Throughout the Jewish tradition there is a heavy emphasis on repetition and cycles. We use cycles to tell time, to emphasize specific actions, and to communicate an understanding of nature and the world around us. As I think about my religious upbringing I can’t help but wonder about that focus on repetition, and the way that has translated into this current body of work, the Meditations Series. Much like the daily repetition of prayers, the painting style of this Meditations Series requires very little mental energy in the moment, and tends to cultivate a headspace to think deeply and critically about issues I am facing or am curious about. It seems possible that the practices and rituals in that Jewish tradition are intended to do just that in order to cultivate a greater understanding of one’s self, but I have rarely ever heard of Judaism being talked about that way. Rather than exploring the idea of an inward-looking faith practice, most of the messaging I’ve received from religious services, my family, and listening to others talk about their faith has been very outward focused. My conception of religions within the judeo-christian belief system has been focused around the role of practitioners within the world, and their rights and responsibilities to the people and world around them. Something like, you are righteous (or the chosen people), and you must reaffirm your righteousness by acting out the commands of God in your everyday life. The teaching and examples of my rabbis, youth groups, and family have been primarily concerned with the rewards of acting in a certain way, and the punishments for not acting that specific way. A piece central to that notion is the Jewish idea of Tikkun Olam, or “repairing the world.”
The concept of Tikkun Olam comes from some of the earliest written teachings in the Jewish tradition, and has been interpreted over the past two thousand years in a variety of ways. In modern society it is commonly used to refer to the biblical notion that we, humans, are engaged with God in the process of fixing all that is wrong with our world and society to create a perfect order within the world. This notion or concept percolates out into a variety of religious practices over time, and is central in the focus of modern religious practice across the board today as congregations focus significant time and resources on providing charity.
Despite the prominence of charity giving in the majority of modern religious practices, I feel there is something significant that needs to be talked about specifically as it regards to the notion and phrasing of Tikkun Olam. As we all know words and wordings are incredibly important, and the way that we talk about goals or ideas conveys important notions of both the substance of the idea and our perspective on it. Therein lies my issue with the common translation and understanding of Tikkun Olam. The phrase “repairing the world” carries with it several preconceptions and judgments in the wording alone, and when not addressed these preconceptions can quickly become a saviorist attitude.
Essentially, I see the context and judgments contained within this interpretation of Tikkun Olam to boil down to two main statements:
There is something wrong with the world.
I am the one who needs to fix it.
Depending on your familiarity with the concept of saviorism these two statements might be raising eyebrows or red flags already, but for folks who may not be familiar with this idea and the harms that it can and has caused I will dig a bit deeper.
With these two judgments in place or at least implied through the wording of our translation we can now look at the tangible steps of Tikkun Olam and break down some of the potential issues that could arise within each one. If we are now viewing the world through the lens of Tikkun Olam we now begin by looking for things that are wrong or broken in the world. Issues like hunger, poverty, environmental issues, political unrest, war, famine, etc. are all fairly mainstream issues that are often talked about in this context, and those are very real and present issues. Problems arise however, when you begin talking about these or other issues in communities outside of your own.
By nature we all have an innate understanding of our own communities and the issues or challenges within them. Because of our lived experiences and direct contact we can see issues with more clarity, and then develop an understanding of them easier. Relating to our own community we value the experiences and knowledge of others, trust them to relay to us problems they might be facing or ones that we have noticed, and respect them enough to believe what they say. While this isn’t always done perfectly, the close relationship that we have with our community offers the chance for reflection and development of a greater understanding of an issue before making an attempt to “repair the world.” Our proximity to the issue also lends itself to keeping us engaged with that issue, following up on an intervention we may have tried, or trying a new intervention if what has been done already didn’t address the issue fully.
It is critical to note at this point that even an attempt to address problems within our direct community can become problematic and even harmful without the proper care and attention. For a variety of reasons we may be inclined to define issues in a specific way where none actually exist, or exist in a different form. If I am extremely interested in food access issues I am more likely to see problems in my community through that lens, and in turn, to solve them through that lens even if there is a deeper injustice present.
Given that these problems occur when we interact with communities we have intimate knowledge of they certainly can occur with communities we don’t know as well. This becomes one of the fundamental cornerstones of a saviorist approach. A person or group outside of a community very rarely has a deep enough understanding of that community and their context to accurately identify challenges or issues that exist there. Without that knowledge and context that group will be guided by their own biases and perspectives, and see challenges in isolation from the broader picture of that community. This problem is amplified by distance, both physical and contextual, from the community which the self or group are trying to “repair.”
The ripple effects of an outside group’s inability to accurately define an issue becomes incredibly problematic when that group is also attempting to “fix” that issue. An incorrect focus of understanding means that very likely the “solution” presented will overlook key components and become ineffective or downright harmful. If that is the case, these attempts essentially become doomed to fail from the start, and in its wake could leave more issues or challenges than when it started. Without a clear understanding of the full context of an issue it would take sheer luck to develop a truly impactful approach to solving it.
This leads us very nicely into a discussion of the second assumption or judgement that is present within the notion of “repairing the world,” the idea that I, or we, are the ones who need to fix these issues. With that understanding in place there is an immediate power disparity present between the self or group engaging in Tikkun Olam and the community who would be “repaired.” This power disparity manifests itself in a variety of ways, with one of them being an assumption that the community being “repaired” cannot define issues within their own community despite their intimate knowledge of it. This assumption is due entirely to a judgement or perception of that community on the part of the group engaged in Tikkun Olam, and often serves as the foundation for all of the problems that then manifest in turn throughout the rest of the attempt to “repair” said community.
On top of not trusting the community to define which issues are present and most critical to that community, the charge to “repair the world” also implies that this person or group has the knowledge of how to address those issues or challenges. Because of the inherent power imbalance of that statement the responsibility for determining and carrying out attempts to address whatever challenges are being addressed is placed in the hands of the outsiders. For similar reasons to the problems associated with that outside group defining challenges, that group defining solutions can become extremely problematic. A lack of expertise in a particular area, often coupled with a lack of knowledge and context about the community itself is an especially potent recipe for ineffective, or harmful, intervention attempts.
Even if the outside group correctly identifies a challenge and develops an effective approach to addressing it, there is a reliance upon that outside group to continue their work and intervention. Rather than empowering people with a true stake in the outcome of a project, i.e. the community itself, to take on the intervention, this outsider approach cultivates a dependency on access to resources they have little to no control over. This lack of access realizes the implied power divide of the initial statement. Without control over the resources necessary to address an issue, the affected community must then rely upon the outside group for them. Should they choose to, this reliance could be used maliciously and force the community into a decision between carrying out the will of the outside group, or accessing the resources they need and have come to rely on. This relationship may never progress to outright oppression of malicious intent, but it sets up the community in question for that to be a possibility.
Now we come to an impasse. Hunger, poverty, environmental degradation, war, and oppression are all real issues that affect real people, and many of us occupy spaces and groups that have resources which could be useful in addressing them. How then do we wrestle with the notion that there are indeed parts of our world that need repair, and we are sometimes in a place where we can address them meaningfully? How do we value and champion a notion of Tikkun Olam without falling into the traps outlined above? I don’t believe that people or congregations come to this work with the intention to cultivate dependence and further oppression, but yet too often we do just that. What does a vision for Tikkun Olam look like that avoids the pitfalls of saviorism?
The first step must be an examination of the ways we talk about TIkkun Olam, and how we describe it to one another, our congregations, and the broader community. If our goal is to create meaningful change, Tikkun Olam cannot remain the cornerstone of an inherent power dynamic. Instead Tikkun Olam must be talked about, discussed, and examined in ways that reflect our own position within the world as it relates to others, and it must be recognized that often times the most useful step towards Tikkun Olam is one that places individuals and communities affected by issues at the forefront of defining and addressing those issues. Trust and respect, things that are too often missing from the conversation around Tikkun Olam, must be central pillars of this work moving forward. Trust in a community's understanding of their situation, trust in their knowledge and ability to address the issues they feel are present, and the respect and humility to ask them first and believe what they say. These seem like such simple statements, but yet they are too often missing from the work of charity or Tikkun Olam.
Faith groups have a powerful ability to conjure time and resources from a broad section of our society to use for charitable purposes. Armed with notions of responsibility and duty of their congregations they marshal these resources to the service of one another, their communities, and the broader society. However, too often this is done with a savioristic attitude that overlooks the true needs and wants of the communities being affected, and leads to projects and efforts that become ineffective or even harmful. In order to truly bring about the changes that need to happen in our society and our world we must bring with us the trust and respect necessary to hear the issues a community faces in their own words, and support the solutions that come from their intimate knowledge of the complex webs that exist therein. In order to truly do the work of Tikkun Olam we must not approach the world as something for us to repair, rather come to the work with humility and recognize the limitations of our positions and abilities to affect change. Until we do this we will keep putting money, time, and resources into projects that just don’t have the impact we hope for, or the impact that the communities these projects are in actually need.