Quiet, the Power of Introverts in a World that Can't Stop Talking, by Susan Cain: a review

One point Cain makes about introverts is that they often express themselves more fluently in writing. For proof, simply look at all the Goodreads reviews of this book. One after another, reviewers who identify themselves as introverts go on and on! So, I'm not going to summarize the book here, only to share some of my strong reactions to it.

1. I appreciate the author's taking the time to tell extroverts, too, how they can take advantage of their strengths and learn strategies from introverts to help them cope with their weaknesses. If she had only boosted introverts' self-esteem, we might have thought she was overcompensating. As it is, we can take her claim that these are different temperaments with different advantages and drawbacks more seriously.

2. I also appreciate her study of how the Extrovert Ideal doesn't reign in Asian cultures, and in fact, may hold Asian Americans back in mixed company. I wish she would look at Jews, too. Jewish women are allowed to be much more extroverted than WASP women, and Jewish men are prized for being more introverted (in the sense of thoughtful, persistent, and scholarly) than the general idea of masculinity would permit.

3. Cain gives us a thoughtful analysis of when introverts should "to thine own self be true" and when they should "smile and the world smiles with you."

For the rest, please read the book!

My Prayers for Israel

 

Ever since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E., Jews have prayed to be restored to the land of Israel.  But to do what?

The High Holy Day prayerbook, or machzor, that we use at Temple B'nai Brith  puts it one way.  Ve-sham naaseh l'fanecha et korbanot chovoteinu: "There we shall bring Thee our offerings...."  This is a vision of a rebuilt Temple, with priests, Levites, and sacrifices of animals and grains, all at their appointed times, the same way the Temple operated two thousand years ago.

The Sabbath prayerbook, or siddur, that we use puts it very differently.  She-sham asu avoteinu l'fanecha et korbanot chovoteichem: "There our ancestors sacrificed to you with their offerings...."  This is a vision of a renewed community in the territory of Israel, a community that remembers its history but does not repeat it.

I have great difficulties with the first version.  I purposefully attend an egalitarian synagogue: why would I pray for a hierarchical Temple?  Although I eat animals, I cannot see slaughtering them as any way to glorify God.  Then there is the difficulty that the Dome of the Rock, one of the most sacred sites in Islam, stands on the Temple mount.  Jews could only rebuild the Temple on its historic foundation by committing a horrific crime against our fellow children of Abraham.  God forbid!

But the second version has its problems too.  For two thousand years, Jews have offered prayers instead of sacrifices.  This is the hallmark of the kind of Judaism all of us know, rabbinic Judaism.  Without the substitution of prayers for sacrifices, there might be no Judaism today.  But prayer is portable.  Wherever ten adult Jews come together, we can pray and study, mourn and celebrate. 

We simply do not need a Temple in Jerusalem any more.  So, the reference to the Temple in our prayerbook seems like an empty piety, a reference to a past that we both respect and repudiate. 

I am not happy with "There we shall bring thee our offerings."  I am not satisfied with "There our ancestors sacrificed to you."  It gets me thinking: in an age when a State of Israel exists, what would it mean to be restored to our homeland?  To do what?

Two thousand years is a long time, and Jews have planted roots all over the world.  I am still going to live where I have made my life, in Somerville, Massachusetts.  But with family who live in Israel, and a Jewish identity that originates there, perhaps I could pray:

• There we shall finally recognize women as equally empowered with men in all branches of Judaism.
• There we shall unite Jews who have been separated first by history and then by ethnocentrism and racism.
• There we shall create a just, inclusive, and democratic society where Arabs, Jews, and others can live in peace, whether or not they are religious, and whether or not they are heterosexual.

Can I get an "Amen"?

You Had Me at "Forgive Me": a thought for the High Holy Days

 

 

Last year at this point in the Jewish calendar, I posted an entry entitled "It Is Not Too Hard for Us" (http://dfischman.blogspot.com/2012/09/it-is-not-too-hard-for-us-high-holy-day.html).  I think it is worth reposting as we approach the High Holy Days. Happy 5774!

The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity: a review

 
What is serendipity?  Is it stumbling upon something by a happy accident, or shrewd observation and deduction, Sherlock Holmes style?  Does it involve looking for something and finding something else, or coincidence occurring without any effort on the part of the finder?  Does it pertain to finding books and documents, or discovering facts and ideas?  Can it be taught, encouraged, solicited, and if so, through individual effort or through organizational structure?  Is it talent or pure luck, or a combination of the two?

Robert K. Merton and Elinor Barber chased down the word "serendipity" from its first use by Horace Walpole in 1754 through its use in scientific papers in the 1950's, when this book was begun.  Their answer is "All of the above."  At different times, people have used the word in all these different ways.  Serendipity clearly answered a need for a way to talk about the ways that we find out things when our rational plans and orderly methods would never bring them to light.  Because we still don't understand exactly how that happens, we use the word variously to express our reactions to it: surprise, amusement, disdain, wonder.

I am with the authors in appreciating serendipity.  I believe in planning, but that includes planning to improvise at appropriate moments.  Be prepared to be spontaneous!

Being mentally and morally prepared to act in the moment is a trait of character that anyone can cultivate.  It takes a particular kind of organization (whether it's a business, a lab, or a nonprofit) to welcome serendipity and learn from it.  That's the kind of place I'd like to work, and that's the kind of environment I'd like funders to support.  Thomas Szasz once wrote of "the seriousness of a child at play."  As a society, we need to loosen the reins and give a little play to our endeavors.  Imagine what might happen then!

The Return of Alien vs. Predator, or, Why Liberals Lose When They Take on Corporate Power: Part II

On August 2, I wrote, "Modern liberals use state power to check and constrain the power of capitalism, which they see as posing the greatest threat to our ability to live free and flourish....

Does the strategy of posing state power against corporate power work? Only if we control the state AND state power is stronger than the power of capitalism. But neither of these is true."

If you want to re-read Edward S. Greenberg's arguments demonstrating that elections don't keep elected leaders faithful to the wishes of the people, go back to August 2. But I think the point that corporations often escape government control is obvious if you've been reading the headlines for the last decade. Enron. Halliburton. Qwest. Arthur Anderssen. Global Crossing. In Massachusetts, Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, which gave us leaky tunnels years after Bechtel gave us Iran-Contra criminals Caspar Weinberger and George Shultz. And these are just the ones that have gotten caught.

One of the biggest employers in America, Wal-Mart, has repeatedly been fined for paying workers less than minimum wage, making them work longer than legal hours, and allowing sexual harassment in the workplace but refusing to allow union organizing. They just pay the fines and keep on doing it. Some of the biggest financial institutions in the country knowingly lent money to people they knew could not afford to pay it back, then sold the loans to investors, creating the housing crash and the Great Recession.  And the conservatives complain we're an over-regulated society!

This all goes to the second reason the liberal strategy is just not enough to rein in corporate power. Government is frequently NOT stronger than corporations. Here are some of the reasons:

* Government officials rely on corporate money to run their election campaigns. It buys "access," which means the chance for the corporate leaders to explain what they want and, if the elected officials don't give it to them, to know the reason why.

* Government officials often ARE corporate leaders. They take a turn "serving their country" before going back to "making a profit"--but all too often the way they think and act in the two roles is exactly the same!

* If government creates rules or imposes taxes that corporate capitalists don't want to live with, they can do the big money equivalent of taking their ball and going home: namely, they can stop investing for a while and go on "capital strike." Alternatively, they can move their money to investments in other countries. Then, jobs will disappear, wages will decline, and "the economy" will be bad (in that phrase we use without thinking about it to describe what affects rich people--we never use "the economy" to mean the minimum wage, for example!). Without their overtly making it happen, corporations will exert power over government, using us as their tool. Politicians will come under public pressure to do something about "the economy"--with the public never realizing that it's "the economy" which is doing something nasty to them!

* For more than a hundred years, we have been taught that freedom = "free enterprise," meaning corporate power goes unchecked by democratic political power. Every law, regulation, and enforcement action is defined as a threat against freedom. It's ingrained in us to think government power used against Microsoft or McDonald's is power that could turn against you and me. So we give away our power in the name of a freedom that only other people enjoy.

And yet, and still...sometimes, in limited ways, government can force corporate business to act in the public interest. It's worth using the liberal approach, if not as a strategy, at least as one tactic, one tool, one finger in the dike to stop the flood from rising further. Moving people who haven't ever understood why you would WANT government regulation is a worthwhile endeavor, too.

It's simply not enough. It never will be enough. It doesn't change the underlying structure of power. Without that, we can count on seeing things get worse and worse. That's why I cheer and applaud my liberal friends, and at the same time, I encourage them to think deeper--more radically--about what it will take really to make things better.