A Rigorous Approach to Kindness

Judith Rosen-Berry

Context:

A series of now all too familiar crises mark out our present context, they are, for example economic instability, reactive populism, on-going (and seemingly unresolvable) inter-national conflict, femicide, and climate catastrophe – and each ‘event’ induces in us (cumulatively and episodically) not only a nervousness about the future, but an everyday and increasingly common occurrence of a fear that grips us in strangleholds of anxiety. Why? Because on so many levels we are being exposed to the desperation and dangerousness of humanity on the edge, and without a wider based ‘liberal’ (footnote, clarification?) ethics, of which an ethic of rigorous kindness is a part, to cohere us - fear provoking ‘talk’ of how perilous it is to link ourselves ‘empathetically’ with others, will only grow. 

What can we do?

Confronting these challenges is not going to be easy. The modern, progressive agenda that has guided us up until now – is struggling to make sense of what is unfolding, and much of our past liberal certainty has been lost; the old tropes of universal justice, equality and progress are now irrevocably mired in past moral and political failure. As a consequence our response to the global threats that we all[1] now face is possibly best characterised by a stagnating hesitancy that has left many liberals without the political or theological wherewithal to respond.

Rigorous kindness:

Given the seriousness of this mounting crisis, it might seem underwhelming (and even wrong) to suggest that what we should do is establish a liberal Jewish theology of rigorous kindness. I say this because ‘kindness’ certainly evokes mixed feelings in most of us but perhaps no more so than in women[2] – and for this reason alone rigorous kindness cannot be regarded or co-opted into a liberal Jewish theology simply as a ‘good thing’. It must be:

• worked at
• reflected on and
• applied intelligently (critically) – so that our relationship to kindness becomes a rigorous one, with (dare I say it) a subversive edge, rather than a sentimental one.[3]

We need a liberal Jewish theology that explicitly states how acts of rigorous kindness can create liberatory praxis – but which, we can also reasonably expect to unfold within ordinary liberal Jewish life. So what we are talking about is ‘a way’ of being rigorously kind that is accessible, sensible, and easily actualised. It’s important then, that:

• Rigorous kindness ‘manifests’ itself in the routine thinking, talking and acting, of liberal Jewish life.[4]
• Rigorous kindness is non-elitist, non-hierarchical, and democratic – liberal Jews don’t need to be taught by their ‘teachers/rabbis’ (skilful practitioners) how to be rigorously kind.
• Rigorous kindness is ‘kindness’ ‘problematised’ (Phillips and Taylor) reference. It understands that ‘kindnesses’ can often be performed in order to prove the moral worth of the person giving the kindness. Rigorous kindness looks to go beyond the “helping imperative” that remains characteristic of contemporary approaches to poverty, disability, etc.
• Rigorous kindness is not a “do good” approach that is often linked with a charity model, where those who receive ‘kindness’ are conceptualised as passive, without agency, or as objects of both pity and control.
• Rigorous kindness, in solidarity with feminist theorists, critically explores how women have been socialised to put others' needs before their own, and recognises how caring labour takes a toll on the well-being and health of women (this type of labour can be time-consuming, stressful, and overwhelming).
• And that rigorous kindness avoids the obfuscations of being a spiritual exercise by emphasising practical manifestations of kindness.

What makes rigorous kindness different?

Rigorous kindness is different because its epistemological underpinnings are derived from the understanding that the everyday personal (and communal) nothing special - acts of kindness (that we have mentioned above) have the potential to disrupt the orthodoxies of (unkind) neo-liberal and market driven economic theories and the politics that derive from them.

Rigorous kindness is not then, a soft, or sentimental feeling - it is a binding,[5] creative and problem-solving force that inspires and focuses the (liberal Jewish) ethical imagination. What is being argued is that acts of rigorous kindness are not a ‘nice’ side issue, a recommended add on to liberal Jewish life - but a recognised part of the ‘ethical’ glue that is required for the progressive benefit of all people. (link to RJ soft/hard piece)

Rigorous kindness as ‘solidarity’:

A liberal Jewish formulation of rigorous kindness, explores a ‘way’ that mediates between the vulnerability of tenderness and the strength of solidarity with the oppressed and marginalised – a fundamental insight that we share with many elements of the feminist tradition. 

In keeping with this line of feminist thinking then, rigorous kindness should always be understood as a political, as well as an ethical act of solidarity with the economically and socially precarious. In this particular sense then rigorous kindness should develop in such way that its ‘actions’ also form, and are based on, a critique of the structural social, political, and economic narrative that depletes so many lives. 

Rigorous equals questioning:

Fundamental to the political/ethical project of rigorous kindness then are questions. By asking specific questions rigorous kindness becomes an intrinsic part of the complex of social justice, solidarity and inclusion. Two key questions then might be: 

• Does rigorous kindness have the depth and potency to edge us towards a society based on justice and equality?
• How exactly can rigorous kindness be a catalyst for change?

Differentiating rigorous kindness from ‘kindness’:

Cynicism and resentment have the effect of devaluing and trivialising kindness. Although this might seometimes seem justified, by reformulating kindness into something more rigorous its points of ‘connection’ with others, small acts of kindness become  ‘revolutionary’ resistance to injustice. (relationship and connection)

In this way rigorous kindness is critical of ‘kindness’ that has become packaged, ‘instrumentalised and monetised’ as hash-tag ready cultural capital, that sells us the myth that individual acts or feelings of kindness are all that is required. “Feeling kind is not enough.” Rigorous kindness is much more than that. It is, of course, intensely personal – but it is also needs to be socially transformational. 

Rigorous kindness as micro-political tactic: 

The liberal Jewish approach of rigorous kindness might be partially informed by what Michael Foucault characterized as ‘arts’ or techniques of the self  - (as well more collective strategies) where resistance to the normalization of inequality, alienation and unkindness, starts at the level of daily life.[6] It is a way of resisting the quotidian, but ‘built in’ (structural) effects of ignorance, rumour, gossip, selfishness and prejudice.

Rigorous kindness then, recognizes that combined with Foucault’s theory of micro-politics (and techniques of the self) that it’s praxis can have real political and social effects. A focus on the importance of the micro-political can conceptualize rigorous kindness techniques as part of the broader fabric of the political. Seen in this way rigorous kindness becomes “not an exercise in solitude, but a true social and political practice.”[7] 

Exploring how rigorous kindness as micro-political action can be mobilized to transform or resist existing power relations or institutions - allows us to take these micro-acts of kindness seriously and to conceptualize rigorous kindness as a diffuse tactic for resisting the many and different forms of structural unkindness that exist in our world today.

Conclusion:

A liberal Jewish approach to rigorous kindness then, is part of a tradition of ethics driven and justice seeking Judaism, which every liberal Jew can practice in small acts of compassion and kindness.

Discussion points:

1. Do you think that ‘fear’ inducing narratives undermine our ability and willingness to act kindly and empathetically towards others? Do you have examples of this? What if anything, do you think can be done to counteract lack of empathy when it occurs?
2. Should acts of rigorous kindness be understood as necessarily political, or is it enough for rigorous kindness to be a religious mitzvah?
3. What do you think about ‘small’ acts of rigorous kindness being understood as defiant micro-political (daily) gestures of resistance to the structural unkindness of neo-liberal economics?
4. Is being rigorously kind Jewish? What Jewish teachings support rigorous kindness?

[1]Without the recognition, and balancing influence, of common destiny and connectedness inherent in kindness – our social life is going to become increasingly toxic.

[2]“Kindness was steadily downgraded from a universal imperative to the prerogative of specific social constituencies: romantic poets, clergymen, charity workers and above all, women, whose presumed tender heartedness survived the egoist onslaught. By the end of the Victorian period, kindness had been largely feminised, ghetto-ized into a womanly sphere of feeling and behaviour where it has remained, with a few notable exceptions [ever since]” (Phillips & Taylor, On Kindness, 2009: 41)

[3]We must, at all costs, avoid the “feminization kindness”, the sole (and natural) prerogative of women, a result of a binary logic that sees men as rational and women as emotional,

[4] You might like to look at The Feminist Utopia Project edited by Alexandra Brodsky (2015), for some inspiration.

[5]The renowned, left wing historian Tony Judt wrote passionately about collective welfare and the values of community (Judt, 2010, Ill Fares the Land: A Treatise on our Present Discontents, Allen Lane.). In an interview just before he died, he spoke movingly about the need for a language that binds us all together: perhaps its kindness?

[6]See: The History of Sexuality, Vol, 1 [1978]; The History of Sexuality, Vol. 3 [1988]; Foucault and Gordon).

[7]Foucault and Gordon, Power/Knowledge 51.