Am Kshe Oref, in response to a post by Rabbi Maryles (link is in Am Kshe Oref's post), discusses the question of whether biographies of religious figures should portray them as perfect, or whether it should include what might be seen as "negative" information. He explains (which I agree) that if we see the figures as saints (a non-Jewish idea, by the way), we will feel that they were on an unattainable level, where if they dealt with challenges and made mistakes, we can relate to them and therefore strive to be like them.
I think another issue is what the definition of "negative information" is. I don't think the biographies neccesarily need to give actual negative charatcer traits. if the person used to be rude to people and changed for the better, maybe we could learn something from that but I could see leaving it out. However, why would it be negative to say that they had hobbies? That they enjoyed the study of history or math? And it is known that certain publications digitally alter photographs to make the people from previous generations fit a certain image that people have today. Obvously, if the person dressed that way or enjoyed those pursuits, he didn't feel anything was negative about it!
I don't remember the details, but there was a rabbi about a year ago who made a statement that high school rabbis shouldn't play sports with their students because the students will have less respect for them. (Again, I don't remember the exact details...) While there may be specific situations or communities where this would happen, I think the general consensus is that students enjoy the opportunity to see their teachers as human in an appropriate context. We have a good friend who is a successful middle school Judaic Studies teacher. His students and their parents have a lot of respect for him and he has done a lot for spreading a love for Judaism to kids who don't have a strong background. The way he accomplishes this is by being an authority figure in the classroom, but also approachable and "normal". He plays sports with the kids, makes jokes, talks to the kids about his interests...A student in his class can relate to him as a real person, while still having respect for him and, along with that, his Jewish values and practice.
Certainly there can be another extreme. My high school set up the teachers as "friends" and "cool." The few teachers any of us respected dressed nicer, were stricter, didn't share details of their personal life, and didn't gossip about other teachers. And of course, there is the overly negative approach in the entertainment news in which we hear the tiniest thing that any celebrity does wrong. But I don't think this extreme means that a respectfully written book can't share information that is of a non-negative nature, even if it shows that the person was a real person. Especially if it shows them as a real person.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Great post, Esther!
It's interesting to note that when the person came to Shamai and asked Shamai to teach him the whole Torah on foot, Shamai angrily chased him out, while Hillel taught him that "V'Ahavta L'Rei'acha Kamocha" is the main point of the Torah and that everything else kind of orbits that.
Did this make Shamai a bad person? Obviously not. Did Shamai not know the answer Hillel gave? Of course he did! I think Shamai's point was that if the person were serious about learning, he wouldn't ask to be taught based on silly preconditions. Hillel's approach, however, was to show the person that even the silliest questions can be answered. What one does with the answer is up to the questioner.
Ok, I love you. The kiddies love you. And I'm looking forward to our semi-date tonight (a car ride while the kids stay home with Mom and Dad!:). After all, just because we're married doesn't mean we can't date, right?:)
i agree with you and with am kshe oref, and i would extend your position not just to those we might asipire to emulate, but also those whose actions and legacies we try to bury. i think that dismissing history's villains as "evil" without going through the intellectually difficult (and often painful) studies and evaluations of the circumstances, motives, etc. that resulted in the villainous acts does a great disservice to history.
Another area where "being a normal person" to students could back-fire is when you are open about your level of religious observance around people who might be hostile to anyone who is religious. While the students, parents, and the other teachers saw the hair covering and skirts as just the way I dressed (and knew about the "cool" person inside), the Reform rabbi whose congregation sends their students to the school decided that I was not respectful of their own choices (as well as being "too frum" to teach Hebrew to their children).
[more on my blog later about this]
CYM - But I don't think it did backfire. You showed that someone who doesn't compromise on religion was still a normal, fun person. A few people had a problem with it, but the majority of kids, parents, and even co-workers will remember this - especially if you are the only Orthodox person they have ever interacted with. You have done a great job!
Post a Comment