How To Keep Your Polarized Guests from Destroying Your Seder (And Killing Each Other)
The table is set with the Passover china, the candles are lit, the Seder plate is perfectly arranged, the matzo is covered and the wine is in the decanter at the head of the table.
Then Uncle Louie refuses to exchange his red MAGA cap for a kippah, and Tiffany insists that vegan substitutes be found for the egg and the shankbone. While you’re in the kitchen looking for a carrot and a turnip, the party breaks up before it starts when Andre stalks out after being addressed by “their dead name” of Amanda.
Is it any wonder that advice columns dealing with family gatherings refer to “navigating” them?
The Torah repeatedly describes the Israelites as a “stiff-necked people,” and, indeed, Jews have long been known for the diversity of our strongly held opinions, but the current ideological divide is the widest it has been in recent memory. Add to that the fact that polarization varies by cohort, and it is not surprising that a Seder table encompassing several generations can be an explosive combination.
An increasingly popular reaction is simply terminating relationships with those with whom one disagrees—“no contact” is now a trend—but there is a lot to be said for maintaining relationships with diverse family members rather than embedding oneself in an echo chamber of self-congratulatory opinion.
Estrangements have ripple effects that spread throughout family groups, and rarely in a good way; they contribute in no small part to the current epidemic of loneliness. Staying connected builds emotional strength and resilience.
In the extreme (one hopes) example above, the battle was lost before the opening salvo, as the posturing began before any real discussion got underway. But where feelings are hotter and stronger than the horseradish on Ashkenazi Seder plates, precautions may need to be taken in advance. Boundaries need to be set ahead of time and individuals told what the ground rules are when the invitations are issued.
A value that seems to have been lost over time is that offending someone is something to be avoided. Not insisting upon displaying your politics and not policing the speech of others are indicia of simple courtesy. Wearing a head covering to visit the pope does not signify abandonment of Judaism for Catholicism—it is just polite, as is declining to insist that everyone acknowledge every aspect of your chosen identity and agree with your every opinion, or even allow you to express it.
Family members who cannot or will not comply with your requests can decide not to attend. Yes, it has come to this.
Since at least Victorian times, traditionally controversial subjects were not considered polite topics of discussion at table. If political or cultural topics are sure to set off a firestorm, the host can resort to that old-fashioned rule. If—that is, when—those subjects come up anyway, the host can make a pointed comment about the “appropriate time and place” and draw on an arsenal of statements or questions to redirect the conversation.
These should include topics likely to engage the anticipated combatants—no one will be knocked off his hobby horse by any comment on the weather short of a cataclysm, and then only in the case of a dedicated storm-chaser.
There is a third way, one that allows the participants to engage actively in real conversations, not just to keep the peace. According to Dr. Julia Minson, professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School and author of “How To Disagree Better,” “There is no better way of getting out of our heads than having a conversation with someone who disagrees with us.” She terms this “constructive disagreement.”
Dr. Minson bases her method on three key ideas. The first is receptivity to opposing views. Our willingness to consider and assess differing views in an impartial manner has myriad benefits; we make better decisions when we have access to more balanced information and can consider it without bias, we become more attractive collaborators and advisers and our interpersonal relationships are wider and deeper.
The second idea is that communication, not thoughts and feelings, is what matters. The primary method of communication is language, and certain words and phrases are perceived as indicative of receptivity. These tend to hedge our claims, such as what “might be possible” or what “some people think.” Emphasizing where there are areas of agreement, paraphrasing what the other person has said and responding with positivity will all allow the other person to feel heard and is more likely to open him up to listening to a different point of view.
The third key—and you knew this was coming—is that constructive disagreement is a skill that can be learned and improved, if you work at it. As you are listening to the other person, things may come up to which you may react in a negative way, which may show in your body language and destroy any appearance of receptivity. If you are preparing your response when the other person is talking, you are only partially listening. The emotional regulation necessary to resist these behaviors is something that needs to be practiced.
Constructive disagreement is disagreement—it does not mean that either of you will emerge from the experience having changed your mind.
“If it’s a relationship that [should be] preserved, go in with the mindset of just trying to understand where they’re coming from,” Dr. Minson said. “When people are agitated and saying the same thing over and over, they have not felt heard.”
Dr. Minson acknowledged that there is a cost in time, but, she said, “You still have to listen.”
If your guests at the table can engage in constructive disagreement, this may turn out to be your best Seder ever.
Here’s hoping.
Sue Kleinberg is a contributing writer to Jlife magazine.
