judge fairly. When we assume we know what the other person’s intentions are, that’s taking the role of God.
Maybe it’s developmentally/evolutionarily adaptive to see everyone as friend or foe. Maybe it once served humankind to divide everyone into us and them, protecting us and attacking them. Once. Today, our instinct to bunker might not be so helpful. It’s a tool we decry when it’s used by demagogues. But we do it, dividing the world up into us vs. them. If we’re right (and we are), then they are wrong. We represent truth and they tell lies. There’s no bridge now, and no discussion because there’s no place for discussion. There’s no place for compromise when getting along is seen as an agreement with the devil.
There’s nothing wrong with having opinions and acting on them. We should read, listen, learn and form opinions. That’s responsible citizenship. We shouldn’t let our needs be subsumed by the needs of others.
There is something wrong with demonizing the other. There is something wrong with allowing our judgment to be perverted by the emotions attached to strong language. We should be smarter than that. We should be more aware than that. We should be neither tools of demagogues nor users of demagogic rhetoric.
In every Yom Kippur service, we chant a litany of confessions, most of them sins of speech — al het shehatanu lefanekah — for the sins we have done right in your face:
By hardening our hearts. By acting without thinking. By speaking perversely. Publicly and privately. Knowingly and deceitfully. By corrupt speech. By wronging others. By evil thoughts. Intentionally and unintentionally. By foul speech. By foolish talk. Through the inclination to evil. Knowingly and unknowingly. By fraud and falsehood. By mocking. By slander. By idle gossip. By haughtiness. By effrontery. By perverting justice. By betraying others. By being stubborn. By running to do evil. By talebearing. By causeless hatred. By breach of trust. By confusion of values.
It’s not about having feelings and desires. It’s about how we express them. It’s not about disagreeing. It’s about how we speak when we disagree.
When Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (19th cen. Lithuanian talmudist), wrote his compilation of all the teachings on evil speech, he called it Hafetz Hayyim, echoing the psalm: Who is eager or life, who desires years of good fortune? Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from deceitful speech.
The lines seem almost unrelated. The desire for a good and long life. The avoidance of evil speech. But one look at my neighborhood connects them. We can live well when we can live side by side even with people we disagree with. If we can disagree civilly. If we can keep unrelated matters out of the discussion. If we can find ways to talk without rancor and distortion. If we can search for just solutions rather than win-lose solutions.
We might not always like the outcome, but we can live with it when we haven’t poisoned the atmosphere.
Think about it. It’s just what our parents told us: keep a civil tongue in your head; think before you speak; watch your words. If it were easy, we wouldn’t have to be told. But it’s not and we do.
G’mar hatimah tovah.