November 16, 2023 • 49 mins
There’s polarization, and then there’s toxic polarization. We all know what that feels like, especially at this moment around Israel and Palestine. For many of us, the temperature of the rhetoric is so incendiary that even though we might have deep and nuanced feelings, let alone education, experience, or personal ties to the issue, the thought of wading into what seems like a totally polarized conversation feels frightening and pointless. But, we still want to be able to engage in our world, and maybe even dip our toe into conversation with people we believe to be well-intentioned, even if their views might seem extreme or uninformed to us. But how can we do that without turning up the temperature and the volume by adding our voice?
Thankfully, Rabbi Rachel Schmelkin is here to help. Rabbi Schmelkin specializes in navigating toxic polarization and crossing divides. In this episode, she helps us understand what’s happening to people–including ourselves–when we encounter or engage in polarized or potentially polarizing topics, and reminds us that we have choices in how–and if–we engage.
TERMS:
Havdalah: Hebrew for “separation”, the Havdalah service marks the end of Shabbat and the return to the "normal" week.
Rabbinate: The office or function of being a rabbi
Motive misattribution: Assuming that the motivations of others are negative in a situation where we would accept our own motives as perfectly reasonable. This is related to motive asymmetry, where people assume the motives of those on the other side of a conflict are diametrically opposed to ours, creating an intractable conflict.
Musar (or Mussar): A movement to use Jewish ethics, as opposed to rules, to guide behavior and character. Mussar facilitators use these principles to guide challenging conversations.
Sacred Value: A value that is impervious to material incentives to change.
Backfire effect: Digging in on an existing belief in response to information that disproves it.
4-7-8 breathing: a breathing technique to reduce anxiety where one inhales for a count of four, holds the breath for a count of seven, and exhales for a count of eight.
Beginner’s Mind: A mindset that releases any previously existing knowledge or conceptions to allow for maximum curiosity and openness, approaching like a total beginner on the topic.
b'tzelem Elohim: Hebrew for “in the image of God”, it refers to all humans being created in the image of God and therefore being of equal value.
ken y'hi ratzon: Translated as “let it be so”, it literally means “let it be God’s will”
MORE:
One America Movement: https://oneamericamovement.org/
*Quick disclosure: The One America movement is a catalyst partner of Stand Together, which is my employer in my day job. They have no involvement in this podcast, which does not represent them or their interests in any way.
Over Zero: https://www.projectoverzero.org/
Beyond Conflict: https://beyondconflictint.org/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Rabbi Schmelkin (00:00):
Remember that the goal of the conversation is
not to change the other person'smind and persuade them to think
what you think. Yeah. And ifthat's why you're doing it, then
this probably isn't the rightchoice
Hannah Gaber (00:13):
Or just prepare for conflict,.
Rabbi Schmelkin (00:15):
Or prepare for conflict, right?
Hannah Gaber (00:17):
Hey, y'all, I don't think it would be unfair
to say that many of us areabsolutely surrounded by
conflict at the moment. Forthose of us who are lucky enough
to be 1000s of miles away fromthe actual physical conflict in
Israel and Gaza, we often findourselves inundated by rhetoric
and images that brings conflictdirectly into our homes and our
(00:42):
hands via our cell phones orconversations that we didn't
necessarily volunteer to be apart of.
So like many others, I havesought moments of quiet moments
of respite. And one of those wasa healing and Havdalah service
hosted by Washington Hebrewcongregation, at a local yoga
studio. It seemed like a niceopportunity for me to sit in a
(01:04):
dark room with other people whowere not going to pick a fight
because Rabbi Rachel Shmoocon,who specializes in crossing
divides and toxic polarizationwas leading the gathering. So
that seemed like an obviousplace to try and process some of
what we see around us. And someof what we may start to feel
(01:25):
like we want to say ourselves.
Needless to say, as soon as thegathering was complete, I
approached the poor rabbi andbeseeched her for even more of
her time and expertise. Sowithout further ado, here is the
wise and wonderful Rabbi RachelSchmelkin.
(01:45):
It's been tricky to think aboutwhat to say, in all contexts. I
was talking with my brotherabout this just last night,
about how it's like you can'tjust be Jewish, you have to have
a stance.
And if it's not the exact rightstance that agrees with every
piece of nuance that someoneelse's stance takes, then it's
(02:06):
like you have to sort ofemotionally prepare yourself for
like an onslaught. And so it hasreally felt like, I don't want
to say anything at all. And I amsure a lot of people are feeling
that way. And yet also feelslike I have to say something it
(02:27):
I don't know if it's an exteriorobligation feeling or an
interior obligation feeling. Butit feels like saying nothing is
as judged or as incriminating,as whatever you could say. But
you can never say the rightthing anyway.
Rabbi Schmelkin (02:40):
Yep.
Hannah Gaber (02:41):
That's why we have you hear an expert on saying
things or not saying things? Howdid you get the background that
you have in de-escalatingdiscourse? And how would you
define that concept for us?
Rabbi Schmelkin (02:54):
Sure. So a short version of a much longer
story is that I was ordained in2016. My first congregation out
of rabbinical school wascongregation, Beth Israel in
Charlottesville, Virginia. Whatthat meant was that one year
into my rabbinic, I found myselfpreparing for and counter
(03:18):
protesting the unite the rightrally.
And I spent hours and hours andhours organizing with a very
diverse coalition of activistsand leaders of faiths leading up
to the rally. And during thatweekend, and afterwards, as
(03:39):
well. And part of the processthey went through after
experiencing that traumatic andhorrifying weekend, was getting
involved in an organizationcalled The One America movement,
which aims to help people crossreligious, racial and political
(04:00):
divides, and help people findtheir shared identities and help
people remember that you don'thave to agree on everything to
sit at the table together. Andyou don't have to agree on
everything to get things donetogether, either.
Hannah Gaber (04:17):
And you don't have to agree on everything to
acknowledge and accept andrespect each other's basic
shared humanity. Absolutely.
Rabbi Schmelkin (04:24):
Absolutely. And so for me, the really powerful
and in some ways, healing partof what happened for me in my
involvement in the one Americamovement in 2018. And 2019, was
being in this very small clergygroup that included not just
more liberal clergy, likemyself, but evangelical pastors
(04:48):
and a lay leader from themosque, Christians, Jews and
Muslims, an African Americanpastor and it was...
it was was extremelytransformative for me both the
conversations and therelationships I built, but also
the learning I did about toxicpolarization, the science behind
(05:10):
it, the research that tells uson a lot of issues, we're not as
divided as we think we are. AndI ended up when it was when it
made sense for my husband and Ito leave Charlottesville, I
ended up working for oneAmerican movement for three
years before joining the clergyteam at Washington Hebrew
congregation.
Hannah Gaber (05:29):
Wow. So we connected at the Havdalah and
healing that you held over theweekend. And I think one of the
fundamental things that came upin the discussions at that group
was like, why can't we justaccept and acknowledge one
another's experience, and, like,everybody's pain is legitimate.
(05:54):
So explain, for example, whatthe most basic understanding of
toxic polarization can be. Evenin these like small instances of
day to day life that we're, Ifeel like seeing around us more
and more.
Rabbi Schmelkin (06:10):
So I think that it's important to start from the
foundational idea that there ispolarization that exists in the
world, and not all polarizationis bad, right, we can have a
very healthy dialogue anddisagreement on an issue that
matters.
And we see polarization in ourworld in lots of different ways
(06:33):
to that are maybe a little morelike light hearted, maybe not
for sports, maybe it doesn'tfeel light hearted for sports
fans, from my perspective,right? I root for one team, you,
you root for another team.
But the problem is that whentoxic polarization takes hold,
it becomes very tribal, we moveinto, I'm on this team, and you
(06:56):
are on that team. And if you areon the other team, that means X,
Y and Z about you. And thepeople on the other team think
the same for us.
And then we see something forexample, like a bumper sticker,
a t shirt, a post on socialmedia from a member of the out
(07:19):
group. And then at that moment,we decide we know everything
there is to know about thatperson about where they come
from, about their beliefs. Andthe cycle just gets worse and
worse.
And the other thing that'shappening in the midst of that
moment of toxic polarization isthat the extreme voices on
(07:40):
either side are almost alwaysthe loudest.
Hannah Gaber (07:43):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (07:44):
So even though there might be many, many people
who think what we think, thinkwhat you and I think, right that
like, we can sit down and have aconversation and listen to one
another's perspectives and havecompassion for one another and
see each other's pain in this,those aren't the voices that
we're hearing most often. That'snot the story, that is the sexy
(08:08):
story to tell. And so instead,it creates a norm that everyone
is super extreme, and everyoneis hateful.
Hannah Gaber (08:19):
And it just pushes voices of moderation or
compassion out of the room.
Because a lot of the time I findthat people who are actually
pretty interested in like deescalation or a compassionate
discourse, don't want to beinvolved in that type of
rhetorical conflict.
Rabbi Schmelkin (08:38):
Right.
Hannah Gaber (08:39):
I was thinking about the Havdalah and healing
service? ceremony? I don'treally know what to call it,
what would we call it gathering?
Rabbi Schmelkin (08:46):
Gathering? I like the word gathering.
Hannah Gaber (08:47):
Yeah, gathering that I met you at, and you set
some ground rules right away,which I loved. And you define
some terms. And I wonder if Icould ask you to do that again
here. And what I'm thinking ofspecifically, is, you know,
we're going to start with thesequestions, and here's why. And
also terms that you used, like,I think you said double
(09:09):
confidence,
Rabbi Schmelkin (09:10):
Double confidentiality.
Hannah Gaber (09:12):
Double confidentiality.
Rabbi Schmelkin (09:14):
So double confidentiality is, so that's
not a science concept that'slike different. So there's like
the toxic polarization scienceconcepts. And then there's the
facilitation training.
Hannah Gaber (09:22):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (09:23):
Work that I've done. And I also have, I've done
Musar study, and I've beentrained as a Musar facilitator.
Musar is a Jewish, a Jewishpractice of ethics in which
we're thinking about what is onour spiritual curriculum or our
sole curriculum.
(09:44):
And we are understandingourselves better and focusing in
on particular character traitsat particular times and, and
doing practices around betterunderstanding and sort of
tackling those character traits.
All of that is to say that whenyou're when you're When you're
in a Musar, cohort or Musarva'ad, and you're doing this
deep work together, one of thethings that we always talk about
(10:05):
as Musar facilitators is doubleconfidentiality.
And it's something it's a stepbeyond confidentiality, it's not
just saying what we say, in thisspace or in this cohort, or in
this conversation, doesn't leavethis conversation. It's also
saying that, in the context ofthis space, and time and place
(10:27):
and conversation right now, oneof us may say something, or
share a story or an experiencethat is really personal, really
challenging, maybe very painful,and I want to share it now and
talk about it now in this momentand unpack it a little bit right
now today. But I don't want totalk about it tomorrow.
(10:51):
And so the idea is that justbecause somebody shared this,
you know, wonderful, or terribleexperience that they had about,
you know, about Israel, theIsraeli Palestinian conflict or
on birthright or whatever it is.
Don't assume that tomorrow whenyou? I don't know, see them at
work? Yeah, that they want totalk about it again. And I
(11:12):
would, I would say that, itmight be that someone shares an
experience with you, you gohome, and you think about it,
and you do have follow upquestions.
You want to be delicate when youapproach that person again. And
it's as simple I think, assaying, when we were in that
(11:32):
group together yesterday, youbrought up this thing that
happened on your birthrighttrip? On your Israel trip? Or at
your synagogue? Or with yourbrother? Would you be open to
talking about it a little bitmore? Or do you want to just
leave it there? And and lettingthe person decide?
Hannah Gaber (11:51):
Yeah. I really liked that approach that also
feels like a bit of an extensionof consent to me.
Rabbi Schmelkin (11:58):
Yeah.
Hannah Gaber (11:58):
And it reminds me of that conversation to have
like, you know, just because youguys, maybe were lovers in the
past, it does not mean thatyou're entitled to this person
today. You know, it's likeconsent has to be given every
single time.
And I think that that goes forconversations. I think that that
goes for physical intimacy. Ithink that that goes for, you
know, entering someone's home,you know, just because you've
(12:18):
been to my house before youdon't get to walk in the door,
when you come over, you have toask.
And I think that that's a reallyrespectful way of treating not
just a person, but somethingshared that is vulnerable. I
think that's a really lovely wayof just saying, you know, hey,
that was a different context.
Today is today. Can we can I hada question? Are you open to
(12:42):
revisiting it? And they can saylike, No, thank you. I'll let
you know if I am.
Rabbi Schmelkin (12:47):
And I think we can be also, you know, empowered
enough to say in a conversation.
Yeah. I want to tell you aboutthis.
Hannah Gaber (12:55):
But I don't want to talk about this after this.
Rabbi Schmelkin (12:57):
Yeah, this thing had happened. I hate
talking about it. I never talkedabout it. I really try never to
think about it. I want to talkabout it today. But please,
let's talk about it now. Andthen let's leave it here.
Hannah Gaber (13:07):
I love that. Yeah.
Oh, God, I wish we respectedeach other's requests for things
like that just a little more.
Rabbi Schmelkin (13:14):
Yeah.
So how can we, as people in theworld be participants in good
faith in exchanges using some ofthese ground rules? Okay, just
(13:36):
start start us there.
Sure. So one of the things Ithink is important, especially
when we're talking about theIsraeli Palestinian conflict, is
to recognize that we are talkingabout an issue that people hold
as a sacred value, a sacredvalue is.
So first of all, it's a valuethat's processed in the part of
(13:57):
our brain that processes rulebound behaviors. So we're very
rigid about it. And what thatmeans is that there's no for
example, a monetary trade off,that we can agree on around the
issue.
Hannah Gaber (14:12):
The example that you used in our gathering that I
found, so illuminating, was likeso for example, you know, let's
say you're a fanatical followerof a sports team. Yeah. I asked
you to burn a jersey on TV,would you do it for $500?
Preferably 5 million, almostdefinitely.
Rabbi Schmelkin (14:28):
Yup.
Hannah Gaber (14:28):
But if I asked you to burn a Torah scroll or a
Bible, or for some people, it'sprobably an American flag,
there's no amount of money thatI could offer you, for you to do
that thing. And it's just out ofthe question. It's
unapproachable.
Rabbi Schmelkin (14:42):
There's no amount of money you could pay me
to burn an American flag, Imean, or a Torah scroll or an
Israeli flag, right? There'sno--
Hannah Gaber (14:48):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (14:49):
Rght.
Hannah Gaber (14:49):
It's an untouchable value. And I can
think of so many friends of mineright now. Where if I were to
say to them, so let me ask youthis. How much money would it
take to burn a Bible? They'd belike, That's not we're not
having that conversation.
There's no doesn't matter. Sothat would be a sacred value.
Rabbi Schmelkin (15:04):
Right. Which isn't to say that while there's
no point in talking, then we'retrying to be in relationship
because we'll never come right?
We'll never come to an agreementon it. Like, I'm not the I'm not
the politician, I'm not, that'snot my job, right? And there are
people that have to figure outhow to understand the sacred
value and then
Hannah Gaber (15:24):
and then try to change it.
Rabbi Schmelkin (15:25):
We're not we're not, we're not changing--or how
to, or how to determine how tooffer one sacred value in place
of another sacred value, right?
That's not...
Hannah Gaber (15:34):
I think we just wanted from a place of
understanding that not only dowe hold those values, and this
might be one of them, but sodoes the person sitting in front
of us, and to enter from a placeof respecting that?
Rabbi Schmelkin (15:46):
Yep. I think that's right. And I think it's
also important to recognizebefore you sit down with
someone, if it's a sacred valuefor you, and it's not a sacred
value for them, or if it's asacred value for you, and your
feeling is, it should not be asacred value for them.
Hannah Gaber (16:07):
Oh, that's a good one.
Rabbi Schmelkin (16:09):
This person, like, I have, I am, I'm being
vulnerable and honest here. Isometimes see people posting on
Facebook, and they're saying,really, really painful things
for me to see. And I wonder whythey're so invested,
Hannah Gaber (16:27):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (16:28):
In this issue in the first place, because in
my mind,
Hannah Gaber (16:32):
it has nothing to do with them,
Rabbi Schmelkin (16:34):
it doesn't have anything to do with them, or
they don't, they don't have astake in it, or they don't have
any family or friends there.
Right. And that's not to say Ishouldn't talk to them. And
maybe actually, by talking tothem, I would find out that it
is a sacred value for them andI'm just being closed minded.
But I think if I'm going, if Ialready think that going into
it, then I have to think abouthow open minded I'm going to be
(16:56):
able to be and also if it'sgoing to be too painful for me
to feel like this is personalfor me, and it's not personal
for you, and so now I just feelangry.
Hannah Gaber (17:09):
Yeah, not a great place to engage from.
Rabbi Schmelkin (17:12):
Right.
Hannah Gaber (17:12):
Yeah. And that reminds me of another term that
you brought up that I'd love it,if you could help us understand
is motive misattribution, thatthat makes me think of motive
misattribution, which as soon asyou said it identified with
100%, because
Rabbi Schmelkin (17:24):
Totally.
Hannah Gaber (17:25):
it's like, we fight that we try to back that
away all day long. And that goesback to what you just said about
just like, can we assume bestintent?
Rabbi Schmelkin (17:31):
Yeah
Hannah Gaber (17:31):
Help us understand motive misattribution.
Rabbi Schmelkin (17:33):
So motive, so yeah, motive is attribution is a
fun one to do in workshops.
Because most of the time you asksomebody, you know, do you sit
in a lot of traffic? And there'salways somebody in the room who
sits in a lot of traffic?
Hannah Gaber (17:47):
Yeah, especially in DC.
Rabbi Schmelkin (17:48):
Especially in DC. And so you say, you know,
well, what do you think whensomeone cuts you off in traffic?
Now, when I do this with a roomof rabbis and cantors, let me
say from the outset, they'realways like, "well, maybe the
person is in labor and is ontheir way to the hospital."
Hannah Gaber (18:02):
What is that my mom always says that, is that a
Jewish thing? Like what?
Rabbi Schmelkin (18:05):
Maybe it is, maybe it's like, yeah, but
oftentimes people are like, Ithink that that person is a
jerk, and they're inconsiderate.
And that is that's that's agreat way to just to understand
motive misattribution, it's ourtendency to assume something
negative about the intentions ofthe other person, that they're
just careless, that they don'tcare about us, but the thing is,
(18:27):
is that with our own with ourwith ourselves, we give
ourselves the benefit of thedoubt or we have a reason,
right? If I've cut somebody off,it's because I'm late to I'm
late to daycare pickup.
Hannah Gaber (18:42):
My reasons are important. And they're right,
and they're justified.
Rabbi Schmelkin (18:45):
And their reasons are stupid.
Hannah Gaber (18:46):
And your reasons are terrible and selfish. Yeah,
Rabbi Schmelkin (18:49):
That's a key part of these conversations is
to, to recognize that we mightautomatically jump to assuming
negative intentions or ill willfrom somebody.
Hannah Gaber (19:02):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (19:03):
When in fact, that's not what's actually going
on, the person might saysomething in a way that really
gets under our skin. And theymight not have meant to.
Hannah Gaber (19:14):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (19:15):
They just might not know how to say it
differently. They might not havethe language around it, they
might not be as informed as youare.
Hannah Gaber (19:23):
And they certainly can't know how your internal
reality will react to it. And Ithink that for me is the biggest
thing that I have to always keepin mind is like, nobody and my
my I had a therapist who told methis one time and it was like
life-altering for me, which isso stupid because it's it's so
obvious,where she was like, where I was
saying, you know, this personand that and then I was feeling
like that and then did it at itand then she was like, you know,
(19:43):
they can't actually see insideyour head.
They can't actually see insideof you. So however you're
feeling whatever you'rethinking, in that for my case,
it's usually more of like feelfree to just not share it
because then no one will everknow, like, so there's that,
because you think we all thinkthat we're so transparent. And
(20:04):
so therefore, how could thatperson say or do this thing that
made me feel X kind of way?
Rabbi Schmelkin (20:08):
Right.
Hannah Gaber (20:09):
They can't actually see it, they don't
actually know how you'refeeling. So being careless,
being thoughtless, beingwhatever with your words is
like, it's almost always I find,has nothing to do with you, just
like most people's behavior haseverything to do with them.
(20:30):
How do we create space? For thepeople who, for example, when
we're looking at Gaza, andIsrael at this moment, people
like myself, I've just backedaway.
I don't want to say things a...
I would say that most of myfears about saying anything are
based in number one, I'm comingfrom a place of like default of
wanting to love people. And Iknow that there are people who
(20:53):
are maybe saying things thatthey don't realize the origins
of or the impact of and, and Idon't necessarily want to uncork
their emotional state, because Idon't think I can take seeing
the ugliness that might comeout.
And I know that that's comingfrom a place of assumption and
(21:14):
fear on my part.
Rabbi Schmelkin (21:15):
Yeah.
Hannah Gaber (21:16):
But on the other hand, it also removes what might
be a voice of moderation in thiscase, my voice from the
conversation?
Rabbi Schmelkin (21:26):
Mm hmm.
Hannah Gaber (21:28):
And I don't know, do we have an obligation to
engage? If we feel that we havea moderate perspective? How do
we deal with that fear ofopening ourselves up to further
injury?
Rabbi Schmelkin (21:40):
Mm hmm. Yeah, these are I mean, these are the
really hard questions. So firstof all, I think it's important
to say that when I talk aboutcrossing divides, and when I
talk about having theseconversations, I am not talking
about sitting down with anextremist.
I am not I'm not talking aboutsitting down with a neo-Nazi or
a white supremacist or a memberof Hamas. That's beyond.
(22:02):
I--There are people who do that.
It's not what I'm talking about.
Hannah Gaber (22:05):
Right.
Rabbi Schmelkin (22:06):
I think that to figure out if and when to
engage, and if and when to useour voices, we have to be really
self aware.
Hannah Gaber (22:14):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (22:14):
So we have to notice, am I in a place where
I'm feeling afraid right now?
Because if I'm feeling afraid,then I'm not even aware of
things that are going on in mybrain where I am scanning my
environment, to figure out whois my friend and who is my foe?
Hannah Gaber (22:34):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (22:34):
I'm also not necessarily aware that
particular identities that Ihold, for example, like a
Zionist identity, might beactivated above all my other
identities, which means that Iforget, it becomes it's called a
singular rigid identity, whenI'm in that space of a singular
rigid identity I, I see myselfas that one thing, I forget the
(23:00):
other parts of myself,I see other people as their
singular, rigid identity, and Iforget all the parts of them
that also are shared between uslike being a mom, or being a
member of a synagogue or achurch, or, I don't know, loving
the same musical artists andhaving gone to five concerts of
that person, right, we, so weforget all of those things.
Hannah Gaber (23:25):
The common ground that we have.
Rabbi Schmelkin (23:26):
The common ground, the common ground. Each
of us has to ask ourselves, ifwe are truly ready to hear
another person's perspective,and to hold the pain of that.
Because it's really not easy.
And I think that we have to askourselves, when we when we feel
resistant or hesitant, "am Iresistant and hesitant or
(23:47):
feeling like I don't want to doit because I'm because I
actually think about otherperson endangers my life, or is
going to be emotionallytraumatic for me, or do I just
feel it will be uncomfortable?"There's a difference between
feeling uncomfortable andfeeling like we're in danger.
Hannah Gaber (24:05):
So that being uncomfortable can be a benefit,
actually,
Rabbi Schmelkin (24:08):
Absolutely.
Hannah Gaber (24:09):
It's a growth opportunity. Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (24:11):
We have to be uncomfortable sometimes. Yeah.
And I think and then in thinkingabout being uncomfortable, and
what you said about moderates,and it's an interesting word,
right. And we have in the inpolarization lingo, we talk
about these, the idea of beingan in-group moderate. However,
(24:32):
that's not about beingpolitically moderate.
Hannah Gaber (24:35):
Right. It's about being a moderating voice.
Rabbi Schmelkin (24:38):
Exactly. You totally get it right. It's about
and maybe a norm setter is abetter term. But yes, I do think
there is this really difficulttension right now of "should I
just be silent, becauseeverything is so loaded and so
heated, that I just don't wantto open my mouth at all or post
(24:59):
anything?"And then I think the flip side
of that is, then we allow theextreme voice to be loud.
Hannah Gaber (25:08):
And define the discourse.
Rabbi Schmelkin (25:10):
And define the discourse exactly. And, and the
hardest thing to do, or one ofthe hardest things to do is to
be that norm setter, or thatmoderating voice with people in
your in-group.
So, to be able to look and say,as a Jewish person, there's an
extreme voice. And I want to sayloudly and clearly as a Jew,
(25:32):
whatever your identity group is.
Hannah Gaber (25:34):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (25:34):
That person does not represent me. And that
is not what our values say.
Yeah, that is not what webelieve.
Hannah Gaber (25:42):
I mean, I think first of all, nobody's ever
obligated to wade into anyexchange?
Rabbi Schmelkin (25:49):
No.
Hannah Gaber (25:49):
I think that that's a really important like
thing to just say, right off thetop. And, you know, once again,
I'm assuming, but I'm assumingwe're on the same page on that,
because it's just like a basictruth of like
Rabbi Schmelkin (25:58):
Yes.
Hannah Gaber (25:58):
No one's ever obligated to expose themselves
to anything, if it feels like itmight be harmful.
Rabbi Schmelkin (26:04):
Absolutely.
Hannah Gaber (26:05):
In this type of exchange. So having said that,
I, if I hear you, right, whatI'm also hearing is like, and
this is sort of something Ithink I've come to on my own as
well, if for whatever reason,something maybe feels unsafe to
engage with whether or not it'sexternally or internally unsafe,
probably you're just not ready.
And so maybe it's just not agood time.
Rabbi Schmelkin (26:29):
Or you need to explore it a little more, yeah,
unpack it a little more, and tryto figure out where it's coming
from.
Hannah Gaber (26:35):
Yeah. And so that's the work that you need to
do first, before trying to like,pull anyone else into your
figuring out of that stuff.
Every exchange you have is goingto be part of you figuring it
out. So then you're obligatingthis other person to be a part
of that process. And likethey're not necessarily prepared
for or consenting to that.
They're just want to share theirviews.
So I think but I think that thatwork of like digging deeper has
(26:57):
to start with your fundamentalquestion of like, am I afraid?
Or am I just uncomfortable? AndI don't want to experience that
challenge.
Rabbi Schmelkin (27:04):
Yes. I think that's right.
Hannah Gaber (27:05):
And we don't live.
I don't feel like we live in ahealthy culture of challenge in
this country. I think, well,this country is one thing, this
specific discourse is acompletely different
conversation, having a healthyculture of challenge around
Israel-Palestine, I don't thinkthat, that I can't imagine those
two things being said in thesame sentence.
And without digging, I don'teven necessarily want to go too
(27:28):
deeply on the specific conflictor conversation about it. But I
just think that like if all ofus could hold space for that,
like, healthy culture ofchallenge of like, you can hold
a different perspective. Andthat doesn't implicitly harm me.
Rabbi Schmelkin (27:43):
Yes.
Hannah Gaber (27:44):
I think where it gets really thorny on this
specific topic is like a lot ofperspectives around Israel,
Gaza, Hamas, Zionism,Palestine...On some level, we
just have to accept that thereare parts of those rhetorics
that are part of a largerrhetoric that has led to
(28:05):
physical action and politicalaction that has caused harm, and
how do we not contribute ourvoices to the fray?
For example, I'm scrollingthrough my Instagram stories.
And I think this is probably thething most people can relate to
the most, and I'm looking atpeople who I enjoy people that
I've loved in the past, and Istill would like to think that I
love on the basic shared humanlevel, and I don't want to talk
(28:29):
to them. I don't want to sayanything.
I feel like there's such anabsence of, shall we say,
universally applied morals.
Rabbi Schmelkin (28:38):
MmHmm.
Hannah Gaber (28:39):
And this makes me think of a couple of things that
you brought up the other day?
What are some of the things thatI'm perhaps experiencing? And or
seeing when I'm having thatexperience? As I'm being
bombarded by these pieces ofrhetoric?
Rabbi Schmelkin (28:54):
It's a great question, I think...So first of
all, when you're when you're onInstagram, and you see that
post, and I saw one yesterday, Isaw one last night, okay, I'll
tell you about that in a second,but, our body actually does
react to it as a physical threatwhen we're presented with
information,information, ideas, beliefs,
(29:16):
that are really different fromour own and our and in our
counter to what we believe itactually makes our, makes us
feel physically threatened.
And that's I'm not I let's beclear, I'm not a neuro
scientist, or a psychologist,but I have spent enough time
talking to people who are atthis point,
Hannah Gaber (29:38):
And studying, actually studying.
Rabbi Schmelkin (29:40):
Yes, studying it, and reading articles and
research papers and all kinds ofthings. So that is what's
happening. And you know, I dothis, I think about this, you
know, toxic polarization,constantly, especially now, and
I still feel that impulse I seethis It was someone I've known
(30:00):
since I was very young, veryyoung, I really care about them.
I saw their post, and Iimmediately thought to myself, I
need to either comment on it orsend them a message. And then I
stopped myself and remindedmyself, you know, that that's
(30:26):
not going to work, right? Youknow that it's not going to have
the outcome that you want.
Hannah Gaber (30:32):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (30:33):
And part of that is backfire effect. We know
from research that when wepresent another person with
facts that are counter to thefact that they believe it does
not change their minds, itactually makes them dig their
heels deeper into what theyalready think. And they figure
out a way to explain away theinformation that you have given
(30:55):
them.
And I thought to myself, in thatmoment, I know that there would
be one productive thing that Icould do, and that the only
productive thing really I couldthink to do with this person
would be to have a phone call,yeah, or set up a zoom, and have
(31:16):
a conversation with a very setframework in which we are each
open to sharing how we've cometo think what we think like, how
did I, how did I come to careabout the issue of the Israeli
Palestinian conflict in thefirst place? And I would share
that, and they would share that.
And then to think, and bevulnerable enough to say,
(31:39):
here's, here's where I have somedoubts on this, like, here's,
here's where I have questions,and that they would then also be
willing to share that. And thenat the end, we might talk about
how we wish the conversation isdifferent around the issue,
or what our own vision if wehave one is for the issue, and
(32:02):
even a shared, it could be evena shared sense of despair that
the solution seems so out ofreach.
Hannah Gaber (32:10):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (32:10):
If I felt like I wasn't in a place emotionally
to do that, to try andunderstand where they're coming
from, and how they got to thinkwhat they think and feel what
they feel. And it would bereally hard. And I know that it
would be I know that it would bepainful, but it would also be
illuminating for me.
You know, so I think there arethe people that we have in our
(32:31):
lives that we already love, andwe already know them well. And
now, in this time of intense,toxic polarization around the
Israeli Palestinian conflict,
Hannah Gaber (32:41):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (32:42):
we're finding out things about their views
that we didn't know, knowbefore.
Hannah Gaber (32:47):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (32:47):
And that's really hard. And then I think so
that's one scenario. And that'sthe "how do I remember what I
love about this person, what Ihave in common with this
person?" And think about how tostart from that place.
Hannah Gaber (33:04):
And when you mentioned the backfire effect,
my first thought was also thatself-interrogation of is that
what I'm experiencing? Is itpossible that really, it's me
digging in? And they've saidsomething that hurts because it
disagrees with my predispositionthat I may not have even been
aware that I held until thatmoment?
Rabbi Schmelkin (33:25):
Definitely.
Hannah Gaber (33:27):
What are some other things that we need to try
and stay aware of within our ownselves physiologically,
neurologically, psychologically,that you've come across in your
training in this field, that canhelp us to not be so? I mean,
triggered is such an overusedword, but triggered that yeah,
help us not become a part ofpolarization that becomes toxic.
Rabbi Schmelkin (33:52):
Yeah. So I think, first of all, when we are
when we are triggered when weare when those identities are
being act being activated, whenwe feel scared, our body tells
us that our face turns red, ourheart races, we start sweating.
(34:14):
It's happened to me so manytimes since October 7, yes, from
something that somebody says orsomething that I read.
And, you know, I always feelfunny, giving people the advice
to breathe, because I'm notalways very good at it. But when
I can make myself take a fewdeep breaths, or do like a 4-7-8
(34:36):
breathing exercise that I'velearned somewhere along the way,
it really does help. It reallydoes help. And then there's also
the question of, how do I talkto somebody I've never met
before.
Hannah Gaber (34:54):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (34:54):
And what I would say about that is that the
most successful time successfulconversations I have had about
really tough issues, includingabortion with people who
identify as evangelicalChristian and have really
(35:14):
completely different views onthe subject than I do, we did
not have those conversationsuntil we had gotten to know each
other really well.
We had first learned about eachother's interests where we had
grown up, you know, bonded overboth having dogs. As silly as
that might sound. It was reallymonths and months of
(35:38):
relationship building before weever had that conversation. So I
already liked them and caredabout them and that feeling was
mutual. Yeah, when we finallytalked about it.
That's not to say that there'snever a one-off dialogue, that
can work. Because I know peoplethat lead them, and I know
people who research them. Butthey have to be set up really
(36:03):
well and structured really well,and people have to really follow
the structure that's being setup. So it just takes so much
thoughtfulness.
Hannah Gaber (36:13):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (36:14):
And skill and self awareness and self
regulation. Right to be able to,to do that.
Hannah Gaber (36:24):
So don't just pop off at a stranger on Instagram.
Rabbi Schmelkin (36:28):
Exactly.
Exactly. And you know, it'sreally I personally don't think
these these disagreements onInstagram or Facebook, in the
comment sections.
Hannah Gaber (36:44):
Yeah, no one's teaching anyone anything,
Rabbi Schmelkin (36:46):
I think they're pretty useless.
Hannah Gaber (36:47):
Yeah. And I think and this is, you know, if
anything, I think it givesmomentum to the animosity, I
think it just turns up thevolume on the on the, on the
disdain and on thedismissiveness that is already
present.
Rabbi Schmelkin (37:05):
I think there's one other thing that can feel
complicated about this,especially when we're talking
about social media.
Hannah Gaber (37:10):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (37:11):
And that is that there is real dis
disinformation out there andmisinformation. And I've seen a
number of articles in recentdays about how many bots and
what they're putting out, and,the impulse to correct the
disinformation or misinformationwhen we see it is not wrong. But
(37:33):
again, we have to know thatwhile it might be important to
try and correct thatinformation, we might not have
the skills and tools we need tosuccessfully do it. And if we
care about it, there are ways tolearn about how to do that.
Yeah.
Hannah Gaber (37:53):
For those who do want to use their voices, for
those who do want to wade intowhatever conversation around
Israel-Palestine, or around thespecific current conflict, what
are some basic trainings or tipsthat you can offer basic
(38:13):
conversational tools, forexample, that, sure, we could
all use them in our daily lifeto make sure that our
conversations are a little moreconflict free, but like, what
are some basic starting pointsto open these discussions to
make sure that we are certainlynot contributing to a toxic
(38:34):
level of polarization, and couldeven be a de escalation
technique, even if they are onlyeffective towards ourselves?
From my perspective, we sort ofhave to dismiss the idea that
any exchange on social media isgoing to be productive. I think
if you have a one on onerelationship with someone, and
they have posted something thathas deeply, deeply hurt you, if
(38:56):
you trust that one on onerelationship, enough to reach
out to them and say, Hey, can wehave a conversation? Okay.
But I think that everybody hasto be realistic about their
expectations for engagementonline
Rabbi Schmelkin (39:08):
Agreed.
Hannah Gaber (39:08):
You cannot, I feel very strongly of like if I see
someone's string of things ontheir Instagram story. Unless I
cared deeply about that personin that specific relationship.
I'm just not going to sayanything. I don't think me
hitting them back with a bunchof other news media or other
(39:30):
propaganda or other organizationtalking points is really going
to get me anywhere. And I don'tI personally am not really
interested in just having anargument.
And I just think we all need toadmit to ourselves, if that's
what we're going to engage with,we're going to just end up
having an argument. So for thepurposes of this conversation,
and of the only types ofconversations that like, for
(39:52):
example, maybe people like mewho are just tired and I don't
want to be a part of the yellingmatch,
Rabbi Schmelkin (39:57):
Yeah.
Hannah Gaber (39:57):
If I'm going to engage, I would like it to be
meaningful. So how can we engagein conversations that might be
meaningful? Even if we don't,let's assume we don't even know
that other person's perspective;How do we approach with
Beginner's Mind and remain nonreactionary? In trying to have
(40:17):
these conversations with people?
Or any conversations withpeople?
Rabbi Schmelkin (40:22):
Yeah, I think you have to set some ground
rules in your own mind, andmaybe even together, saying, I'm
going to ask questions from aplace of curiosity, not to not
to do a gotcha question not tocatch someone in their
hypocrisy.
I'm going to, because I'msitting down with somebody that
(40:42):
I've known, or somebody who hasshown me that they really also
are interested in understandingwhere I come from, I'm going to
assume that they have goodintentions. While I'm sitting
with them, I have to go into itknowing that they might say
something that rubs me the wrongway, but that they're not out,
(41:04):
they're not out there to hurtme. They're not sitting down
with me to try and hurt me.
If we're going to really be openand honest, and we have to trust
the person is going to keep whatwe say confidential. I might
share views I might share, Imight share doubts, my own
doubts about parts of the issuethat we're talking about whether
it's Israeli-Palestinianconflict, or abortion, or
(41:26):
immigration, or whatever it is.
And I have to be able to trustthat they're not going to then
go post on Facebook, here's whatRabbi Rachel Schmelkin said, and
viceversa, right? They have tobe able to trust me, too. Those
are some of the very basic,basic things, I think,
Hannah Gaber (41:45):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (41:46):
The questions that I use, both formally in
workshops, and casually inconversation come from what I've
learned from the One Americamovement and Over Zero, which is
an organization that's amazing,and does really important
violence prevention work, andunderstanding how conflict can
become violent.
Hannah Gaber (42:06):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (42:06):
So the questions really, they start
with personal story. So in aformal setting, the question
we're saying is, how did youcome to know or care about this
issue? And when does this issuecome up for you?
There are more informal ways toto say that, right? Like I had
lunch with someone last week,who has very different views on
the Israeli Palestinian conflictthan I do. And I think I started
(42:29):
out the conversation, sayingsomething like, tell me about
your relationship with Israel.
And have you been there? Or whendid when is when did you start
learning about it? It was asimilar way of getting at the
same kind of question. And thenshe asked me back and I shared,
right,
Hannah Gaber (42:47):
Yeah
Rabbi Schmelkin (42:48):
Then I think you move to thinking about, it's
really they're very reflectivequestions.
Hannah Gaber (42:55):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (42:55):
How have you?
How have you come to believewhat you believe? How did you
get there? What has solidifiedyour beliefs on the issue? What
has caused you to doubt, havedoubts around this issue?
What questions do you have aboutthe issue? Right? It's really
(43:17):
vulnerable, to say, well,sometimes I wonder about this.
Or sometimes I hear this thingthat someone on the other side,
that's air quotes, right,someone on the other team says,
and I wonder if they might havea point a point, right, it's
vulnerable to say that,and then the question moves then
to kind of thinking bigger,thinking outside the box, really
(43:40):
kind of a place of hope. Like,how do I wish the conversation
around this issue was different?
Like I remember once in one ofthese conversations I had about
abortion with people who thoughtabout it really differently than
I did, we found ourselves bothsaying at the end, I wish that
(44:01):
the words that we just the wordsthemselves about how we describe
ourselves weren't so loaded. Andthere were more options between
pro-choice and pro-life oranti-choice or anti-life or that
all of those terms are soloaded, and lack nuance and
leave no room for gray area.
Hannah Gaber (44:23):
And they immediately place you in a camp,
they place you as a part of agroup and an identity.
Rabbi Schmelkin (44:28):
Yes. And I think we see that sometimes with
pro Israel or pro Palestine,right. Either I'm this, or I'm
that when you actually could beboth.
Hannah Gaber (44:40):
Yeah
Rabbi Schmelkin (44:40):
And many people are.
Hannah Gaber (44:42):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (44:42):
And so I think that there are there are many
kinds of epiphanies that we canhave in these conversations when
we start to ask a question andshare our thoughts and listen to
someone else's on how could theconversation be different?
What's my vision for this issue,or how people could talk about
the issue?
Hannah Gaber (44:58):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (44:59):
It doesn't mean that you'll walk away feeling
happy. Yeah, I think it's kindof like for people that do
therapy, you don't always end atherapy appointment.
Hannah Gaber (45:13):
"Oh, I feel so much better."
Rabbi Schmelkin (45:14):
Right, you often don't feel better, but you
feel like you grew in some wayor you feel like your mind was
open to something in yourselfthat you hadn't seen before. And
I think these conversations canbe like that. And I think it's
important when you go into themto remember that the goal of the
conversation is not to changethe other person's mind and
(45:35):
persuade them to think what youthink. Yeah. And if that's why
you're doing it, then thisprobably isn't the right choice.
Hannah Gaber (45:44):
Or just prepare for conflict.
Rabbi Schmelkin (45:46):
Or prepare for conflict. That's right.
Hannah Gaber (45:48):
That's like, if you're coming into it to try and
rearrange someone else'sthoughts, get ready for a fight.
Yep.
Rabbi Schmelkin (45:55):
Cuz it's really unlikely. It's really unlikely.
Hannah Gaber (45:58):
Mm hmm. I can't thank you enough for this
conversation.
Rabbi Schmelkin (46:04):
Thank you for having me.
Hannah Gaber (46:06):
This is very healing for me. And maybe I
selfishly like, that's why I waslike, can we just talk about it,
because I just like, and I'malso a person who obviously
like, loves to talk. And so it'sbeen a really interesting
experience to feel to like moveto the opposite default of, I
don't want to say anything, Ijust don't want to be a part of
the yelling match. I just don'twant to.
(46:26):
And I also don't want to have tofeel like I have to explain my
feelings. And I think that's theother thing that we could all do
for one another. Okay, so toanswer the question, "How I wish
the conversation weredifferent:"
Rabbi Schmelkin (46:37):
Yeah.
Hannah Gaber (46:37):
I wish that we could all just leave space. For
the legitimacy of everybody'ssuffering. The suffering of any
individual is not any more orless legitimate than the
suffering of another individual.
And, and I think we just don'tneed to erase one another's
experiences.
I wish the conversation weredifferent in that I wish we
(46:58):
could all just hold space foreverybody's different experience
being as real as everybodyelse's, and not feel the need to
dismiss or discount or erase anyof those experiences or voices.
Rabbi Schmelkin (47:13):
Well I think what you're saying right, like
in, in Jewish in Jewishlanguage, is b'tzelem Elohim,
recognizing that every person ismade in the image of God? And
how would it change ourinteractions with people and our
(47:33):
thoughts about people? If welooked at them and said, there,
there is godliness in you.
There's something divine in you,there's holiness in you. And
when you look at me, you seeholiness, and divinity, and
godliness in me too.
Hannah Gaber (47:53):
Ken Y'hi Ratzon.
Rabbi Schmelkin (47:55):
Amen.
Hannah Gaber (47:58):
Just want to say a very huge and special thank you
to Rabbi Schmelkin, for comingon the pod. I cannot imagine how
exhausted you must be, Rabbi,from having this and similar
conversations over and overagain. Your graciousness, and
your contribution is soappreciated, as is the support
(48:18):
of Washington Hebrew, who I justwant to give a special shout out
to, who has not just beensupportive of this podcast from
the very beginning, but ofspreading the values and
indulging the curiosity thatinspired these conversations in
the first place.
So thank you so much to youguys. Thank you so much to you,
(48:39):
the listeners for joining us.
And please don't forget to tella friend if you know anyone who
might benefit or just be curiousabout conversations like this.
And please give us a follow fivestars positive review all the
things but mostly, just want tosay especially right now, when
it's so exhausting to take ineven more words. Thank you for
(49:01):
being here.
Jew-ish is a Say Moreproduction.
Remember that the goal of the conversation is
not to change the other person'smind and persuade them to think
what you think. Yeah. And ifthat's why you're doing it, then
this probably isn't the rightchoice
Hannah Gaber (00:13):
Or just prepare for conflict,.
Rabbi Schmelkin (00:15):
Or prepare for conflict, right?
Hannah Gaber (00:17):
Hey, y'all, I don't think it would be unfair
to say that many of us areabsolutely surrounded by
conflict at the moment. Forthose of us who are lucky enough
to be 1000s of miles away fromthe actual physical conflict in
Israel and Gaza, we often findourselves inundated by rhetoric
and images that brings conflictdirectly into our homes and our
(00:42):
hands via our cell phones orconversations that we didn't
necessarily volunteer to be apart of.
So like many others, I havesought moments of quiet moments
of respite. And one of those wasa healing and Havdalah service
hosted by Washington Hebrewcongregation, at a local yoga
studio. It seemed like a niceopportunity for me to sit in a
(01:04):
dark room with other people whowere not going to pick a fight
because Rabbi Rachel Shmoocon,who specializes in crossing
divides and toxic polarizationwas leading the gathering. So
that seemed like an obviousplace to try and process some of
what we see around us. And someof what we may start to feel
(01:25):
like we want to say ourselves.
Needless to say, as soon as thegathering was complete, I
approached the poor rabbi andbeseeched her for even more of
her time and expertise. Sowithout further ado, here is the
wise and wonderful Rabbi RachelSchmelkin.
(01:45):
It's been tricky to think aboutwhat to say, in all contexts. I
was talking with my brotherabout this just last night,
about how it's like you can'tjust be Jewish, you have to have
a stance.
And if it's not the exact rightstance that agrees with every
piece of nuance that someoneelse's stance takes, then it's
(02:06):
like you have to sort ofemotionally prepare yourself for
like an onslaught. And so it hasreally felt like, I don't want
to say anything at all. And I amsure a lot of people are feeling
that way. And yet also feelslike I have to say something it
(02:27):
I don't know if it's an exteriorobligation feeling or an
interior obligation feeling. Butit feels like saying nothing is
as judged or as incriminating,as whatever you could say. But
you can never say the rightthing anyway.
Rabbi Schmelkin (02:40):
Yep.
Hannah Gaber (02:41):
That's why we have you hear an expert on saying
things or not saying things? Howdid you get the background that
you have in de-escalatingdiscourse? And how would you
define that concept for us?
Rabbi Schmelkin (02:54):
Sure. So a short version of a much longer
story is that I was ordained in2016. My first congregation out
of rabbinical school wascongregation, Beth Israel in
Charlottesville, Virginia. Whatthat meant was that one year
into my rabbinic, I found myselfpreparing for and counter
(03:18):
protesting the unite the rightrally.
And I spent hours and hours andhours organizing with a very
diverse coalition of activistsand leaders of faiths leading up
to the rally. And during thatweekend, and afterwards, as
(03:39):
well. And part of the processthey went through after
experiencing that traumatic andhorrifying weekend, was getting
involved in an organizationcalled The One America movement,
which aims to help people crossreligious, racial and political
(04:00):
divides, and help people findtheir shared identities and help
people remember that you don'thave to agree on everything to
sit at the table together. Andyou don't have to agree on
everything to get things donetogether, either.
Hannah Gaber (04:17):
And you don't have to agree on everything to
acknowledge and accept andrespect each other's basic
shared humanity. Absolutely.
Rabbi Schmelkin (04:24):
Absolutely. And so for me, the really powerful
and in some ways, healing partof what happened for me in my
involvement in the one Americamovement in 2018. And 2019, was
being in this very small clergygroup that included not just
more liberal clergy, likemyself, but evangelical pastors
(04:48):
and a lay leader from themosque, Christians, Jews and
Muslims, an African Americanpastor and it was...
it was was extremelytransformative for me both the
conversations and therelationships I built, but also
the learning I did about toxicpolarization, the science behind
(05:10):
it, the research that tells uson a lot of issues, we're not as
divided as we think we are. AndI ended up when it was when it
made sense for my husband and Ito leave Charlottesville, I
ended up working for oneAmerican movement for three
years before joining the clergyteam at Washington Hebrew
congregation.
Hannah Gaber (05:29):
Wow. So we connected at the Havdalah and
healing that you held over theweekend. And I think one of the
fundamental things that came upin the discussions at that group
was like, why can't we justaccept and acknowledge one
another's experience, and, like,everybody's pain is legitimate.
(05:54):
So explain, for example, whatthe most basic understanding of
toxic polarization can be. Evenin these like small instances of
day to day life that we're, Ifeel like seeing around us more
and more.
Rabbi Schmelkin (06:10):
So I think that it's important to start from the
foundational idea that there ispolarization that exists in the
world, and not all polarizationis bad, right, we can have a
very healthy dialogue anddisagreement on an issue that
matters.
And we see polarization in ourworld in lots of different ways
(06:33):
to that are maybe a little morelike light hearted, maybe not
for sports, maybe it doesn'tfeel light hearted for sports
fans, from my perspective,right? I root for one team, you,
you root for another team.
But the problem is that whentoxic polarization takes hold,
it becomes very tribal, we moveinto, I'm on this team, and you
(06:56):
are on that team. And if you areon the other team, that means X,
Y and Z about you. And thepeople on the other team think
the same for us.
And then we see something forexample, like a bumper sticker,
a t shirt, a post on socialmedia from a member of the out
(07:19):
group. And then at that moment,we decide we know everything
there is to know about thatperson about where they come
from, about their beliefs. Andthe cycle just gets worse and
worse.
And the other thing that'shappening in the midst of that
moment of toxic polarization isthat the extreme voices on
(07:40):
either side are almost alwaysthe loudest.
Hannah Gaber (07:43):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (07:44):
So even though there might be many, many people
who think what we think, thinkwhat you and I think, right that
like, we can sit down and have aconversation and listen to one
another's perspectives and havecompassion for one another and
see each other's pain in this,those aren't the voices that
we're hearing most often. That'snot the story, that is the sexy
(08:08):
story to tell. And so instead,it creates a norm that everyone
is super extreme, and everyoneis hateful.
Hannah Gaber (08:19):
And it just pushes voices of moderation or
compassion out of the room.
Because a lot of the time I findthat people who are actually
pretty interested in like deescalation or a compassionate
discourse, don't want to beinvolved in that type of
rhetorical conflict.
Rabbi Schmelkin (08:38):
Right.
Hannah Gaber (08:39):
I was thinking about the Havdalah and healing
service? ceremony? I don'treally know what to call it,
what would we call it gathering?
Rabbi Schmelkin (08:46):
Gathering? I like the word gathering.
Hannah Gaber (08:47):
Yeah, gathering that I met you at, and you set
some ground rules right away,which I loved. And you define
some terms. And I wonder if Icould ask you to do that again
here. And what I'm thinking ofspecifically, is, you know,
we're going to start with thesequestions, and here's why. And
also terms that you used, like,I think you said double
(09:09):
confidence,
Rabbi Schmelkin (09:10):
Double confidentiality.
Hannah Gaber (09:12):
Double confidentiality.
Rabbi Schmelkin (09:14):
So double confidentiality is, so that's
not a science concept that'slike different. So there's like
the toxic polarization scienceconcepts. And then there's the
facilitation training.
Hannah Gaber (09:22):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (09:23):
Work that I've done. And I also have, I've done
Musar study, and I've beentrained as a Musar facilitator.
Musar is a Jewish, a Jewishpractice of ethics in which
we're thinking about what is onour spiritual curriculum or our
sole curriculum.
(09:44):
And we are understandingourselves better and focusing in
on particular character traitsat particular times and, and
doing practices around betterunderstanding and sort of
tackling those character traits.
All of that is to say that whenyou're when you're When you're
in a Musar, cohort or Musarva'ad, and you're doing this
deep work together, one of thethings that we always talk about
(10:05):
as Musar facilitators is doubleconfidentiality.
And it's something it's a stepbeyond confidentiality, it's not
just saying what we say, in thisspace or in this cohort, or in
this conversation, doesn't leavethis conversation. It's also
saying that, in the context ofthis space, and time and place
(10:27):
and conversation right now, oneof us may say something, or
share a story or an experiencethat is really personal, really
challenging, maybe very painful,and I want to share it now and
talk about it now in this momentand unpack it a little bit right
now today. But I don't want totalk about it tomorrow.
(10:51):
And so the idea is that justbecause somebody shared this,
you know, wonderful, or terribleexperience that they had about,
you know, about Israel, theIsraeli Palestinian conflict or
on birthright or whatever it is.
Don't assume that tomorrow whenyou? I don't know, see them at
work? Yeah, that they want totalk about it again. And I
(11:12):
would, I would say that, itmight be that someone shares an
experience with you, you gohome, and you think about it,
and you do have follow upquestions.
You want to be delicate when youapproach that person again. And
it's as simple I think, assaying, when we were in that
(11:32):
group together yesterday, youbrought up this thing that
happened on your birthrighttrip? On your Israel trip? Or at
your synagogue? Or with yourbrother? Would you be open to
talking about it a little bitmore? Or do you want to just
leave it there? And and lettingthe person decide?
Hannah Gaber (11:51):
Yeah. I really liked that approach that also
feels like a bit of an extensionof consent to me.
Rabbi Schmelkin (11:58):
Yeah.
Hannah Gaber (11:58):
And it reminds me of that conversation to have
like, you know, just because youguys, maybe were lovers in the
past, it does not mean thatyou're entitled to this person
today. You know, it's likeconsent has to be given every
single time.
And I think that that goes forconversations. I think that that
goes for physical intimacy. Ithink that that goes for, you
know, entering someone's home,you know, just because you've
(12:18):
been to my house before youdon't get to walk in the door,
when you come over, you have toask.
And I think that that's a reallyrespectful way of treating not
just a person, but somethingshared that is vulnerable. I
think that's a really lovely wayof just saying, you know, hey,
that was a different context.
Today is today. Can we can I hada question? Are you open to
(12:42):
revisiting it? And they can saylike, No, thank you. I'll let
you know if I am.
Rabbi Schmelkin (12:47):
And I think we can be also, you know, empowered
enough to say in a conversation.
Yeah. I want to tell you aboutthis.
Hannah Gaber (12:55):
But I don't want to talk about this after this.
Rabbi Schmelkin (12:57):
Yeah, this thing had happened. I hate
talking about it. I never talkedabout it. I really try never to
think about it. I want to talkabout it today. But please,
let's talk about it now. Andthen let's leave it here.
Hannah Gaber (13:07):
I love that. Yeah.
Oh, God, I wish we respectedeach other's requests for things
like that just a little more.
Rabbi Schmelkin (13:14):
Yeah.
So how can we, as people in theworld be participants in good
faith in exchanges using some ofthese ground rules? Okay, just
(13:36):
start start us there.
Sure. So one of the things Ithink is important, especially
when we're talking about theIsraeli Palestinian conflict, is
to recognize that we are talkingabout an issue that people hold
as a sacred value, a sacredvalue is.
So first of all, it's a valuethat's processed in the part of
(13:57):
our brain that processes rulebound behaviors. So we're very
rigid about it. And what thatmeans is that there's no for
example, a monetary trade off,that we can agree on around the
issue.
Hannah Gaber (14:12):
The example that you used in our gathering that I
found, so illuminating, was likeso for example, you know, let's
say you're a fanatical followerof a sports team. Yeah. I asked
you to burn a jersey on TV,would you do it for $500?
Preferably 5 million, almostdefinitely.
Rabbi Schmelkin (14:28):
Yup.
Hannah Gaber (14:28):
But if I asked you to burn a Torah scroll or a
Bible, or for some people, it'sprobably an American flag,
there's no amount of money thatI could offer you, for you to do
that thing. And it's just out ofthe question. It's
unapproachable.
Rabbi Schmelkin (14:42):
There's no amount of money you could pay me
to burn an American flag, Imean, or a Torah scroll or an
Israeli flag, right? There'sno--
Hannah Gaber (14:48):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (14:49):
Rght.
Hannah Gaber (14:49):
It's an untouchable value. And I can
think of so many friends of mineright now. Where if I were to
say to them, so let me ask youthis. How much money would it
take to burn a Bible? They'd belike, That's not we're not
having that conversation.
There's no doesn't matter. Sothat would be a sacred value.
Rabbi Schmelkin (15:04):
Right. Which isn't to say that while there's
no point in talking, then we'retrying to be in relationship
because we'll never come right?
We'll never come to an agreementon it. Like, I'm not the I'm not
the politician, I'm not, that'snot my job, right? And there are
people that have to figure outhow to understand the sacred
value and then
Hannah Gaber (15:24):
and then try to change it.
Rabbi Schmelkin (15:25):
We're not we're not, we're not changing--or how
to, or how to determine how tooffer one sacred value in place
of another sacred value, right?
That's not...
Hannah Gaber (15:34):
I think we just wanted from a place of
understanding that not only dowe hold those values, and this
might be one of them, but sodoes the person sitting in front
of us, and to enter from a placeof respecting that?
Rabbi Schmelkin (15:46):
Yep. I think that's right. And I think it's
also important to recognizebefore you sit down with
someone, if it's a sacred valuefor you, and it's not a sacred
value for them, or if it's asacred value for you, and your
feeling is, it should not be asacred value for them.
Hannah Gaber (16:07):
Oh, that's a good one.
Rabbi Schmelkin (16:09):
This person, like, I have, I am, I'm being
vulnerable and honest here. Isometimes see people posting on
Facebook, and they're saying,really, really painful things
for me to see. And I wonder whythey're so invested,
Hannah Gaber (16:27):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (16:28):
In this issue in the first place, because in
my mind,
Hannah Gaber (16:32):
it has nothing to do with them,
Rabbi Schmelkin (16:34):
it doesn't have anything to do with them, or
they don't, they don't have astake in it, or they don't have
any family or friends there.
Right. And that's not to say Ishouldn't talk to them. And
maybe actually, by talking tothem, I would find out that it
is a sacred value for them andI'm just being closed minded.
But I think if I'm going, if Ialready think that going into
it, then I have to think abouthow open minded I'm going to be
(16:56):
able to be and also if it'sgoing to be too painful for me
to feel like this is personalfor me, and it's not personal
for you, and so now I just feelangry.
Hannah Gaber (17:09):
Yeah, not a great place to engage from.
Rabbi Schmelkin (17:12):
Right.
Hannah Gaber (17:12):
Yeah. And that reminds me of another term that
you brought up that I'd love it,if you could help us understand
is motive misattribution, thatthat makes me think of motive
misattribution, which as soon asyou said it identified with
100%, because
Rabbi Schmelkin (17:24):
Totally.
Hannah Gaber (17:25):
it's like, we fight that we try to back that
away all day long. And that goesback to what you just said about
just like, can we assume bestintent?
Rabbi Schmelkin (17:31):
Yeah
Hannah Gaber (17:31):
Help us understand motive misattribution.
Rabbi Schmelkin (17:33):
So motive, so yeah, motive is attribution is a
fun one to do in workshops.
Because most of the time you asksomebody, you know, do you sit
in a lot of traffic? And there'salways somebody in the room who
sits in a lot of traffic?
Hannah Gaber (17:47):
Yeah, especially in DC.
Rabbi Schmelkin (17:48):
Especially in DC. And so you say, you know,
well, what do you think whensomeone cuts you off in traffic?
Now, when I do this with a roomof rabbis and cantors, let me
say from the outset, they'realways like, "well, maybe the
person is in labor and is ontheir way to the hospital."
Hannah Gaber (18:02):
What is that my mom always says that, is that a
Jewish thing? Like what?
Rabbi Schmelkin (18:05):
Maybe it is, maybe it's like, yeah, but
oftentimes people are like, Ithink that that person is a
jerk, and they're inconsiderate.
And that is that's that's agreat way to just to understand
motive misattribution, it's ourtendency to assume something
negative about the intentions ofthe other person, that they're
just careless, that they don'tcare about us, but the thing is,
(18:27):
is that with our own with ourwith ourselves, we give
ourselves the benefit of thedoubt or we have a reason,
right? If I've cut somebody off,it's because I'm late to I'm
late to daycare pickup.
Hannah Gaber (18:42):
My reasons are important. And they're right,
and they're justified.
Rabbi Schmelkin (18:45):
And their reasons are stupid.
Hannah Gaber (18:46):
And your reasons are terrible and selfish. Yeah,
Rabbi Schmelkin (18:49):
That's a key part of these conversations is
to, to recognize that we mightautomatically jump to assuming
negative intentions or ill willfrom somebody.
Hannah Gaber (19:02):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (19:03):
When in fact, that's not what's actually going
on, the person might saysomething in a way that really
gets under our skin. And theymight not have meant to.
Hannah Gaber (19:14):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (19:15):
They just might not know how to say it
differently. They might not havethe language around it, they
might not be as informed as youare.
Hannah Gaber (19:23):
And they certainly can't know how your internal
reality will react to it. And Ithink that for me is the biggest
thing that I have to always keepin mind is like, nobody and my
my I had a therapist who told methis one time and it was like
life-altering for me, which isso stupid because it's it's so
obvious,where she was like, where I was
saying, you know, this personand that and then I was feeling
like that and then did it at itand then she was like, you know,
(19:43):
they can't actually see insideyour head.
They can't actually see insideof you. So however you're
feeling whatever you'rethinking, in that for my case,
it's usually more of like feelfree to just not share it
because then no one will everknow, like, so there's that,
because you think we all thinkthat we're so transparent. And
(20:04):
so therefore, how could thatperson say or do this thing that
made me feel X kind of way?
Rabbi Schmelkin (20:08):
Right.
Hannah Gaber (20:09):
They can't actually see it, they don't
actually know how you'refeeling. So being careless,
being thoughtless, beingwhatever with your words is
like, it's almost always I find,has nothing to do with you, just
like most people's behavior haseverything to do with them.
(20:30):
How do we create space? For thepeople who, for example, when
we're looking at Gaza, andIsrael at this moment, people
like myself, I've just backedaway.
I don't want to say things a...
I would say that most of myfears about saying anything are
based in number one, I'm comingfrom a place of like default of
wanting to love people. And Iknow that there are people who
(20:53):
are maybe saying things thatthey don't realize the origins
of or the impact of and, and Idon't necessarily want to uncork
their emotional state, because Idon't think I can take seeing
the ugliness that might comeout.
And I know that that's comingfrom a place of assumption and
(21:14):
fear on my part.
Rabbi Schmelkin (21:15):
Yeah.
Hannah Gaber (21:16):
But on the other hand, it also removes what might
be a voice of moderation in thiscase, my voice from the
conversation?
Rabbi Schmelkin (21:26):
Mm hmm.
Hannah Gaber (21:28):
And I don't know, do we have an obligation to
engage? If we feel that we havea moderate perspective? How do
we deal with that fear ofopening ourselves up to further
injury?
Rabbi Schmelkin (21:40):
Mm hmm. Yeah, these are I mean, these are the
really hard questions. So firstof all, I think it's important
to say that when I talk aboutcrossing divides, and when I
talk about having theseconversations, I am not talking
about sitting down with anextremist.
I am not I'm not talking aboutsitting down with a neo-Nazi or
a white supremacist or a memberof Hamas. That's beyond.
(22:02):
I--There are people who do that.
It's not what I'm talking about.
Hannah Gaber (22:05):
Right.
Rabbi Schmelkin (22:06):
I think that to figure out if and when to
engage, and if and when to useour voices, we have to be really
self aware.
Hannah Gaber (22:14):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (22:14):
So we have to notice, am I in a place where
I'm feeling afraid right now?
Because if I'm feeling afraid,then I'm not even aware of
things that are going on in mybrain where I am scanning my
environment, to figure out whois my friend and who is my foe?
Hannah Gaber (22:34):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (22:34):
I'm also not necessarily aware that
particular identities that Ihold, for example, like a
Zionist identity, might beactivated above all my other
identities, which means that Iforget, it becomes it's called a
singular rigid identity, whenI'm in that space of a singular
rigid identity I, I see myselfas that one thing, I forget the
(23:00):
other parts of myself,I see other people as their
singular, rigid identity, and Iforget all the parts of them
that also are shared between uslike being a mom, or being a
member of a synagogue or achurch, or, I don't know, loving
the same musical artists andhaving gone to five concerts of
that person, right, we, so weforget all of those things.
Hannah Gaber (23:25):
The common ground that we have.
Rabbi Schmelkin (23:26):
The common ground, the common ground. Each
of us has to ask ourselves, ifwe are truly ready to hear
another person's perspective,and to hold the pain of that.
Because it's really not easy.
And I think that we have to askourselves, when we when we feel
resistant or hesitant, "am Iresistant and hesitant or
(23:47):
feeling like I don't want to doit because I'm because I
actually think about otherperson endangers my life, or is
going to be emotionallytraumatic for me, or do I just
feel it will be uncomfortable?"There's a difference between
feeling uncomfortable andfeeling like we're in danger.
Hannah Gaber (24:05):
So that being uncomfortable can be a benefit,
actually,
Rabbi Schmelkin (24:08):
Absolutely.
Hannah Gaber (24:09):
It's a growth opportunity. Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (24:11):
We have to be uncomfortable sometimes. Yeah.
And I think and then in thinkingabout being uncomfortable, and
what you said about moderates,and it's an interesting word,
right. And we have in the inpolarization lingo, we talk
about these, the idea of beingan in-group moderate. However,
(24:32):
that's not about beingpolitically moderate.
Hannah Gaber (24:35):
Right. It's about being a moderating voice.
Rabbi Schmelkin (24:38):
Exactly. You totally get it right. It's about
and maybe a norm setter is abetter term. But yes, I do think
there is this really difficulttension right now of "should I
just be silent, becauseeverything is so loaded and so
heated, that I just don't wantto open my mouth at all or post
(24:59):
anything?"And then I think the flip side
of that is, then we allow theextreme voice to be loud.
Hannah Gaber (25:08):
And define the discourse.
Rabbi Schmelkin (25:10):
And define the discourse exactly. And, and the
hardest thing to do, or one ofthe hardest things to do is to
be that norm setter, or thatmoderating voice with people in
your in-group.
So, to be able to look and say,as a Jewish person, there's an
extreme voice. And I want to sayloudly and clearly as a Jew,
(25:32):
whatever your identity group is.
Hannah Gaber (25:34):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (25:34):
That person does not represent me. And that
is not what our values say.
Yeah, that is not what webelieve.
Hannah Gaber (25:42):
I mean, I think first of all, nobody's ever
obligated to wade into anyexchange?
Rabbi Schmelkin (25:49):
No.
Hannah Gaber (25:49):
I think that that's a really important like
thing to just say, right off thetop. And, you know, once again,
I'm assuming, but I'm assumingwe're on the same page on that,
because it's just like a basictruth of like
Rabbi Schmelkin (25:58):
Yes.
Hannah Gaber (25:58):
No one's ever obligated to expose themselves
to anything, if it feels like itmight be harmful.
Rabbi Schmelkin (26:04):
Absolutely.
Hannah Gaber (26:05):
In this type of exchange. So having said that,
I, if I hear you, right, whatI'm also hearing is like, and
this is sort of something Ithink I've come to on my own as
well, if for whatever reason,something maybe feels unsafe to
engage with whether or not it'sexternally or internally unsafe,
probably you're just not ready.
And so maybe it's just not agood time.
Rabbi Schmelkin (26:29):
Or you need to explore it a little more, yeah,
unpack it a little more, and tryto figure out where it's coming
from.
Hannah Gaber (26:35):
Yeah. And so that's the work that you need to
do first, before trying to like,pull anyone else into your
figuring out of that stuff.
Every exchange you have is goingto be part of you figuring it
out. So then you're obligatingthis other person to be a part
of that process. And likethey're not necessarily prepared
for or consenting to that.
They're just want to share theirviews.
So I think but I think that thatwork of like digging deeper has
(26:57):
to start with your fundamentalquestion of like, am I afraid?
Or am I just uncomfortable? AndI don't want to experience that
challenge.
Rabbi Schmelkin (27:04):
Yes. I think that's right.
Hannah Gaber (27:05):
And we don't live.
I don't feel like we live in ahealthy culture of challenge in
this country. I think, well,this country is one thing, this
specific discourse is acompletely different
conversation, having a healthyculture of challenge around
Israel-Palestine, I don't thinkthat, that I can't imagine those
two things being said in thesame sentence.
And without digging, I don'teven necessarily want to go too
(27:28):
deeply on the specific conflictor conversation about it. But I
just think that like if all ofus could hold space for that,
like, healthy culture ofchallenge of like, you can hold
a different perspective. Andthat doesn't implicitly harm me.
Rabbi Schmelkin (27:43):
Yes.
Hannah Gaber (27:44):
I think where it gets really thorny on this
specific topic is like a lot ofperspectives around Israel,
Gaza, Hamas, Zionism,Palestine...On some level, we
just have to accept that thereare parts of those rhetorics
that are part of a largerrhetoric that has led to
(28:05):
physical action and politicalaction that has caused harm, and
how do we not contribute ourvoices to the fray?
For example, I'm scrollingthrough my Instagram stories.
And I think this is probably thething most people can relate to
the most, and I'm looking atpeople who I enjoy people that
I've loved in the past, and Istill would like to think that I
love on the basic shared humanlevel, and I don't want to talk
(28:29):
to them. I don't want to sayanything.
I feel like there's such anabsence of, shall we say,
universally applied morals.
Rabbi Schmelkin (28:38):
MmHmm.
Hannah Gaber (28:39):
And this makes me think of a couple of things that
you brought up the other day?
What are some of the things thatI'm perhaps experiencing? And or
seeing when I'm having thatexperience? As I'm being
bombarded by these pieces ofrhetoric?
Rabbi Schmelkin (28:54):
It's a great question, I think...So first of
all, when you're when you're onInstagram, and you see that
post, and I saw one yesterday, Isaw one last night, okay, I'll
tell you about that in a second,but, our body actually does
react to it as a physical threatwhen we're presented with
information,information, ideas, beliefs,
(29:16):
that are really different fromour own and our and in our
counter to what we believe itactually makes our, makes us
feel physically threatened.
And that's I'm not I let's beclear, I'm not a neuro
scientist, or a psychologist,but I have spent enough time
talking to people who are atthis point,
Hannah Gaber (29:38):
And studying, actually studying.
Rabbi Schmelkin (29:40):
Yes, studying it, and reading articles and
research papers and all kinds ofthings. So that is what's
happening. And you know, I dothis, I think about this, you
know, toxic polarization,constantly, especially now, and
I still feel that impulse I seethis It was someone I've known
(30:00):
since I was very young, veryyoung, I really care about them.
I saw their post, and Iimmediately thought to myself, I
need to either comment on it orsend them a message. And then I
stopped myself and remindedmyself, you know, that that's
(30:26):
not going to work, right? Youknow that it's not going to have
the outcome that you want.
Hannah Gaber (30:32):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (30:33):
And part of that is backfire effect. We know
from research that when wepresent another person with
facts that are counter to thefact that they believe it does
not change their minds, itactually makes them dig their
heels deeper into what theyalready think. And they figure
out a way to explain away theinformation that you have given
(30:55):
them.
And I thought to myself, in thatmoment, I know that there would
be one productive thing that Icould do, and that the only
productive thing really I couldthink to do with this person
would be to have a phone call,yeah, or set up a zoom, and have
(31:16):
a conversation with a very setframework in which we are each
open to sharing how we've cometo think what we think like, how
did I, how did I come to careabout the issue of the Israeli
Palestinian conflict in thefirst place? And I would share
that, and they would share that.
And then to think, and bevulnerable enough to say,
(31:39):
here's, here's where I have somedoubts on this, like, here's,
here's where I have questions,and that they would then also be
willing to share that. And thenat the end, we might talk about
how we wish the conversation isdifferent around the issue,
or what our own vision if wehave one is for the issue, and
(32:02):
even a shared, it could be evena shared sense of despair that
the solution seems so out ofreach.
Hannah Gaber (32:10):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (32:10):
If I felt like I wasn't in a place emotionally
to do that, to try andunderstand where they're coming
from, and how they got to thinkwhat they think and feel what
they feel. And it would bereally hard. And I know that it
would be I know that it would bepainful, but it would also be
illuminating for me.
You know, so I think there arethe people that we have in our
(32:31):
lives that we already love, andwe already know them well. And
now, in this time of intense,toxic polarization around the
Israeli Palestinian conflict,
Hannah Gaber (32:41):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (32:42):
we're finding out things about their views
that we didn't know, knowbefore.
Hannah Gaber (32:47):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (32:47):
And that's really hard. And then I think so
that's one scenario. And that'sthe "how do I remember what I
love about this person, what Ihave in common with this
person?" And think about how tostart from that place.
Hannah Gaber (33:04):
And when you mentioned the backfire effect,
my first thought was also thatself-interrogation of is that
what I'm experiencing? Is itpossible that really, it's me
digging in? And they've saidsomething that hurts because it
disagrees with my predispositionthat I may not have even been
aware that I held until thatmoment?
Rabbi Schmelkin (33:25):
Definitely.
Hannah Gaber (33:27):
What are some other things that we need to try
and stay aware of within our ownselves physiologically,
neurologically, psychologically,that you've come across in your
training in this field, that canhelp us to not be so? I mean,
triggered is such an overusedword, but triggered that yeah,
help us not become a part ofpolarization that becomes toxic.
Rabbi Schmelkin (33:52):
Yeah. So I think, first of all, when we are
when we are triggered when weare when those identities are
being act being activated, whenwe feel scared, our body tells
us that our face turns red, ourheart races, we start sweating.
(34:14):
It's happened to me so manytimes since October 7, yes, from
something that somebody says orsomething that I read.
And, you know, I always feelfunny, giving people the advice
to breathe, because I'm notalways very good at it. But when
I can make myself take a fewdeep breaths, or do like a 4-7-8
(34:36):
breathing exercise that I'velearned somewhere along the way,
it really does help. It reallydoes help. And then there's also
the question of, how do I talkto somebody I've never met
before.
Hannah Gaber (34:54):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (34:54):
And what I would say about that is that the
most successful time successfulconversations I have had about
really tough issues, includingabortion with people who
identify as evangelicalChristian and have really
(35:14):
completely different views onthe subject than I do, we did
not have those conversationsuntil we had gotten to know each
other really well.
We had first learned about eachother's interests where we had
grown up, you know, bonded overboth having dogs. As silly as
that might sound. It was reallymonths and months of
(35:38):
relationship building before weever had that conversation. So I
already liked them and caredabout them and that feeling was
mutual. Yeah, when we finallytalked about it.
That's not to say that there'snever a one-off dialogue, that
can work. Because I know peoplethat lead them, and I know
people who research them. Butthey have to be set up really
(36:03):
well and structured really well,and people have to really follow
the structure that's being setup. So it just takes so much
thoughtfulness.
Hannah Gaber (36:13):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (36:14):
And skill and self awareness and self
regulation. Right to be able to,to do that.
Hannah Gaber (36:24):
So don't just pop off at a stranger on Instagram.
Rabbi Schmelkin (36:28):
Exactly.
Exactly. And you know, it'sreally I personally don't think
these these disagreements onInstagram or Facebook, in the
comment sections.
Hannah Gaber (36:44):
Yeah, no one's teaching anyone anything,
Rabbi Schmelkin (36:46):
I think they're pretty useless.
Hannah Gaber (36:47):
Yeah. And I think and this is, you know, if
anything, I think it givesmomentum to the animosity, I
think it just turns up thevolume on the on the, on the
disdain and on thedismissiveness that is already
present.
Rabbi Schmelkin (37:05):
I think there's one other thing that can feel
complicated about this,especially when we're talking
about social media.
Hannah Gaber (37:10):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (37:11):
And that is that there is real dis
disinformation out there andmisinformation. And I've seen a
number of articles in recentdays about how many bots and
what they're putting out, and,the impulse to correct the
disinformation or misinformationwhen we see it is not wrong. But
(37:33):
again, we have to know thatwhile it might be important to
try and correct thatinformation, we might not have
the skills and tools we need tosuccessfully do it. And if we
care about it, there are ways tolearn about how to do that.
Yeah.
Hannah Gaber (37:53):
For those who do want to use their voices, for
those who do want to wade intowhatever conversation around
Israel-Palestine, or around thespecific current conflict, what
are some basic trainings or tipsthat you can offer basic
(38:13):
conversational tools, forexample, that, sure, we could
all use them in our daily lifeto make sure that our
conversations are a little moreconflict free, but like, what
are some basic starting pointsto open these discussions to
make sure that we are certainlynot contributing to a toxic
(38:34):
level of polarization, and couldeven be a de escalation
technique, even if they are onlyeffective towards ourselves?
From my perspective, we sort ofhave to dismiss the idea that
any exchange on social media isgoing to be productive. I think
if you have a one on onerelationship with someone, and
they have posted something thathas deeply, deeply hurt you, if
(38:56):
you trust that one on onerelationship, enough to reach
out to them and say, Hey, can wehave a conversation? Okay.
But I think that everybody hasto be realistic about their
expectations for engagementonline
Rabbi Schmelkin (39:08):
Agreed.
Hannah Gaber (39:08):
You cannot, I feel very strongly of like if I see
someone's string of things ontheir Instagram story. Unless I
cared deeply about that personin that specific relationship.
I'm just not going to sayanything. I don't think me
hitting them back with a bunchof other news media or other
(39:30):
propaganda or other organizationtalking points is really going
to get me anywhere. And I don'tI personally am not really
interested in just having anargument.
And I just think we all need toadmit to ourselves, if that's
what we're going to engage with,we're going to just end up
having an argument. So for thepurposes of this conversation,
and of the only types ofconversations that like, for
(39:52):
example, maybe people like mewho are just tired and I don't
want to be a part of the yellingmatch,
Rabbi Schmelkin (39:57):
Yeah.
Hannah Gaber (39:57):
If I'm going to engage, I would like it to be
meaningful. So how can we engagein conversations that might be
meaningful? Even if we don't,let's assume we don't even know
that other person's perspective;How do we approach with
Beginner's Mind and remain nonreactionary? In trying to have
(40:17):
these conversations with people?
Or any conversations withpeople?
Rabbi Schmelkin (40:22):
Yeah, I think you have to set some ground
rules in your own mind, andmaybe even together, saying, I'm
going to ask questions from aplace of curiosity, not to not
to do a gotcha question not tocatch someone in their
hypocrisy.
I'm going to, because I'msitting down with somebody that
(40:42):
I've known, or somebody who hasshown me that they really also
are interested in understandingwhere I come from, I'm going to
assume that they have goodintentions. While I'm sitting
with them, I have to go into itknowing that they might say
something that rubs me the wrongway, but that they're not out,
(41:04):
they're not out there to hurtme. They're not sitting down
with me to try and hurt me.
If we're going to really be openand honest, and we have to trust
the person is going to keep whatwe say confidential. I might
share views I might share, Imight share doubts, my own
doubts about parts of the issuethat we're talking about whether
it's Israeli-Palestinianconflict, or abortion, or
(41:26):
immigration, or whatever it is.
And I have to be able to trustthat they're not going to then
go post on Facebook, here's whatRabbi Rachel Schmelkin said, and
viceversa, right? They have tobe able to trust me, too. Those
are some of the very basic,basic things, I think,
Hannah Gaber (41:45):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (41:46):
The questions that I use, both formally in
workshops, and casually inconversation come from what I've
learned from the One Americamovement and Over Zero, which is
an organization that's amazing,and does really important
violence prevention work, andunderstanding how conflict can
become violent.
Hannah Gaber (42:06):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (42:06):
So the questions really, they start
with personal story. So in aformal setting, the question
we're saying is, how did youcome to know or care about this
issue? And when does this issuecome up for you?
There are more informal ways toto say that, right? Like I had
lunch with someone last week,who has very different views on
the Israeli Palestinian conflictthan I do. And I think I started
(42:29):
out the conversation, sayingsomething like, tell me about
your relationship with Israel.
And have you been there? Or whendid when is when did you start
learning about it? It was asimilar way of getting at the
same kind of question. And thenshe asked me back and I shared,
right,
Hannah Gaber (42:47):
Yeah
Rabbi Schmelkin (42:48):
Then I think you move to thinking about, it's
really they're very reflectivequestions.
Hannah Gaber (42:55):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (42:55):
How have you?
How have you come to believewhat you believe? How did you
get there? What has solidifiedyour beliefs on the issue? What
has caused you to doubt, havedoubts around this issue?
What questions do you have aboutthe issue? Right? It's really
(43:17):
vulnerable, to say, well,sometimes I wonder about this.
Or sometimes I hear this thingthat someone on the other side,
that's air quotes, right,someone on the other team says,
and I wonder if they might havea point a point, right, it's
vulnerable to say that,and then the question moves then
to kind of thinking bigger,thinking outside the box, really
(43:40):
kind of a place of hope. Like,how do I wish the conversation
around this issue was different?
Like I remember once in one ofthese conversations I had about
abortion with people who thoughtabout it really differently than
I did, we found ourselves bothsaying at the end, I wish that
(44:01):
the words that we just the wordsthemselves about how we describe
ourselves weren't so loaded. Andthere were more options between
pro-choice and pro-life oranti-choice or anti-life or that
all of those terms are soloaded, and lack nuance and
leave no room for gray area.
Hannah Gaber (44:23):
And they immediately place you in a camp,
they place you as a part of agroup and an identity.
Rabbi Schmelkin (44:28):
Yes. And I think we see that sometimes with
pro Israel or pro Palestine,right. Either I'm this, or I'm
that when you actually could beboth.
Hannah Gaber (44:40):
Yeah
Rabbi Schmelkin (44:40):
And many people are.
Hannah Gaber (44:42):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (44:42):
And so I think that there are there are many
kinds of epiphanies that we canhave in these conversations when
we start to ask a question andshare our thoughts and listen to
someone else's on how could theconversation be different?
What's my vision for this issue,or how people could talk about
the issue?
Hannah Gaber (44:58):
Yeah.
Rabbi Schmelkin (44:59):
It doesn't mean that you'll walk away feeling
happy. Yeah, I think it's kindof like for people that do
therapy, you don't always end atherapy appointment.
Hannah Gaber (45:13):
"Oh, I feel so much better."
Rabbi Schmelkin (45:14):
Right, you often don't feel better, but you
feel like you grew in some wayor you feel like your mind was
open to something in yourselfthat you hadn't seen before. And
I think these conversations canbe like that. And I think it's
important when you go into themto remember that the goal of the
conversation is not to changethe other person's mind and
(45:35):
persuade them to think what youthink. Yeah. And if that's why
you're doing it, then thisprobably isn't the right choice.
Hannah Gaber (45:44):
Or just prepare for conflict.
Rabbi Schmelkin (45:46):
Or prepare for conflict. That's right.
Hannah Gaber (45:48):
That's like, if you're coming into it to try and
rearrange someone else'sthoughts, get ready for a fight.
Yep.
Rabbi Schmelkin (45:55):
Cuz it's really unlikely. It's really unlikely.
Hannah Gaber (45:58):
Mm hmm. I can't thank you enough for this
conversation.
Rabbi Schmelkin (46:04):
Thank you for having me.
Hannah Gaber (46:06):
This is very healing for me. And maybe I
selfishly like, that's why I waslike, can we just talk about it,
because I just like, and I'malso a person who obviously
like, loves to talk. And so it'sbeen a really interesting
experience to feel to like moveto the opposite default of, I
don't want to say anything, Ijust don't want to be a part of
the yelling match. I just don'twant to.
(46:26):
And I also don't want to have tofeel like I have to explain my
feelings. And I think that's theother thing that we could all do
for one another. Okay, so toanswer the question, "How I wish
the conversation weredifferent:"
Rabbi Schmelkin (46:37):
Yeah.
Hannah Gaber (46:37):
I wish that we could all just leave space. For
the legitimacy of everybody'ssuffering. The suffering of any
individual is not any more orless legitimate than the
suffering of another individual.
And, and I think we just don'tneed to erase one another's
experiences.
I wish the conversation weredifferent in that I wish we
(46:58):
could all just hold space foreverybody's different experience
being as real as everybodyelse's, and not feel the need to
dismiss or discount or erase anyof those experiences or voices.
Rabbi Schmelkin (47:13):
Well I think what you're saying right, like
in, in Jewish in Jewishlanguage, is b'tzelem Elohim,
recognizing that every person ismade in the image of God? And
how would it change ourinteractions with people and our
(47:33):
thoughts about people? If welooked at them and said, there,
there is godliness in you.
There's something divine in you,there's holiness in you. And
when you look at me, you seeholiness, and divinity, and
godliness in me too.
Hannah Gaber (47:53):
Ken Y'hi Ratzon.
Rabbi Schmelkin (47:55):
Amen.
Hannah Gaber (47:58):
Just want to say a very huge and special thank you
to Rabbi Schmelkin, for comingon the pod. I cannot imagine how
exhausted you must be, Rabbi,from having this and similar
conversations over and overagain. Your graciousness, and
your contribution is soappreciated, as is the support
(48:18):
of Washington Hebrew, who I justwant to give a special shout out
to, who has not just beensupportive of this podcast from
the very beginning, but ofspreading the values and
indulging the curiosity thatinspired these conversations in
the first place.
So thank you so much to youguys. Thank you so much to you,
(48:39):
the listeners for joining us.
And please don't forget to tella friend if you know anyone who
might benefit or just be curiousabout conversations like this.
And please give us a follow fivestars positive review all the
things but mostly, just want tosay especially right now, when
it's so exhausting to take ineven more words. Thank you for
(49:01):
being here.
Jew-ish is a Say Moreproduction.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.