It is a
well- known fact that when a group of people share common goals, and a commitment
and duty to lofty ideals, they are able to overcome things like personal
interest, ambition, jealousy and suspicion which cause conflict and division.
And this is especially true, if the ideals are Godly and people collaborate and
work together to achieve these goals and ideals. So what went wrong with
Jacob's family where all the brothers had a role and joint commitment in
the building of the nation of Israel?
We need
to look at the powerful influences of character traits and the importance of a
caring community in the social dynamic.
One
characteristic that comes to mind is arrogance and a lack of humility which leads people to be
judgmental and not engage in collaborative problem solving. Not matter how
great and righteous the people involved, like the sons of Jacob, a slight flaw
or failing can distort thinking and cause a lot of damage.
Jacob's
family situation was challenging from the beginning. There were 3 contenders
for the leadership role – Reu'vein = the first born, Yehudah who was fit for
royalty and Yoseif who had already been singled out by his father for a
leadership role and was obviously his favorite son. Joseph was Jacob's
confidant, and in a very self –righteous and superior way, he reported the wrong doings of the brothers
to his father. He further shared with all his family his dreams of him being the leader and ruler
of the family . This added a jealousy to the hatred the
brothers had for Yoseif.
There was already a hierarchy and ranking in the
family which was very apparent in the meeting of Jacob with Eisav- Esau. Bilhah, Zilpah , the former maidservants and their sons were up front, followed by Leah and her sons and finally Jacob's favorite
wife Rachel was with Joseph=Yoseif. The
Midrash says that the sons of Leah used to
humiliate and belittle the sons of the former maidservants – Bilhah and Zilpah. Yoseif
– Joseph slandered and defamed Leah's sons = spoke lashon ha'rah about the brothers to his father.
One of the untruths he said was that the sons of Leah, called
the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, slaves. In truth, the sons of
Leah did not call them slaves but referred to them as the sons of the maidservants,
the previous status of their mothers. Because of his touch of arrogance, Yoseif
misinterpreted the actions of the brothers and gave a faulty evaluation.
Instead he should have reserved judgment and only presented what he saw to his
father. He should have first confronted his brothers without
being judgmental, just describing what he saw and then engage them in conversation to solve problems or his unmet expectations of the brothers. The Midrash however does
still criticize the sons of Leah for referring to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah
as the sons of the maidservants. It did not mean that sons of Bilhah and Zilpah
did something wrong, but they were reminded that they were the inferior and
second class sons of Jacob, while they- the sons of Leah, were from the '
elite'. They certainly did not show unity, brotherly love and acceptance, but
rejection which created social division
and bad feelings. The Midrash then describes God's displeasure and that the
exile and bondage in Egypt would remedy the situation. After the redemption,
all the tribes would say in gratitude – we were slaves in Egypt , showing
acceptance of all and unity. Trouble from outsiders is often God's way to tell one - your brother is not the enemy. The brothers did achieve a certain unity when they all
saw Yoseif as a threat to the family, attempting to expel them from the family and establish
himself as Jacob's sole successor. A common enemy, promotes unity and conversation
in the group which leads to solving problems in a collaborative way. But when
you see your brother as the enemy, and don't include him in the peace process, the solutions will lack compassion. Because of
the antagonism they felt for Joseph , the verse says that they could not speak
to him - for the sake of peace =
le'shalom. They could not resolve the conflict through conversation and
discussion.
Joseph was sold into slavery because his arrogance and lack of
humility prevented him from seeing the situation from the perspective of his
brothers and engaging in collaborative problem solving that would address both
his and the brothers concerns. A slave learns to be humble and leave the judgment of others to God. Humility, empathy, compassion and being non-judgmental are crucial for the collaborative problem solving process.
The lessons for teachers and parents are
obvious. Instead of criticism, just describe what you have seen in a non-judgmental
way and then try to engage in collaborative problem solving with a sense of
humility and compassion. A sense of humility means we forget our theories why
the child is behaving as he does and rely more on the child to feel safe and
trust adults to share his concerns and perspective about the underlying problem. A
compassionate approach will help one wear the lenses – that 'children do well if
they can ' and not ' children do well if they want to'. So instead of making a child
to ' wanna behave ' , we will ask what is getting in his way , so we can help
him be successful and happy. We , like Beit Hillel first explore and examine
the child's (other's) concerns so he feels understood. Once we have a good idea of his
concerns, we can put our concerns and expectations on the table and then invite
the child to engage in CPS , collaborative problem solving finding mutually
satisfying solutions that are realistic and durable .
Organizations, schools,
communities and families may have lofty ideals and a commitment to a vision and
mission. These ideals , missions and commitments must find their place in the context of a caring community. It is most important that there are pro-social activities in
place that promote cooperation, cooperative learning and altruism and that
conflict is resolved and cooperation achieved using collaborative problem
solving. If not, personal interests, ambition, arrogance can lead to jealousy,
hatred , social divisions and disparity and conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment