Compassion. Integrity. Spirit.
Facilitated by Marc Jacobs
Join a discussion with Rabbi Mordechai Liebling about the range of organized Jewish responses to social justice over the years.
Reflections on the Field of Jewish Social Justice: Ten Years of Training Rabbis for Activism, By Rabbi Mordechai Liebling
The root of the Hebrew word Achrayut, usually translated as responsibility, can be achar (which means “after”) or acher (meaning “other”). Some will point to what happens “after” we act is why we are responsible, and some will point out that we are truly not separate from the “other” is why we are responsible.
Share with us your understanding of Achrayut (or achrayus).
Other Resources:
Achrayut, By Rabbi Julian Sinclair
Receive news about our offerings, programs and resources. We respect your privacy and do not sell our list to other groups.
Reach out if you have any concerns to: info@menschwork.org.
|
Resources: |
https://www.youtube.com/embed/GvIF4rp964Q?wmode=opaque Greg Marcus in his book, The Spiritual Practice of Good Actions, writes; “When we are at the boundary, (of our good and evil inclinations) we are at what Rabbi Dessler called a ‘choice point’.” |
William Jeff Garson, a Menschwork participant, in his soon to be published book Radical Decency, answers how we can be a Mensch in the moment:
“As this ‘wisdom-stretching’ perspective increasingly becomes our habitual perspective, the outcome in any particular moment, while always consequential, increasingly becomes part of a larger mosaic. We see our self, and each of our choices, as part of a larger, ongoing trial and error process. And, the quality of our decency practice is less a function of the quality of the choice we make, in this moment, on this issue, and much more about our ability to act, over time, in ways that more fully and creatively integrate and balance all of decency’s aspirational goals within the context of the imperfect world in which we live.”Excerpt from Jeff Garson, Radical Decency: A Values-Based Approach to a Better Life and World
(Expected publication date, September 2020)
Make Wisdom Stretching a Way of Life
One element that makes Radical Decency less intuitive and, thus, far more perplexing is this: Even as it decisively pulls us away from the culture’s self-absorbed ways, it emphatically rejects its opposite. From Radical Decency’s perspective, a life given over to altruistic self-sacrifice – neglecting decency to self in the process – is just as problematic. What it calls for, instead, is a both/and approach: Be decent to yourself as well as to others and to the larger world – and do so at all times.
But because this approach continually confronts us with situations in which our needs and the needs of others conflict, being “both/and” regularly requires us to make uncomfortable and confusing choices. Here are a few examples:
Planning a family outing, do I conveniently “forget” to invite my needy cousin who, while always grateful to be included, is predictably socially inept and annoying?
When a co-worker’s project is going badly, do I sit quietly on the sidelines and let it happen? Or do I jump in and help out even though by doing so, I too might become identified, in the boss’ mind, with this failed project?
As a person who is childless and always scraping for money, do I vote for the county council candidate who’s pushing for a cut in property taxes or the one who’s advocating for a larger investment in the local school system?
In a world that doesn’t embrace a “both/and” outlook, our instinct in these situations is either: (1) To automatically put our needs and desires first; or (2) feeling uncomfortable with this “selfish” approach, to defer to the needs and desires of others. As I describe below, a key element in operationalizing Radical Decency is to let go of this “either/or” mindset; adopting, instead, a “wisdom-stretching” approach.
____________________
Using the co-worker scenario, just described, as our example, here’s where “either/or” thinking all too typically leads. Reacting to my coworker’s dilemma, I might quickly and instinctually rationalize my self-serving silence:
“Hey, business is business. Why should I stick my neck out? If she’s hurt by her own incompetence, that’s her problem.”
Or, alternatively, instinctually judging my self-protective instincts as “unworthy and selfish,” I might jump in to help; defending her choices to the boss and even, perhaps, taking over parts of the project.
At first blush, these choices might seem to be dramatically different. But, in one very important respect, they are simply two sides of the same coin. With each, I am avoiding the ambiguity and discomfort I would feel if I attempted, in a serious and sustained way, to balance and integrate decency to myself, to my co-worker, to my boss, and to the larger organization and society of which I am a part.
From Radical Decency’s perspective, the “right” answer to this dilemma, and so many others like it, lies less in the choices made than in the process itself. Instead of avoiding the conflicting decency considerations inherent in these situations, we need to embrace them. Doing so, wisdom is transformed from a noun – as in “am I wise?” – into a verb – as in “I am regularly exercising and, thus, strengthening my ‘wisdom-ing’ muscles.”
This wisdom-stretching approach is regularly confusing and uncomfortable. But it’s well worth the effort since, consistently practiced, it makes us smarter and wiser, cultivating each of the following qualities:
Thoughtfulness: Open-mindedness, tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity, and an ability to consider life’s deepest dilemmas.
Analytic Skill: The ability to more fully understand the diverse factors at play in each situation, and to see underlying patterns and themes.
Intuitive Awareness: Body and sensory attunement, sensitivity to nonverbal cues, and the ability to be more fully present in each moment.
Creativity: The ability to imagine and put into practice more expansive, multi-dimensional choices.
Prudence: Self-regulation, humility, and patience.
Courage: The ability to act in the face of uncertainty, discomfort and risk.
Walking the Walk
So how does wisdom-stretching work in practice? As an example, let’s take a situation that most of us have encountered: What do you do when a stranger asks for money?
Faced with this situation, most of us start with an instinctual conclusion, either yes or no, that we then bolster with a handy rationale; e.g. “Bad idea. She’ll use the money to buy drugs” or, alternatively, “Poor guy, down on his luck. I’ll give him some loose change.” Wisdom-stretching, however, challenges us to reflect instead on the situation’s many implications for ourselves, others, and the larger world.
____________________
Here’s how that process might look.
In most cases, only a person in extreme need would beg. Therefore, giving him money has merit. Indeed, focusing solely on decency to this person, I might even offer to buy him a meal. On the other hand, giving him money would encourage public begging, an act that inevitably violates other people’s space (and, thus, decency to others). In addition, a donation to an appropriate agency, if I took the time to make one, would certainly be more strategic (decency to the world). But, on the flip side, making a charitable donation would negate a more public, immediate act of caring (promoting decency to the world) and the good feeling I would derive from a spontaneous act of generosity (decency to self).
You can already see the complexity. But, thinking about this situation in radically decent terms, there’s more. Being approached for money without permission disrespects me (decency to self). On the other hand, fairness and justice – two of Decency’s 7 core values – nudge me to consider my own privilege. While the mainstream system has allowed me to lead a comfortable life, it has, in all likelihood, severely penalized this person who is, after all, reduced to begging on the street. So perhaps this reality should trump his rudeness.
I could go on.
Given the compromised values, and sheer complexity of the world in which we live, our decisions in wisdom-stretching moments such as this one are seldom fully satisfactory. In my own life, for example, I continue to “ad hoc” it with panhandlers, giving at times, demurring at others. But my wisdom-stretching mindset has changed me. When this situation comes up, my old instinctive reaction – eyes to the ground, quickened pace to avoid contact – has given way to a more nuanced approach.
Absent a street person’s aggressive belligerence, I now seek to acknowledge his or her humanity with eye contact and, perhaps, a sympathetic smile. I also make a quick mental calculation, as best I can. Does this person seem physically disabled or emotionally impaired? Or, does she seem to be stoned? Is he depressed and helpless, or manipulative and calculating? And I also allow my mood in the moment to influence my choice. If I am busy and preoccupied, I will sometimes allow myself to simply walk by.
Finally, attempting to make good on my Radical Decency commitment in this and similar situations, I’ve changed my approach to charitable giving. I no longer make significant contributions to my (warmly remembered) alma maters, Johns Hopkins University and the University of Pennsylvania, since both of them are already bursting with multi-billion dollar, tax-exempt endowments. Instead, I focus on organizations that more directly confront and seek to mitigate the vast amount of suffering that our indecent culture inflicts on the world.
____________________
Another example of wisdom stretching involved an interaction I had, several years ago, with a long-time client. Calling me at 2 a.m., he told me he’d been mugged. Bloody and dazed from a blow to the head, he was sitting alone in a local hospital’s Emergency Room and, clearly very upset, wanted me to join him.
In this situation, my profession’s ethics are clear: This was an inappropriate boundary cross. The “right” response was to enforce a “healthy” boundary, offering a firm though empathetic no and directing him to “more appropriate” sources of support, such as family and friends.
But, in that moment, I could see that factors beyond professional boundaries were also at play. This man, with no family or close friends in the area, was shaken to his core and turned to me as the person who, he thought, could best comfort him in this moment of crisis. So I made the “wrong” choice. I spent the night with him at the hospital, choosing to believe that the exchange that unfolded – his reaching out to me in a vulnerable moment, my caring response, his gratitude – was the wiser, more decent choice.
In this instance, things went well. Our therapeutic relationship was strengthened by his increased trust in me as a caring person. And he never made a similar request. But things didn’t have to go that way. He could have become confused about the nature of our relationship, expecting similar acts of friendship in the future. Then, feeling hurt when they didn’t occur, our more limited therapist/client relationship might have soured into still another relationship that left him feeling disappointed and rejected.
I am always eager to reflect on and to learn from my choices in wisdom-stretching situations such as this one. In this case, I consulted with a fellow therapist before acting – my wife, who was lying beside me in bed when I got the call. But for me, the story’s key take away is not about whether the choice was good or bad, right or wrong. It lies, instead, in my willingness to move beyond the mainstream culture’s prescribed ways of acting, embodied in my profession’s code of ethics, and to embrace the moment’s wisdom-stretching challenge in all of its complexity.
I like, and aspire to be, the person I was that night.
Join a discussion with Rabbi Mordechai Liebling about the range of organized Jewish responses to social justice over the years.
Reflections on the Field of Jewish Social Justice: Ten Years of Training Rabbis for Activism, By Rabbi Mordechai Liebling
The root of the Hebrew word Achrayut, usually translated as responsibility, can be achar (which means “after”) or acher (meaning “other”). Some will point to what happens “after” we act is why we are responsible, and some will point out that we are truly not separate from the “other” is why we are responsible.
Share with us your understanding of Achrayut (or achrayus).
Other Resources:
Achrayut, By Rabbi Julian Sinclair
Receive news about our offerings, programs and resources. We respect your privacy and do not sell our list to other groups.
Reach out if you have any concerns to: info@menschwork.org.
Elliott Myrowitz prepared this “trailer” to explain the May 13, 2020 webinar topic.
May 13, 2020
Righteous Prayer – Why, How, and When
Facilitated by the JMR29 Tefilah Programming Subcommittee
July 8, 2020
Being a Mensch in the Moment
Facilitated by Jeff Garson and Elliott Myrowitz
|
Resources: |
https://www.youtube.com/embed/GvIF4rp964Q?wmode=opaque Greg Marcus in his book, The Spiritual Practice of Good Actions, writes; “When we are at the boundary, (of our good and evil inclinations) we are at what Rabbi Dessler called a ‘choice point’.” |
William Jeff Garson, a Menschwork participant, in his soon to be published book Radical Decency, answers how we can be a Mensch in the moment:
“As this ‘wisdom-stretching’ perspective increasingly becomes our habitual perspective, the outcome in any particular moment, while always consequential, increasingly becomes part of a larger mosaic. We see our self, and each of our choices, as part of a larger, ongoing trial and error process. And, the quality of our decency practice is less a function of the quality of the choice we make, in this moment, on this issue, and much more about our ability to act, over time, in ways that more fully and creatively integrate and balance all of decency’s aspirational goals within the context of the imperfect world in which we live.”Excerpt from Jeff Garson, Radical Decency: A Values-Based Approach to a Better Life and World
(Expected publication date, September 2020)
Make Wisdom Stretching a Way of Life
One element that makes Radical Decency less intuitive and, thus, far more perplexing is this: Even as it decisively pulls us away from the culture’s self-absorbed ways, it emphatically rejects its opposite. From Radical Decency’s perspective, a life given over to altruistic self-sacrifice – neglecting decency to self in the process – is just as problematic. What it calls for, instead, is a both/and approach: Be decent to yourself as well as to others and to the larger world – and do so at all times.
But because this approach continually confronts us with situations in which our needs and the needs of others conflict, being “both/and” regularly requires us to make uncomfortable and confusing choices. Here are a few examples:
Planning a family outing, do I conveniently “forget” to invite my needy cousin who, while always grateful to be included, is predictably socially inept and annoying?
When a co-worker’s project is going badly, do I sit quietly on the sidelines and let it happen? Or do I jump in and help out even though by doing so, I too might become identified, in the boss’ mind, with this failed project?
As a person who is childless and always scraping for money, do I vote for the county council candidate who’s pushing for a cut in property taxes or the one who’s advocating for a larger investment in the local school system?
In a world that doesn’t embrace a “both/and” outlook, our instinct in these situations is either: (1) To automatically put our needs and desires first; or (2) feeling uncomfortable with this “selfish” approach, to defer to the needs and desires of others. As I describe below, a key element in operationalizing Radical Decency is to let go of this “either/or” mindset; adopting, instead, a “wisdom-stretching” approach.
____________________
Using the co-worker scenario, just described, as our example, here’s where “either/or” thinking all too typically leads. Reacting to my coworker’s dilemma, I might quickly and instinctually rationalize my self-serving silence:
“Hey, business is business. Why should I stick my neck out? If she’s hurt by her own incompetence, that’s her problem.”
Or, alternatively, instinctually judging my self-protective instincts as “unworthy and selfish,” I might jump in to help; defending her choices to the boss and even, perhaps, taking over parts of the project.
At first blush, these choices might seem to be dramatically different. But, in one very important respect, they are simply two sides of the same coin. With each, I am avoiding the ambiguity and discomfort I would feel if I attempted, in a serious and sustained way, to balance and integrate decency to myself, to my co-worker, to my boss, and to the larger organization and society of which I am a part.
From Radical Decency’s perspective, the “right” answer to this dilemma, and so many others like it, lies less in the choices made than in the process itself. Instead of avoiding the conflicting decency considerations inherent in these situations, we need to embrace them. Doing so, wisdom is transformed from a noun – as in “am I wise?” – into a verb – as in “I am regularly exercising and, thus, strengthening my ‘wisdom-ing’ muscles.”
This wisdom-stretching approach is regularly confusing and uncomfortable. But it’s well worth the effort since, consistently practiced, it makes us smarter and wiser, cultivating each of the following qualities:
Thoughtfulness: Open-mindedness, tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity, and an ability to consider life’s deepest dilemmas.
Analytic Skill: The ability to more fully understand the diverse factors at play in each situation, and to see underlying patterns and themes.
Intuitive Awareness: Body and sensory attunement, sensitivity to nonverbal cues, and the ability to be more fully present in each moment.
Creativity: The ability to imagine and put into practice more expansive, multi-dimensional choices.
Prudence: Self-regulation, humility, and patience.
Courage: The ability to act in the face of uncertainty, discomfort and risk.
Walking the Walk
So how does wisdom-stretching work in practice? As an example, let’s take a situation that most of us have encountered: What do you do when a stranger asks for money?
Faced with this situation, most of us start with an instinctual conclusion, either yes or no, that we then bolster with a handy rationale; e.g. “Bad idea. She’ll use the money to buy drugs” or, alternatively, “Poor guy, down on his luck. I’ll give him some loose change.” Wisdom-stretching, however, challenges us to reflect instead on the situation’s many implications for ourselves, others, and the larger world.
____________________
Here’s how that process might look.
In most cases, only a person in extreme need would beg. Therefore, giving him money has merit. Indeed, focusing solely on decency to this person, I might even offer to buy him a meal. On the other hand, giving him money would encourage public begging, an act that inevitably violates other people’s space (and, thus, decency to others). In addition, a donation to an appropriate agency, if I took the time to make one, would certainly be more strategic (decency to the world). But, on the flip side, making a charitable donation would negate a more public, immediate act of caring (promoting decency to the world) and the good feeling I would derive from a spontaneous act of generosity (decency to self).
You can already see the complexity. But, thinking about this situation in radically decent terms, there’s more. Being approached for money without permission disrespects me (decency to self). On the other hand, fairness and justice – two of Decency’s 7 core values – nudge me to consider my own privilege. While the mainstream system has allowed me to lead a comfortable life, it has, in all likelihood, severely penalized this person who is, after all, reduced to begging on the street. So perhaps this reality should trump his rudeness.
I could go on.
Given the compromised values, and sheer complexity of the world in which we live, our decisions in wisdom-stretching moments such as this one are seldom fully satisfactory. In my own life, for example, I continue to “ad hoc” it with panhandlers, giving at times, demurring at others. But my wisdom-stretching mindset has changed me. When this situation comes up, my old instinctive reaction – eyes to the ground, quickened pace to avoid contact – has given way to a more nuanced approach.
Absent a street person’s aggressive belligerence, I now seek to acknowledge his or her humanity with eye contact and, perhaps, a sympathetic smile. I also make a quick mental calculation, as best I can. Does this person seem physically disabled or emotionally impaired? Or, does she seem to be stoned? Is he depressed and helpless, or manipulative and calculating? And I also allow my mood in the moment to influence my choice. If I am busy and preoccupied, I will sometimes allow myself to simply walk by.
Finally, attempting to make good on my Radical Decency commitment in this and similar situations, I’ve changed my approach to charitable giving. I no longer make significant contributions to my (warmly remembered) alma maters, Johns Hopkins University and the University of Pennsylvania, since both of them are already bursting with multi-billion dollar, tax-exempt endowments. Instead, I focus on organizations that more directly confront and seek to mitigate the vast amount of suffering that our indecent culture inflicts on the world.
____________________
Another example of wisdom stretching involved an interaction I had, several years ago, with a long-time client. Calling me at 2 a.m., he told me he’d been mugged. Bloody and dazed from a blow to the head, he was sitting alone in a local hospital’s Emergency Room and, clearly very upset, wanted me to join him.
In this situation, my profession’s ethics are clear: This was an inappropriate boundary cross. The “right” response was to enforce a “healthy” boundary, offering a firm though empathetic no and directing him to “more appropriate” sources of support, such as family and friends.
But, in that moment, I could see that factors beyond professional boundaries were also at play. This man, with no family or close friends in the area, was shaken to his core and turned to me as the person who, he thought, could best comfort him in this moment of crisis. So I made the “wrong” choice. I spent the night with him at the hospital, choosing to believe that the exchange that unfolded – his reaching out to me in a vulnerable moment, my caring response, his gratitude – was the wiser, more decent choice.
In this instance, things went well. Our therapeutic relationship was strengthened by his increased trust in me as a caring person. And he never made a similar request. But things didn’t have to go that way. He could have become confused about the nature of our relationship, expecting similar acts of friendship in the future. Then, feeling hurt when they didn’t occur, our more limited therapist/client relationship might have soured into still another relationship that left him feeling disappointed and rejected.
I am always eager to reflect on and to learn from my choices in wisdom-stretching situations such as this one. In this case, I consulted with a fellow therapist before acting – my wife, who was lying beside me in bed when I got the call. But for me, the story’s key take away is not about whether the choice was good or bad, right or wrong. It lies, instead, in my willingness to move beyond the mainstream culture’s prescribed ways of acting, embodied in my profession’s code of ethics, and to embrace the moment’s wisdom-stretching challenge in all of its complexity.
I like, and aspire to be, the person I was that night.
Join a discussion with Rabbi Mordechai Liebling about the range of organized Jewish responses to social justice over the years.
Reflections on the Field of Jewish Social Justice: Ten Years of Training Rabbis for Activism, By Rabbi Mordechai Liebling
The root of the Hebrew word Achrayut, usually translated as responsibility, can be achar (which means “after”) or acher (meaning “other”). Some will point to what happens “after” we act is why we are responsible, and some will point out that we are truly not separate from the “other” is why we are responsible.
Share with us your understanding of Achrayut (or achrayus).
Other Resources:
Achrayut, By Rabbi Julian Sinclair
Receive news about our offerings, programs and resources. We respect your privacy and do not sell our list to other groups.
Reach out if you have any concerns to: info@menschwork.org.
Many participants feel that their Mishpacha group experience draws their deepest response and is the most important part of a very vital Jewish Men’s Retreat.
This webinar will be an on-line, confidential (no recording) Mishpacha group. We will open with a recap of the JMR28 theme. Then we will invite each man to share the impact that theme has had on them since the weekend. If desired there will be an opportunity to continue the group on a regular basis until JMR29. You do not have to attend JMR28 to join in and benefit from this group.
January 15, 2020
Jewish Men and White Privilege: What Could Mensches Do?
Facilitated by Lev Natan
What responsibility do we have, as Jewish and predominantly white men, to bring awareness to our privilege {as White Men} in America? Might this awareness be a key to greater effectiveness in our efforts towards social, racial, economic and environmental justice? In this webinar, Lev Natan, who has been involved in men’s work for twenty years, invites us to explore these questions.
For more info, and to prepare for the webinar, please read Lev’s article White Men and Native America: An Unlikely Alliance, published in the Kosmos Online Journal, as well as Two Friends, Two Prophets about the relationship between Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel and Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The word “tzedaka” is often equated with making a donation to charity or dropping spare change in the tzedaka box (or pushke) at the synagogue or in a Hebrew school classroom. This webinar will delve into the deeper meaning of tzedaka, which is better translated as “justice” or “righteousness.”
Why is tzedaka a core value in Judaism? What is the connection between tzedaka and being a mensch? To whom should tzedaka be directed?
The following links are provided as resources on the topic of tzedaka. These materials are provided for discussion purposes and do not necessary represent the views of Menschwork or of the webinar facilitator.
●Tzedakah 101
●15 Facts About Tzedakah Every Jew Should Know
●Tzedakah and the Jewish Holidays: Giving for Social Change
●Tzedakah Basics
●Tzedakah Box
●Tzedakah, the Jewish Concept of Charity
●Charity (Tzedakah): What is Tzedakah?
Elliott Myrowitz prepared this “trailer” to explain the May 13, 2020 webinar topic.
May 13, 2020
Righteous Prayer – Why, How, and When
Facilitated by the JMR29 Tefilah Programming Subcommittee
July 8, 2020
Being a Mensch in the Moment
Facilitated by Jeff Garson and Elliott Myrowitz
|
Resources: |
https://www.youtube.com/embed/GvIF4rp964Q?wmode=opaque Greg Marcus in his book, The Spiritual Practice of Good Actions, writes; “When we are at the boundary, (of our good and evil inclinations) we are at what Rabbi Dessler called a ‘choice point’.” |
William Jeff Garson, a Menschwork participant, in his soon to be published book Radical Decency, answers how we can be a Mensch in the moment:
“As this ‘wisdom-stretching’ perspective increasingly becomes our habitual perspective, the outcome in any particular moment, while always consequential, increasingly becomes part of a larger mosaic. We see our self, and each of our choices, as part of a larger, ongoing trial and error process. And, the quality of our decency practice is less a function of the quality of the choice we make, in this moment, on this issue, and much more about our ability to act, over time, in ways that more fully and creatively integrate and balance all of decency’s aspirational goals within the context of the imperfect world in which we live.”Excerpt from Jeff Garson, Radical Decency: A Values-Based Approach to a Better Life and World
(Expected publication date, September 2020)
Make Wisdom Stretching a Way of Life
One element that makes Radical Decency less intuitive and, thus, far more perplexing is this: Even as it decisively pulls us away from the culture’s self-absorbed ways, it emphatically rejects its opposite. From Radical Decency’s perspective, a life given over to altruistic self-sacrifice – neglecting decency to self in the process – is just as problematic. What it calls for, instead, is a both/and approach: Be decent to yourself as well as to others and to the larger world – and do so at all times.
But because this approach continually confronts us with situations in which our needs and the needs of others conflict, being “both/and” regularly requires us to make uncomfortable and confusing choices. Here are a few examples:
Planning a family outing, do I conveniently “forget” to invite my needy cousin who, while always grateful to be included, is predictably socially inept and annoying?
When a co-worker’s project is going badly, do I sit quietly on the sidelines and let it happen? Or do I jump in and help out even though by doing so, I too might become identified, in the boss’ mind, with this failed project?
As a person who is childless and always scraping for money, do I vote for the county council candidate who’s pushing for a cut in property taxes or the one who’s advocating for a larger investment in the local school system?
In a world that doesn’t embrace a “both/and” outlook, our instinct in these situations is either: (1) To automatically put our needs and desires first; or (2) feeling uncomfortable with this “selfish” approach, to defer to the needs and desires of others. As I describe below, a key element in operationalizing Radical Decency is to let go of this “either/or” mindset; adopting, instead, a “wisdom-stretching” approach.
____________________
Using the co-worker scenario, just described, as our example, here’s where “either/or” thinking all too typically leads. Reacting to my coworker’s dilemma, I might quickly and instinctually rationalize my self-serving silence:
“Hey, business is business. Why should I stick my neck out? If she’s hurt by her own incompetence, that’s her problem.”
Or, alternatively, instinctually judging my self-protective instincts as “unworthy and selfish,” I might jump in to help; defending her choices to the boss and even, perhaps, taking over parts of the project.
At first blush, these choices might seem to be dramatically different. But, in one very important respect, they are simply two sides of the same coin. With each, I am avoiding the ambiguity and discomfort I would feel if I attempted, in a serious and sustained way, to balance and integrate decency to myself, to my co-worker, to my boss, and to the larger organization and society of which I am a part.
From Radical Decency’s perspective, the “right” answer to this dilemma, and so many others like it, lies less in the choices made than in the process itself. Instead of avoiding the conflicting decency considerations inherent in these situations, we need to embrace them. Doing so, wisdom is transformed from a noun – as in “am I wise?” – into a verb – as in “I am regularly exercising and, thus, strengthening my ‘wisdom-ing’ muscles.”
This wisdom-stretching approach is regularly confusing and uncomfortable. But it’s well worth the effort since, consistently practiced, it makes us smarter and wiser, cultivating each of the following qualities:
Thoughtfulness: Open-mindedness, tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity, and an ability to consider life’s deepest dilemmas.
Analytic Skill: The ability to more fully understand the diverse factors at play in each situation, and to see underlying patterns and themes.
Intuitive Awareness: Body and sensory attunement, sensitivity to nonverbal cues, and the ability to be more fully present in each moment.
Creativity: The ability to imagine and put into practice more expansive, multi-dimensional choices.
Prudence: Self-regulation, humility, and patience.
Courage: The ability to act in the face of uncertainty, discomfort and risk.
Walking the Walk
So how does wisdom-stretching work in practice? As an example, let’s take a situation that most of us have encountered: What do you do when a stranger asks for money?
Faced with this situation, most of us start with an instinctual conclusion, either yes or no, that we then bolster with a handy rationale; e.g. “Bad idea. She’ll use the money to buy drugs” or, alternatively, “Poor guy, down on his luck. I’ll give him some loose change.” Wisdom-stretching, however, challenges us to reflect instead on the situation’s many implications for ourselves, others, and the larger world.
____________________
Here’s how that process might look.
In most cases, only a person in extreme need would beg. Therefore, giving him money has merit. Indeed, focusing solely on decency to this person, I might even offer to buy him a meal. On the other hand, giving him money would encourage public begging, an act that inevitably violates other people’s space (and, thus, decency to others). In addition, a donation to an appropriate agency, if I took the time to make one, would certainly be more strategic (decency to the world). But, on the flip side, making a charitable donation would negate a more public, immediate act of caring (promoting decency to the world) and the good feeling I would derive from a spontaneous act of generosity (decency to self).
You can already see the complexity. But, thinking about this situation in radically decent terms, there’s more. Being approached for money without permission disrespects me (decency to self). On the other hand, fairness and justice – two of Decency’s 7 core values – nudge me to consider my own privilege. While the mainstream system has allowed me to lead a comfortable life, it has, in all likelihood, severely penalized this person who is, after all, reduced to begging on the street. So perhaps this reality should trump his rudeness.
I could go on.
Given the compromised values, and sheer complexity of the world in which we live, our decisions in wisdom-stretching moments such as this one are seldom fully satisfactory. In my own life, for example, I continue to “ad hoc” it with panhandlers, giving at times, demurring at others. But my wisdom-stretching mindset has changed me. When this situation comes up, my old instinctive reaction – eyes to the ground, quickened pace to avoid contact – has given way to a more nuanced approach.
Absent a street person’s aggressive belligerence, I now seek to acknowledge his or her humanity with eye contact and, perhaps, a sympathetic smile. I also make a quick mental calculation, as best I can. Does this person seem physically disabled or emotionally impaired? Or, does she seem to be stoned? Is he depressed and helpless, or manipulative and calculating? And I also allow my mood in the moment to influence my choice. If I am busy and preoccupied, I will sometimes allow myself to simply walk by.
Finally, attempting to make good on my Radical Decency commitment in this and similar situations, I’ve changed my approach to charitable giving. I no longer make significant contributions to my (warmly remembered) alma maters, Johns Hopkins University and the University of Pennsylvania, since both of them are already bursting with multi-billion dollar, tax-exempt endowments. Instead, I focus on organizations that more directly confront and seek to mitigate the vast amount of suffering that our indecent culture inflicts on the world.
____________________
Another example of wisdom stretching involved an interaction I had, several years ago, with a long-time client. Calling me at 2 a.m., he told me he’d been mugged. Bloody and dazed from a blow to the head, he was sitting alone in a local hospital’s Emergency Room and, clearly very upset, wanted me to join him.
In this situation, my profession’s ethics are clear: This was an inappropriate boundary cross. The “right” response was to enforce a “healthy” boundary, offering a firm though empathetic no and directing him to “more appropriate” sources of support, such as family and friends.
But, in that moment, I could see that factors beyond professional boundaries were also at play. This man, with no family or close friends in the area, was shaken to his core and turned to me as the person who, he thought, could best comfort him in this moment of crisis. So I made the “wrong” choice. I spent the night with him at the hospital, choosing to believe that the exchange that unfolded – his reaching out to me in a vulnerable moment, my caring response, his gratitude – was the wiser, more decent choice.
In this instance, things went well. Our therapeutic relationship was strengthened by his increased trust in me as a caring person. And he never made a similar request. But things didn’t have to go that way. He could have become confused about the nature of our relationship, expecting similar acts of friendship in the future. Then, feeling hurt when they didn’t occur, our more limited therapist/client relationship might have soured into still another relationship that left him feeling disappointed and rejected.
I am always eager to reflect on and to learn from my choices in wisdom-stretching situations such as this one. In this case, I consulted with a fellow therapist before acting – my wife, who was lying beside me in bed when I got the call. But for me, the story’s key take away is not about whether the choice was good or bad, right or wrong. It lies, instead, in my willingness to move beyond the mainstream culture’s prescribed ways of acting, embodied in my profession’s code of ethics, and to embrace the moment’s wisdom-stretching challenge in all of its complexity.
I like, and aspire to be, the person I was that night.
Join a discussion with Rabbi Mordechai Liebling about the range of organized Jewish responses to social justice over the years.
Reflections on the Field of Jewish Social Justice: Ten Years of Training Rabbis for Activism, By Rabbi Mordechai Liebling
The root of the Hebrew word Achrayut, usually translated as responsibility, can be achar (which means “after”) or acher (meaning “other”). Some will point to what happens “after” we act is why we are responsible, and some will point out that we are truly not separate from the “other” is why we are responsible.
Share with us your understanding of Achrayut (or achrayus).
Other Resources:
Achrayut, By Rabbi Julian Sinclair
Receive news about our offerings, programs and resources. We respect your privacy and do not sell our list to other groups.
Reach out if you have any concerns to: info@menschwork.org.