 |
|
|
Jewish World Review May 25, 1999 / 10 Sivan, 5759
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED in the month since the Columbine High
tragedy?
We found out that the problem will not simply go away, that
others are prepared to act similarly. We learned that there are
no simple solutions. We have made the acquaintance of a plethora
of experts who have told us what does and does not cause teen
violence.
"The proliferation of guns in America is sheer madness!" clamored
critics in most other Western countries. "It wasn't us,"
responded the NRA, which promptly modified their byword to read,
"Guns, pipe bombs, and high explosives don't kill people; people
kill people."
It is hard to imagine that anyone could have acted with greater
insight than the local school board in Littleton in decisively
addressing the underlying problem. They banned black trench
coats.
Hollywood, however, tantalizes with its ability to exceed the
capacity of our puny imaginations. So it is not surprising that
the television critic of the Los Angeles Times produced the
argument that delivers the coup de grace to media responsibility
for the Littleton tragedy.
Just in case we might think that the innumerable acts of violence
depicted on TV might tend to desensitize some people to the
taking of human life, Howard Rosenberg (April 23) offered
incontrovertible proof to the contrary. "There are probably ten
depictions of goodness on TV for every one of hatred. Thus, if
TV is the icon that some insist, it must be making us nicer,
right? Or is hate a more powerful influence than love?"
Either, then, we should drop the notion that visually wallowing
in the ugly impacts us, or we should make America a better place
by airing more sitcoms. Tough choice.
Just to make sure we get the message, Rosenberg retooled the
argument a week and a half later, (May 3) responding to the
popular impression that Leonardo DiCaprio's blowing away a high
school in "The Basketball Diaries" might somehow be implicated at
Columbine High.
"Why is DiCaprio's dreamlike murder binge in that relatively
obscure 1995 film…thought by some to have driven Eric Harris and
Dylan Klebold to commit a massacre, when DiCaprio's selfless
heroism in the hugely watched "Titanic" is not credited for
inspiring young Americans toward righteous acts on behalf of
others?"
We can be pretty sure that Rosenberg was not studying the Talmud
during all those station breaks. Pity. He missed a good deal
of Jewish insight.
Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk offers a remarkable explanation
(Meshech Chochmah to Exodus 12:21). Our inner needs roughly fall
into two categories, he says. Some of these we share with the
animal world: desires to eat, drink, survive. These often take
forms that are not so pretty. We may all in fact have tendencies
to extreme aggression. We also have higher-level urges, though,
leanings towards behavior that can be appreciated only by
thinking, elevated beings.
The lower drives respond to simplicity and repetition. Like the
ox- or donkey-driver, we will get the ear of the animal within us
by a mantra-like rehashing of a small sound-bite. Frequent
reminders of a clever but brief aphorism might do the trick.
The higher-order drives require higher-order appeal. Simple
words and images don't make the grade. Arguments have to be
subtle, persuasive, and nuanced. A close-up of a slice of
chocolate mousse may be enough to make us salivate; a picture of
starving tribesmen in Africa is usually insufficient to get us to
jump up and enlist in the Peace Corps.
"Is hate a more powerful influence than love?" Not more
powerful - just very different. Hatred is base and primitive,
and therefore excitable through more primitive means. You can
stir it up through repetitive exposure. The need to lavish love
upon others, however, has to be carefully taught and nurtured.
At the root of this, of course, is Judaism's understanding of
good and evil. Too many believe that if you remove the evil
within man, you are left with good. Various misshapen notions
contribute to this mistake. Some believe that Man is essentially
good, and will act accordingly if freed from infatuation with
evil. Others believe that good is nothing more than the absence
of its negation. Both of these positions are foreign to Judaism.
Judaism teaches that Man is neither good nor evil. He stands
poised between them. The urge towards evil doesn't require much
insight. It is part of his birthright, indeed shared with lower
species. Striving to do good, however, comes with maturity,
insight and intelligence. That is why we don't hold a child
responsible for any misdeed whatsoever until the age of bar- or
bat-mitzvah. It takes time for understanding to fully catch up
with instinct.
(While
others held the Decalogue to be the working model of an elevated
society, Jews saw it as only a beginning, an introduction to the
real work ahead. It was never enough to proclaim the value of
human life, and forbid murder. To make the prohibition work, you
had to breed a revulsion to senseless killing. Animals that
nourished themselves by devouring others were banned from our
plates by the laws of kashrut. When children studied these laws,
they learned that it is a good thing to banish the ugly and
unseemly, rather than bring it into the family room after
dinner.)
The second part is more difficult. Goodness does not rush in to
fill the vacuum left by receding evil. You must work to create
it through a march of structured, programmed activities that
impress its values upon you. Not once a week, not once a day, but
constantly.
Rosenberg, then, is wrong on two counts. Coarse stimulation
does work on a primitive level, while goodness requires
sophistication. The imagery of television - and video games, and
movies - is a potent way to tickle and excite our baser drives.
Surely it is not the only contributor to the escalation of evil.
But it is silly to dismiss its effect.
Its most harmful consequence, though, may have little to do with
its content. If Judaism is correct - if good is created
laboriously, through doing good deeds - then the hours of
passivity spent in front of the television amount to an
intolerable drain on quality time that could be used for this
purpose.
There will be more Littletons until we take the pursuit of
goodness seriously. While others may have to scrounge around a
bit to find a collection of goodness exercises, we Jews know
exactly what they are called, and where to find them. The word
"mitzvah" long ago entered the lexicon of the English-speaking
public.
Perhaps, for the sake of our children, it is time that
it also became an
Littleton's lost lessons
By Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein
"There is too much violence in movies and videos," the Feds
concluded, and called the hoary sages of Hollywood together for a
closed-door meeting. "Not us," they retorted with much
sanctimony.
In a cryptic passage, the Talmud (Pesachim 112B ) finds it
important to teach us the proper motivational calls to direct at
animals and others in our employ. “The cry for an ox is hen
hen; for a lion - zeh zeh; for a camel - da da; for the men who
pull barges -- ilni hiya hela v'hiluk hulya.”
This explains both the complexity of Jewish practice, and its
vision of human change. As difficult as it is to loosen the
stranglehold of evil, it is that much harder to make people good.
Judaism's solution comes in two parts. You must first guard
against the ever-present, insidious threat of evil. You make a
point of rejecting even symbols of the values you eschew.
agenda 
JWR contributor Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein directs the Jewish Studies Institute of
the Yeshiva of Los Angeles and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. He
holds the Sydney M Irmas Chair in Jewish Law and Ethics at Loyola
Law School. Send your comments to him by clicking here.
