Linguistic Diversity Cohesion and Power

The 3 year old girl pointed at the fire truck. “Fie-er lesher, Fie-er lesher” she shouted excitedly in yiddish. 

The little girl was my mother. She had recently arrived in San Francisco from Shanghai, where she was born to yiddish speaking parents who narrowly escaped the Nazis in World War 2.  

“She should not speak in yiddish! She must speak English” her parents were told angrily!

It is wrong to prevent migrants from speaking their native languages. I believe this, despite my view that migrants must learn the language of their new country (if they can, some people find it quite difficult). It is hard for people to be united or even really get along if they can’t talk to each other. In fact, the first time the Torah mentions linguistic diversity is in the story of the Tower of Babel. We are told that people speaking one language makes their society strong, but if they speak different languages it will weaken them (1). However, being able to communicate in the language of one’s new country can be achieved without restraining migrants from speaking their native languages. 

This approach is not without risks. The easiest way to learn a language is to practice it and be immersed in it. There are parts of Australia that have high concentrations of people who speak languages other than English. In these areas, migrants can get by without properly learning the language of the land. Research has shown that being surrounded by signs in foreign languages caused significant discomfort to older Anglo-saxon residents in one of these areas (2). These risks should be addressed and mitigated rather than going to the extreme and trying to stamp out other languages from our shared spaces. 

Preserving native languages is important for two reasons:  one is self-expression and the other is power. 

Educator Ronit Baras introduced me to the idea of “language of the heart”. As I understand it, the language we speak as children enables us to express ourselves most effectively, especially when trying to articulate what is in our hearts. Languages learned later operate on a more technical level. We can express what we think effectively in a second language, but it can be hard to express how we feel. Assuming that this is true for many migrants, it would be a terrible imposition to restrict them from using their own language most of the time. 

The second argument relates to power. Because our ability to express our feelings is impeded when we are forced to use a second language, we are therefore not as powerful in negotiating everyday situations when speaking that language. I noticed that intuitively as a teenager when dealing with a particularly harsh teacher (who died from COVID last year). This teacher had a sharp tongue and could pack a powerful verbal punch in his native Yiddish, which was my first language. To change the power dynamic between us, I always addressed him in English rather than in Yiddish. It really threw him. The best he could do when I told him I thought I was  a nice guy was to tell me in a thick accent “you not, nice guy, you nice garbage”. That is a bit harsh, but nothing compared to what he could deliver in Yiddish! 

 

The relationship between power and language can explain a peculiar phrase in the story of Esther. The context is a king wishing to subdue women under the control of men. The royal edict stated that every man will be a ruler in his home, and [in the case where husband and wife speak different languages, the husband and therefore his wife] will speak in the language of his [the husband’s] nation (3). There we have it, suppression of linguistic diversity to serve male domination, with the loss of the right to speak one’s native language is clearly linked to a loss of power.  

The Torah urges us not to mistreat the stranger (4). Allowing them to speak in their native language is one way to adhere to this commandment. 

Notes

1. Genesis 11:6-9

2. Wise, A, (2004) Contact Zones: Experiences of cultural diversity and rapid neighbourhood change among Anglo-Celtic and long term elderly residents in Ashfield. Centre for Research on Social Inclusion, Macquarie University

3. Esther 1:22

4. Leviticus 19:33

 

Uncompromising Approach to Values Conflict and Solidarity Lech Lcha

“There is nothing cozy, huggy and smiley about peace...” Terrorism survivor- turned peace maker, Gill Hicks told me with steel and restrained fury in her voice [1]. Gill is a double amputee who lost both legs in the London bombing and has made heroic efforts to build peace. It is necessary to face the hard realities of living with difference. 

This week, at a mountain-side Catholic school retreat, 150 teenagers and the Together For Humanity team explored some of the uncomfortable aspects of living with diversity. Participants, in groups of 8, were challenged to lower a thin long stick that rested on their outstretched fingers. Many failed to complete the task that required them to be completely in sync with their peers. When reflecting on their failure, students suggested that it was the differences in height or ways of thinking that was the reason they couldn’t complete the task. One student suggested a harsh solution: to simply remove those who were out of step with the rest of the team. It would be tempting to dismiss that option, but I would prefer to explore it instead.

I told the students that only an hour earlier I was reading the Torah. Abraham acted according to the students’ suggestion when he chose separation in response to conflict [2]. The shepherds employed by Abraham and his nephew got into a values based argument about grazing their sheep on others’ properties. Lot’s (Lut) people, presumably taking their cue from their boss [3], valued maximising wealth over ethical concerns but Abraham’s employees prioritised avoiding theft [4].  Abraham could have managed the conflict and reduced its intensity, but he wanted to avoid even the low level of tension that would inevitably remain [5]. For this reason Abraham parted ways from Lot. This separation from Lot was very upsetting to Abraham [6]. Lot was Abraham’s nephew, and when Lot was orphaned he became like a step son to Abraham [7]. 

Despite the fact that, sometimes, apparent values conflict is a function of prejudice, this is not always the case. In some cases the conflict is actually caused by an accurate understanding of the other! Our values are formed in our own cultural context and function as a set of norms that enable members of the group to get along [8]. Rapid migration and social change coupled with conservative pushback against change leads to people being confronted with strongly held divergent values and norms. For Abraham, it was only when he was free from the spiritually stifling presence of Lot that his spiritual capacity was restored and he was able to receive prophecy [9].

During our program at the retreat, my Muslim colleague, Mrs Calisha Bennet, talked with the students about situations where she as a Muslim woman is meets men and is expected to shake his hand. While some orthodox Jews and Muslims choose to shake hands despite traditions in both faiths to the contrary, for Calisha this is a matter of being authentic and true to her principles.  She explained that she chooses not to compromise her principles, instead opting for sensitively putting her hand on her heart in greeting, feeling empathy for the man with his rejected extended hand and sharing the awkwardness experienced by the aborted handshake.

Michaela Launerts, a teacher at the retreat told us that she shifted from her previous support for constraints on free speech to avoid causing offense to now prioritising robust dialogue about our differences. Michaela pointed out how we live in an age of ‘outrage culture’ where every deviation from one’s own norms is met with howls of indignation, and attempts to shut down opposing views. Instead, Michaela suggested that we should sit with the discomfort for a while and try to understand our opponents perspectives. She insists that most of the things that are important in life involve conflict and robust discussion. Any kind of growth requires one to be challenged, theologically, politically and philosophically.  

In spite of the need to face values conflict, it is vital that there is solidarity between communities. Peace depends on goodwill being shown toward those who believe differently and have divergent values. Returning to the story of Abraham, we see that despite Lot’s rejection of Abraham’s norms and his way [10] when Lot needs help and is taken captive in a war Abraham took up arms to rescue him [11].

As neighbours we must care about each other’s pain and do our part to alleviate suffering, regardless of our disagreements. This sometimes feels wonderful, but this warm feeling is an occasional bonus in this work. We must also show up for the awkward moments. Denial of disagreement is a fragile basis for coexistence. Forced unions can be oppressive and draining. This can be seen in toxic marriages, workplaces and political parties. In those cases emulating Abraham’s offer to Lot – if you go right, I will go left, if you left I will go right – would be far more productive and healthy, provided that communities are always there for each other despite our differences.

Notes

1 https://youtu.be/_MtmLFtb5WM

2 Genesis 13:5-14

3 Genesis 13:10-13, Lot’s observation regarding the fertile nature of the Sodom area appear more important to him than the fact that the Sodomites were very sinful.  

4 Rashi on Genesis 13:7

5 Toras Hachida, Genesis, Lech Lcha, 32, p. 75, 

6 Toras Hachida, Genesis, Lech Lcha, 36, p. 77, see also Ohr Hachayim to Genesis 12:1

7 Genesis 11:27-28, 12:4

8 Greene, J. (2014) Moral Tribes, Emotion, Reason And The Gap Between Us And Them, Atlantic Books, London

9 Rashi to 13:14

10 Rashi to Genesis 13:11

11 Genesis 14:12-16

Shame: Personal and Regarding People Seeking Asylum - Ki Teitzei

Shame is sometimes a wonderful thing but, when inappropriate, can be very destructive to human dignity, 1 spirit and motivation. 2 This may explain the tendency to regard shame as something to be avoided. Despite the problems with shame, we are rightly indignant about people who are “shameless”. In an “aha!” moment this week I realised that I may feel angry with someone because I feel some shame that I am not doing the right thing by them. If I am able to embrace shame as a gift and use it as an (imperfect) “values violation detector”, I can respond to it either by making a choice to do better or by clarifying for myself that I am satisfied with the choices I have been making.

There are different types of shame. The Torah discusses a woman who intervenes when her husband is fighting with another man, and uses the word “shameful parts” when it refers to her grabbing his genitals. 3 When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden “they were naked and they were not ashamed”.4 It is only after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they feel shame, perhaps because they then recognise their vulnerability to inconsiderately selfish and even exploitative sexuality. There is something healthy about Adam and Eve initially not being ashamed of their bodies. Shame is more appropriate in respect of moral failure, with reference to actions, words or attitudes, than in respect of natural imperfection. Shame is often unhelpfully felt, e.g. for being “fat”, or disorganised. Inappropriate or excessive feelings of shame have made some people reluctant to embrace shame where it is useful and needed.  

I wonder if shame avoidance is part of the explanation for the way people seeking asylum are being treated. Perhaps there is an underlying sense of shame, which is covered up by denigrating those whom we know deep down deserve our compassion. 5

It is tempting when refusing to assist vulnerable people to portray them as undeserving. The Torah states: “Beware, lest… your eyes will look in an evil way on your needy brother and not give him”. 6 This is interpreted to mean that, in our reluctance to help a needy person, we must not ascribe evil characteristics to the person seeking our help to justify our refusal. An example of this is the inhabitants of the wealthy city of Sodom; they were concerned about diluting their wealth if they accepted outsiders, so instead they denigrated the visitors as evil, 7 not unlike governments in Australia and Israel that use words like “Illegals” or “infiltrators” in relation to people lawfully seeking asylum. 8

In a discussion in a Sydney synagogue last week, one man asserted that not one of the Africans seeking asylum in Israel was a genuine refugee. He also expressed anger about criminal acts that have been perpetrated by African asylum seekers in South Tel Aviv. He can’t possibly know what the circumstances of the asylum seekers were in their home countries and surely he must know that blaming all members of a group for the acts of some is wrong. Could it be that his assertion that the asylum seekers are not genuine is covering up his discomfort with holding a prejudiced position?

The Torah calls for justice for the stranger 9 and particularly for a compassionate response to and protection of people fleeing oppression. “You shall not deliver a slave to his master if he seeks refuge with you from his master. He shall reside among you, wherever he chooses within any of your cities, where it is good for him. You shall not oppress him”. 10 Many of the refugees who have reached Israel are from Eritrea, where they were slaves in all but name before their escape. According to Israeli NGO, The Hotline for Refugees and Migrants, “citizens of Eritrea flee a country with no civilian judiciary… and whose citizens are obligated to perform endless ‘national service’. This service is unlike the service performed in other armies and includes performing various forms of hard labour for the benefit of the regime, including: mining, paving roads and agricultural work. Eritreans who defect from national service are considered traitors and if they are caught, they are tortured and sometimes executed or tortured to death”. 11

In Australia and Israel, there are restrictions preventing asylum seekers from enjoying the benefits and dignity of work. Their conditions do not justify the choice to commit criminal acts; however we should not sit in judgement of those whose circumstances 12 are conducive to increasing crime. Instead, we should work at changing the situation. The verse mentioned above commands that former slaves should be housed “among you”. This is interpreted as cautioning against creating a separate city for the former slaves as this might lead to social unrest or “rebellion”. Instead, the former slaves should be integrated among the people. 13

It is a shame that people who have suffered so much are having doors slammed in their faces by governments. We should not accept this. We are not shameless.

Notes
1.    Dignity is regarded as so important that, in our Torah reading, there is a requirement to ensure that, if someone is hanged for a capital offence, the corpse does not remain hanging overnight. Deuteronomy 21:22-23. Dignity in punishment is also emphasised in relating to flogging, where the Torah warns that excess lashes might lead to your brother becoming cheapened in your eyes. Deuteronomy 25:1-3
Dignity is also hinted at when the Torah states: “You shall not see your brother's ox or sheep straying, and you would ignore them. [Rather,] you shall return them to your brother”. The words:  וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ מֵהֶם “you would ignore them” are creatively interpreted in the Talmud as referring to an elder who is unaccustomed to carrying large parcels in public so it would not be dignified for him to do so. In this case the words “you shall ignore them” are taken to mean the exact opposite of the plain in the meaning in the text: he should in fact ignore the lost object, rather than compromise his dignity. Talmud Bava Metzia 30. It comes up again in the command that Israelite soldiers have a designated place outside their camp to relieve themselves and that they carry a spike to dig a hole to cover up their excrement. Deuteronomy 23:13-14 , see Targum Unkelus to 13.
In the case of a debtor, the lender is forbidden from entering the home of the borrower to take a security, but must stand outside. If the borrower is poor and gives his night garments as security, the lender must return the night clothes every evening at sunset so that the poor person can sleep in his garments in dignity. This would be an act of kindness that the Torah predicts would lead the poor borrower to bless the lender. Deuteronomy 24:10-13. 
2.    Tanya Chapter 1 alludes to the problem of being depressed if one sees oneself as wicked
3.    Deuteronomy 25:11
4.    Genesis 2:25
5.    This principle is articulated strongly in our reading this week relating to an escaped slave, discussed in the next paragraph. It is also reflected in the criticism of Amon and Moab whose male members are never to be allowed to join the Jewish people, even to the tenth generation, because they did not welcome the Israelites with bread and water on the road when we left Egypt. Instead they related to us as a threat.  Deuteronomy 23:4-5, compassion for the stranger is also the subject of several commandments relating to sharing one’s crops such as not gleaning and leaving a forgotten sheaf of wheat etc. Deuteronomy 24:19-22
6.    Deuteronomy 15:9
7.    R. Shmelkeh of Nikolsburg. A variation of this in Yalkut Hagershuni creatively reinterprets the last words of the following verse in Genesis 18:20 about the city of Sodom: “Since the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and since their sin has become very grave,”. Literally, the verse is understood as the words of G-d about the inhabitants of Sodom. But it could also be interpreted as the words the Sodomites themselves used about poor visitors to their city, to justify their inhospitable practices - “their sin” – like the sin of the “illegals” , the “economic migrants”, “queue jumpers” or “infiltrators” is very great and this alleged sin is seen as justifying their cruel treatment. Both cited in Nachshoni, Y., (1989) Studies in the Weekly Parshah, Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn New York,  p.1280. This citation is from my previous article relating to these themes: http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/curbing-compassion-for-asylum-seekers.html August 2012
8.    My friend, KL, insists that the term “asylum seekers” is unhelpful and that we should speak instead of “people seeking asylum”.
9.    Deuteronomy 24:17
10.    Deuteronomy 23:16-17
11.    http://hotline.org.il/en/about-us/
12.    Tanya, Chapter 30
13.    Abarbanel and Ralbag on these verses