Here goes the launch of my new series: WWYD?
Christians ask WWJD? Dale Carnegie suggests asking WWLD (what would Lincoln do?). And Judaism might say WWHD (what would Hillel do?). Some of the women that study Judaism with me joke around and say WWRD (what would Ruchi do?)! I’m going to be sharing some questions for advice that I get and answers I’ve offered – based on how I understand Torah to guide our life’s daily choices.
WWYD = what would you do in that situation?
Questions will be shared anonymously and with permission only. Feel free to submit!
Here we go:
Hi Ruchi,
My family became religious a number of years ago, and we are careful about the media that we allow in our home. We don’t have a TV, and, with three young children, can and do filter what they see on DVD and the like.
Recently, my daughter was sharing something she learned at school about how everything we see has an impact on our soul, and therefore, we need to be careful about what we expose ourselves to. I wholeheartedly agreed, and so did my husband, who, while walking by during this conversation, remarked (not unkindly), “Oh, just like [insert my favorite rap music here].”
I was a little annoyed, and had a private conversation with him about undermining the other parent, yadayada, but if the truth must be told, he’s right. This rap music is not good for my soul, and I know it. I have three CDs, and I’m just not ready to give them up. Anyway, I can just access it on you tube whenever I’d want, so is there a point? Thoughts?
Dear Rap Girl,
Can I just make a few observations? I really admire your honesty. Your husband said something that you didn’t appreciate, but you used the opportunity to seek the truth. I think that’s cool. Also? I love that you and your daughter can converse about stuff like that.
Now, to your point. In sum: you know you should probably dump the music, but you don’t want to.
So this is a if and an how. Should you dump it, when it can be accessed anyhow? If so, how to do it so you don’t feel deprived and resentful?
In answer to the first question, yes. I think you know that already. In terms of you tube, I think there’s a difference between owning content that exists in your home, and being able to access it online (which is everything). If you are reading this blog, chances are you have internet access of some sort available to you on a regular basis, and thus, in theory, can access everything under the sun.
I remember once our rabbi telling us that one idea of mezuzah is that it shows that our homes are supposed to be an oasis – a cocoon – of spiritual and emotional safety. What objects, items, reading material, conversation, media, exists in that home should be mindfully and carefully selected. Having CDs in your home that you feel are not spiritually or psychologically healthy is something that should be examined through that lens.
Now the next question: how?
I’ve seen many a convert or newly-religious individual forsake too much. Whether personality, artistic expression, humor, or other outlets – often, people feel they need to dump certain things, either to “fit in” with an overly strict model of integration, or to devote more time to mitzvah activities.
This is a big mistake! God wants us to use ALL parts of ourselves. He wants us to bring our creativity, our passions, our artsiness, all of it, to the table. I love when I meet formerly non-Orthodox people who have all kinds of cool aspects to their lives. It enriches everyone. And often, the person who feels he has to dump everything that made him “him,” will wind up resenting it and feeling alone and lost, not knowing who he is anymore.
To that end, I counsel care in the dumping.
I think you need to set up a graduated program of purging your music. Maybe give one CD away today, and another in a month (or three!), and onward till they’re gone. Or do this on whatever schedule feels right to you. The point is, you’re doing it. Share with your kids what you’re doing. It’s such a great lesson, and one they will never forget.
Good luck, and happy purging.
Ruchi @ OOTOB
…and what would YOU do?
Oh, this is a post close to my heart! I have to say that I have music CD's that I haven't been able to get rid of, but haven't listened to in more than 10 years. Kind of like that last pair of jeans I had in my closet for years and years before I got rid of them. It's like a security blanket. Sort of 🙂
But in keeping with my desire to trend towards Jewish media, I have taken on (and kept!) the idea of not buying any non-Jewish music. And not listening to music on the radio. I can get it from the library, I can poke around online, but I can't buy it. This has helped me cut down on the amount that I listen to, and with the rest that I can still access, it is much more mindful and limited.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, there are all kinds of baby steps out there, if we can be creative and intentional about our growth.
Yes, I agree. There are all kinds of baby steps out there. The point is to be intentional about growth. Love that.
I'm wondering if there isn't also an opportunity for transformation.
Talmud famously discusses this with regard to a man who has a "taste for blood" (ie: he's naturally drawn to violence). In this case, the sages say, he should be directed to become a shochet (someone who ritually slaughters animals for the purpose of making kosher meat available to the community). That's the "medium" option. Elevating it to a higher level, he should try to become a mohel.
The point being, if he can transform his animalistic urge to a holy purpose he himself will be transformed along with it.
Maybe there's a touch of rationalization, but as a long-time sci-fi and comic book fan, I recognize there is much there which does not fit with Orthodox sensibilities. However, in the spirit of that "transformation", I've found there's a wealth of opportunity to make connections between classic sci-fi and comicbook stories and Torah thought.
And those points of intersection offer the chance to both elevate the material from the realm of pulp ficion; and to create teachable moments for people who might otherwise not be able to grasp the original Torah concept.
ET, both you and DG touch on what you could do INSTEAD. You suggest using the bad for good, and DG suggests replacing the bad with something better. These are both great points. I think each person has to think hard about what can be transformed and what simply must be purged. For this woman, rap was not healthy, and she knew it. If someone else had a different reaction to it, it might be salvageable on some level. It's like, some relationships are salvageable and some aren't. Some need to be terminated.
But where things have some redeeming value, an analysis would be called for where one weighs the gains against the losses – individual to each person, of course.
Edible, this…..
……Talmud famously discusses this with regard to a man who has a "taste for blood" (ie: he's naturally drawn to violence). In this case, the sages say, he should be directed to become a shochet (someone who ritually slaughters animals for the purpose of making kosher meat available to the community). That's the "medium" option. Elevating it to a higher level, he should try to become a mohel.
The point being, if he can transform his animalistic urge to a holy purpose he himself will be transformed along with it…….
Makes me feel very uncomfortable; the idea of a person who is naturally drawn to violence taking on the job of ritual slaughter just feels…..wrong: almost as though it's using the animal as an outlet/vehicle/means to releive himself of his own violent urges. I know that it s done quickly/painlessly, but it's the premise behind it which feels wrong, to me. Absolutely no offence meant, and Ruchi, please don't let this post if you're uncomfortable. I know how much if a new Jew I am, and am not trying to be a Knowitall….just had such a strong reaction to this. I couldn't really put it into words to say how I felt, but tried.
I understand what you're saying: that ritual slaughter should be done with a sense of reverence, not viciousness. That would apply even more to a mohel (circumciser). I certainly wouldn't have wanted my son to be circumcised by someone who loved violence and was doing it to get out his aggressions. So I really don't think that's the idea.
I'm no expert on the Talmud, so I can't authoritatively say what it means prescriptively, but I think in general the idea is that there are no traits that are completely bad. Everything can be used for the good. Even a person who is drawn to bloodshed can do good with that aspect of his character. (I don't think it necessarily means someone who is violent and wants to kill.)
Ruchi, your suggestion sounds nice if she wouldn't feel deprived doing it that way. But what if she doesn't like Jewish music and therefore has nothing to replace the rap with? Personally, I rarely listen to music so this has never been much of an issue for me, but I do read secular novels. Not the trashy ones, but … Some of the stuff in them bothers me, but I can't see myself ever giving them up because there simply aren't enough good Jewish novels to satisfy my craving for literature. (OK, so I'm a book addict.) So I don't have a solution, but I'm not convinced that your suggestion would work for everyone.
I think there are plenty of secular novels that are not trashy that you can read with a calm conscience. Try "And Ladies of the Club" by Helen Hooven Santmyer. Just off the top of my head. (And it's pretty long, too so it will keep you going for a while).
I'll have to look into that book. Thanks for the suggestion.
What I meant was that I do read the non-trashy books but there still tend to be things in the newer ones (i.e., written in the past 30 years or so) that bother me. If they're really trashy they don't appeal to me anyway.
"Everything we see has an impact on our soul" . . . ok, but what kind of impact and how can we be sure of what kind? The prohibitions you allude to, I'm imagining rude/sexual language and discussions of promiscuous behavior, how precisely do they protect our souls and from what?
Does seeing unkind acts *make* us unkind–or depending on a lot of things make us more sensitive to others' suffering? Does hearing a song about infidelity make us want to be unfaithful? It can't be that we just imitate what we hear, so that's not the impact on the soul, right? Otherwise Genesis might be impossible to read, it's full of things we wouldn't want to imitate (violence and sexual behavior). It seems there would be a lot of factors regarding the "impact on our soul" and how would we even know those and evaluate the impact?
I can't tell how far away this is from secular concerns, like "I don't want my daughter watching stupid Disney sitcoms where teenagers are bratty and obnoxious to their parents, because I don't want her to think that is an acceptable way to talk," or "I don't want my son to watch even cartoon violence because I'm worried it will desensitize him to real violence."
This goes back to the question about closing your eyes at the ethnographic film: I can see prohibiting something that is attractive and yet not a good influence. But the sheer presence of certain words or representations or mentions is not necessarily a bad influence–especially if it's not attractive in any way.
I think the "influence" I refer to includes both in terms of potential behavior, and in terms of desensitization. Both are important. Genesis is full of misdeeds – but with swift comeuppance and lessons. I don't think it IS all that far from secular concerns, but I think Orthodox people will draw the line more strictly. I don't like to hear or read profanity – even if I'll never use it – because I think that hearing that kind of talk is bad for my soul. Call it desensitization, if you wish – a secular mother probably wouldn't want her young child hearing it, but would be okay with hearing it herself – why is this?
I think we're describing the same thing, with different vocabulary words.
SBW, I think this situation is exactly the same as the secular concerns you cited. Ruchi couches it in spiritual terms, but it is the same thing. Intelligent people know we are influenced by the media around us. Limiting our children's exposure to violence or rudeness or sexuality doesn't make those themes go away, but does send a message about standards, expectations, and age appropriate behavior. Many people have concerns about the imagery and language used in rap music.
Personally, WWID? My baby steps might focus on selecting which songs from favorite artists are less problematic, or finding new artists within the same musical genre that aren't as offensive.
It is the same as the secular concern when the reason for the prohibition is simply that certain words/images will presumably influence people/children by being attractive to them. So for instance sexy music videos are unbeloved because they are attractive to teens and yet represent ways of being that I wouldn't want my teen to imitate.
But it's not the same where Os, from what I understand, also would prohibit representations/words that don't present some forbidden act as attractive. There could be "artistic merit", to use the legalistic term, to some representations that present some forbidden act (a great novel about a failing marriage or a kid on drugs) and then I would not consider it to have a bad impact.
I guess my problem is the concern that the only relationship to representations of non-desireable acts is "copying them". There are lots of other relationships to be had to those representations–reflecting on them, enjoying formal beauty even where the topic is unpleasant, exploring depths of relationships or minds. So the unidimensional "impact on the soul" does not seem to be the same as what I see as a secular recognition of a range of impactS that a representation might generate. The soul (I would say consciousness/mind) is not just a wax tablet that imprints what it receives–or do Os think this?
I think the belief is that even if the person consciously rejects something like bad language, there's an actual metaphysical negative impact on them if they hear it.
Even in my frum believing days (I guess this was a sign I wasn't really with the program /jk), it was very likely that if you came into my house you would find my preteen kids sitting on the couch reading the New Yorker.
Wow, how did you get your kids to read the New Yorker?? I'd love it if my teen read the New Yorker!
I totally agree that it makes a difference how something is presented. I remember a rabbi making a distinction between books that glorify wrongdoing and books that don't. For instance, murder mysteries generally take a negative view of murder, and the killer tends to get caught in the end, so that wouldn't encourage emulation and wouldn't be a problem to read.
I think language tends to rub off on the person who hears it, though, so if you're exposed to it enough, you might start talking that way.
As for a book about a failing marriage or kids on drugs, it might be problematic or might not, depending on how it's written and who's reading it. Certainly, not everything negative is a negative influence. And if you leave out everything bad, you can't have much of a book at all. No problems, no conflicts, no tension, no plot.
As much as I don't buy the metaphysical part, I guess want to understand what the O thought on this is, besides the similarity to secular concerns about encouraging bad behavior by seeing bad things. Again: Emulation or "rubbing off on" is one thing, as I've said. Yeah, we don't want kids or ourselves emulating bad influences. And I guess if you are worried about emulation then a representation that ends with bad behavior getting punished seems better (although I'm skeptical of how much "teaching" you can do with this kind of moralizing).
But what I want to know is what Os think that is different than worrying about emulation–which Tesyaa alludes to in brief. What about the unconscious metaphysical impact of even seeing, hearing, watching bad language, bad behavior? How EXACTLY is that supposed to be bad for the soul–again, apart from any kind of possibility of emulation? Or to go back to the anecdote in the post, how EXACTLY does everything we see supposedly impact our soul? Does it "occupy" a corner of the soul once you've seen it, or "spoil" something in the soul, or diminish or what? How is that impact exactly described? This is, I suppose, trying to understand the O metaphysics in a more minute fashion.
"And I guess if you are worried about emulation then a representation that ends with bad behavior getting punished seems better (although I'm skeptical of how much "teaching" you can do with this kind of moralizing)."
Firstly, this kind of moralizing is exactly how influential people make a difference. This is exactly how literature and art and music shape attitudes and world views. This can be positive, negative or neutral. Often the most powerful influences are the subtle ones that we don't even recognize as influence.
"Does it "occupy" a corner of the soul once you've seen it, or "spoil" something in the soul, or diminish or what?"
Yes, and neuroscience would back this up. I think sometimes you can substitute the word "brain" for "soul" – and this is one of them. Everything you see, hear ans experience occupies a part of your brain/soul. Even if you don't actually emulate it (the most obvious result of influence) it creeps into your worldview – depending on how and where it accosted you.
Think of all advertising. Smoking is cool… because I saw a cool person smoking. Every time I see that it Chios away a bit at my worldview. Advertisers bank on this reality.
Sorry for typos.
Also, mystical thinking teaches that all negative exposures act like a shell over our souls and make it more difficult for goodness to seep in.
SBW, "sexy music videos…represent a way I wouldn't want my teen to imitate". Can I assume that when the time is right, you would want your child to have healthy intimacy? So what is it that we don't want in a "sexy music video"? Possibly that it's sexiness in a public place. Intimacy, which is how I refer to sex, is just that. Intimate. Private. "Intimacy" is a more refined word choice than other…more gritty grub choices. Word choice, which is also something we hear, is important and affects us. I'm not talking about euphemisms. Unrefined words (and sights) desensitize me. Is that what I want? So back to "sexy music videos". Sexiness in and of itself is not bad. Its how it is portrayed in the video: The emphasis of the body in a public venue – in view to whomever whenever. That is the opposite of true intimacy. And seeing it is desensitizing to real intimacy. This is how seeing/hearing affects our soul. Does this make sense? Does it answer the point?
SK, the sexy music video concerns do indeed center on emulation and desensitization. For me it's not about the body in a public venue per se. It's about the mostly impossible and surgically produced ideal of the bodies shown and the distortion of a sense of "normal"; and about the distorted representations of pleasure, desire and caring that don't include a fuller range of what relationships are about.
BUT I have no problem with nudity per se. Nakedness in a beautiful dance performance, a not-totally-graphic representation of sexuality in a thoughtful film, even a representation or description of not-to-be-emulated sexual or romantic behavior or interaction that is thought-provoking would all be fine with me. So the body in public is not at all a problem, and even representations of bad or not-true intimacy are also not in themselves a problem when in some proper context. And "proper" for me does not mean "bad things are punished and good rewarded", it means more "thoughtful, contextualized, artistically appropriate". Or even just "appropriate". We've been with kids at beaches in other countries where women don't always wear bikini tops or people change into their swimsuits in a matter-of-fact way in front of everyone else, including brief glimpses of full nudity if you want to watch for that. In that context, it's appropriate, and not inherently sexy or interesting, or even remarkable. Same with breastfeeding–if you are gawking it means you haven't understood the normality of this kind of thing.
I just am not sure how much we are talking about the same thing, and I think there is a wish on the "O" side here that they be the same. Maybe they are. The "thoughtful, contextualized", etc might be seen as a pragmatic wish for non-desensitizing representations. But the stricter O idea of not wanting to be exposed to nudity, or other religions' ceremonial behavior, or non-desirable behavior AT ALL seems to NOT boil down to a concern for desensitization.
Oooh, wait, another thought: Actually I DO want to desensitize my kids somewhat. A glimpse of a breast in use by a baby should be no big deal, I want them to be desensitized to that. Or to someone quickly switching into a bathing suit. Just like they should be DE-sensitized, at least somewhat, to other people's rude behavior (they'll come across it and shouldn't always take it personally), and even to failure and its risks in some contexts.
But SK's discussion about desensitizing being the danger to the soul strikes me still as missing something, because it doesn't really explain the metaphysical dynamic. Ruchi emphasizes, in trying to answer my question, that not-to-be-emulated images creep into the soul and harden it. I guess it is too much to ask for a detailed "mechanical" explanation for a metaphysical process, but someone must have tried to explain it in more detail. As it is we have these metaphors (hardness, creeping in) that don't really tell us what the soul-harm is.
But I guess metaphysics means that you can't represent it in physical terms . . . which is why it is a matter of religious faith instead . . .
Sbw. I've been thinking about your question all day and still am not exactly sure how to answer it. Meanwhile, this essay touches on some of the themes.
http://dvashdvar.blogspot.com/2012/04/our-negative-surroundings-can-be.html?m=1
Dear Ruchi, you said…..
…I've seen many a convert or newly-religious individual forsake too much. Whether personality, artistic expression, humor, or other outlets – often, people feel they need to dump certain things, either to "fit in" with an overly strict model of integration, or to devote more time to mitzvah activities.
This is a big mistake! God wants us to use ALL parts of ourselves. He wants us to bring our creativity, our passions, our artsiness, all of it, to the table. I love when I meet formerly non-Orthodox people who have all kinds of cool aspects to their lives. It enriches everyone. And often, the person who feels he has to dump everything that made him "him," will wind up resenting it and feeling alone and lost, not knowing who he is anymore…..
Just wanted to say that this sums up what I like and admire and am drawn to here….
Alex
Thanks, Alex!!
I would not be conflicted in giving up rap, but probably because I don't care for the genre. However, the genres of my choice being classical and opera, I would not and have no intentions of giving up. The same goes for books. I have a problem with any belief system that wants its believers to abandon any media or thought that isn't theirs. I've seen this in christianity, in cults such as the mormons, and in Orthodoxy. As a psychiatrist in her 30's, my childhood friend became involved with a born again christian organization that banned televisions, radio and any books that weren't of a christian persuasion. I watched my bright friend become more and more robot like. Any belief that we have that takes away ones common sense in knowing what is good or not so good to read, view or listen to is just not rational to me. Did Hashem not give us minds to think with? There is knowledge and beauty to be had from different cultures and traditions. I believe one can be Orthodox and also not bury their head in the sand.
I personally think it's a bad idea to be so sheltered that you have no idea what's going on in the rest of the world. But that doesn't apply to little kids. And I do think that it's the parents' job to introduce kids to ideas that they don't want them accepting. If I firmly believe that an idea is wrong, then I should be able to explain to my kids why I think that. On the other hand, if they're exposed to an idea by charismatic evangelists for that idea, they're more likely to adopt it.
But most secular novels aren't about ideas. The problems there are usually gratuitous violence, sex, and obscenities. Jane Austen, on the other hand, may introduce you to a different culture but (in my opinion) wouldn't hurt anyone (even when she writes about adultery).
Rap Girl here. I appreciate all the feedback. I just want to clarify that I still listen to secular music and have no plans to stop. (And I'm a big book reader too, not just Jewish books.) But there is a big difference between artists. This artist speaks to me in some ways, but I realize that at the same time, I would be horrified if any of my children chose to listen to the CDs. I am open to all kinds of knowledge and beauty, and I'm not shutting that out. But just as I realize eating four pieces of chocolate cake is not good for me, I realize that for me, this music is not pushing me in the spiritual direction I want to go, which is to be more sensitive to the words I speak and the way I talk to other people. And yes, I am taking baby steps!
May you go from strength to strength Rap Girl!