Rabbi 360

Since the election two months ago, I’ve been thinking about how we need to show up and respond. There is a lot of work ahead of us to try to achieve the outcomes we want to see and oppose the outcomes we don’t want to see, in light of an administration that many of us did not vote for nor want to see in power. And now, with the Inauguration this week, that time is upon us.

Our Torah reading this week is very much in alignment with what is happening in our larger society, as we are reading about Moses confronting the authoritarian Pharaoh in an effort to liberate the Israelite slaves.

What we do know is that we can’t do the work alone. Like really any social justice work, we need to form coalitions. This is an “all hands on deck” effort, and we will need to join together in solidarity with others to bring about change. We can not also just leave issues to those who are directly affected, we need to look out for each other and serve as allies and support to those who are going to be directly impacted in the coming months and years. 

Coalition building is not easy work, but it can be easier than we make it sometimes. An approach I have been thinking about recently is that we need to practice Venn Activism. 

What do I mean by that? Well we first need to think of a Venn diagram, which I am sure many of us are familiar with. Introduced in 1880 by John Venn, a Venn diagram is a visual representation of the similarities and differences among sets or groups:

It seems like Venn diagrams are ubiquitous these days, not only in the realm of mathematics in which they originated, but anytime we want to show the relationship between two or more groups or ideas. And is also used often for comic effect to show where dissimilar things overlap. One of my favorites:

In the realm of coalition building and social justice work, I use it to mean that we are going to need to form alliances with groups with which we are not aligned 100%. And this is not only OK, but necessary. If each circle is a group or organization, the intersection of the circles of the diagram is the issue that we are working jointly on. The other part of the circle are other issues and ideas that are not in alignment (or the basis for the coalition). Our challenge, then, is to focus on the overlap of the Venn diagram, rather than what is in the other part of the circle. For if we require that the groups we work with overlap completely, we will not be able to move forward.

I’ll take an example from interfaith work. In the interfaith coalitions that I engage with, I am oftentimes interacting with groups that I don’t see eye to eye with on a number of issues. (And I don’t mean theology, for that is a given, but how that theology is expressed in issues of public and social concern.) As a rabbi and member of the Jewish community, I am firmly committed to reproductive choice and bodily autonomy. Jewish teachings present a more liberal approach to abortion, and while there are more traditional voices within Judaism that oppose abortion, most mainstream Jewish institutions and organizations do support choice.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church as we know takes a firm pro-life stance and opposes reproductive choice. I am not one to argue with the church’s position since I am not a Catholic, simply observing that that is the Church’s stance when it comes to addressing this topic in the public sphere.

However, even though we are not in alignment on this issue, there is much overlap when it comes to, for example, economic justice. In our region, the Jewish community and the Catholic community have worked together on issues of homelessness. I could imagine there are other issues with which we are in alignment. [And indeed my congregation and the parish are both members of our local interfaith organization.]

But when I work on issues of reproductive justice I will not expect to work with the Catholic Church, but will work with other organizations and institutions (and some other faith communities). In those cases, there will be a different Venn diagram that represents the overlap.

The onus when we are forming these Venn Activist coalitions is twofold. One, we need to be clear what issues we will work on together, where the overlap is, and what issues we are not going to work on together. And two, we need to not let the overlap suffer for these other distinctions. 

So often in these circles we enter with ideological purity, litmus tests that one group imposes on another, tests that say that unless there is 100% agreement on every issue, then it is impossible to move forward together. However, that is not going to be effective in the long run as we will inevitably need to work on issues of common concern with groups that we may fundamentally disagree with on other issues. We need to approach drawing these Venn diagrams with a dose of self-awareness and transparency and humility.

To continue my example, I know that when I am sitting around a table with the Catholic community, I am not going to raise reproductive justice as an issue. It is a non-starter, and is probably not the reason we are around the table in the first place. And if I insist that in order to work on issues of economic justice together we need to be aligned on reproductive justice, then I am sabotaging that potential coalition work. 

I think within the Jewish community too we are often subjecting each other to litmus tests–that there needs to be complete alignment on certain issues in order to cooperate. This, I think, is hurting our efforts. As a congregational rabbi, I have seen this at work, directed at both me and the congregation.

For I think the Venn diagram is helpful not only in regards to social justice coalitions, but living in community in general, especially a faith community. To live in community is to live with people who are unlike you, either in thought, history. In my congregation, the one thing that binds us is commitment to Judaism and the Jewish people. What that means for each one of us is different. But to live in Jewish community is to live with humility, recognize the differences, and to continue to actively choose and accept them along with what holds us together.

When we recognize difference, we also recognize where there are opportunities for growth and change. One thing that litmus tests undermine is another post-election thought: that we need to treat our opponents not as enemies but as future allies. We have seen that too often we move into opposing camps, treating issues as black-and-white, viewing others’ positions as intractable.

On the other hand, social change is more likely to come when we are able to see beyond these, and recognize that everyone has the ability to learn, change, and grow. If we see opponents of future allies, then we can engage, teach, and share. Our social movements–and our communities–will be better off for that.

There is a lot of work ahead, and we will need to do it together.