Tinky-Winky and Us: The Power of the Word

Tinky Winky and Us: The Power of the Word

Rabbi Michael L Feshbach

Temple Beth Am Williamsville, NY

As many of you know by now, a brand new cultural icon (irony intended) has come under furious attack from the Religious Right. I am speaking, of course, of that fuzzy, humbly British squeaky-thing known as Tinky Winky. Who is Tinky Winky? The largest of the four Teletubbies, stars of the English show and barely disguised cash-cow masquerading as Public Television educational programming aimed at the big spending toddler set. Tinky Winky is sweet, and innocent, and lovable in every way except in his role as a stalking horse for the capitalist system as a whole. But Tinky Winky is in the news these days because of an article in the conservative National Liberty Journal attacking the Teletubby. Tinky Winky, the article notes, has the voice of a boy -- but carries a purse.  ''He is purple -- the gay pride color; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle --the gay pride symbol" Jerry Falwell, founder of the so-called Moral Majority, is reputed to have contended that the subtle depictions are intentional and that "As a Christian, I feel that role modeling the gay lifestyle is damaging to the moral lives of children." (Now, how these people can be attacking Tinky Winky, and ignoring Bert and Ernie, who have shared the same apartment for over two decades, is completely beyond me.)

I share with you the following caveat: I am not certain if Jerry Falwell initiated this attack on Tinky Winky, or continued it by reacting to someone else's prior statement. Admittedly, that is an important distinction.

Nevertheless, such comments, whoever started them, betray an inner obsession, a world turned upside down.  And whatever they reveal about the world view of those who shake with hate at the sweet sight of a toddler tubby saying ''b-i­ g hug," there is an umbilical connection between their words, and the word FAG scratched with pen on the beaten body of a now slowly recovering 17-year old high school senior in Novato, California.  There is a connection because words matter.  They shape our view of the world.  They define the who and how and what of what we do.

And all our wise mothers' were never more wrong when they taught us to say "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." The formula was prescriptive, not descriptive. They were trying to teach us the way the world should be. Not the way it is.

Our sensitivity to what other people say extends even beyond the realm of accuracy.  Last month an aide to the newly elected mayor of Washington D.C. was forced to resign for using the word ''niggardly," offending a fellow aide as an ethnic slur. Never mind that ''niggardly," which means "parsimonious" or "stingy," is a Norwegian import, with no known linguistic connection to a similar sounding racial epithet. Gyping someone -- that is a racial slur, based on the gypsies. Welshing" on a deal getting off ''Scott" free, an ''Indian giver" Jewing someone down, being a ''nitpicker," all of these are racially based -- interesting, by the way, that most of these slurs have to do with a less powerfi.11 group being accused of being cheap or dishonest by a group that is entrenched in power. Maybe that is why the other aide assumed ''niggardly" had the same kind of origin.

The power of the word. Since the founding of our faith 4000 years ago we Jews have known the power of the word. God is said to have created the world with words, saying "let there be," and there was. A Midrash states that the primary difference between the animals and human beings is the ability to speak, and an ancient Aramaic translation of God having made Adam into a '1iving being" is that "Adam was given the spirit of speech." Abraham exposed the emptiness of idols by placing words in their mouths, when his own rather knew they were nothing more than wood and stone. The Ten Commandments are actually known in our in addition as Aseret Hadibbrot, the 'Ten Words." The whole Torah, as the sacred word of God, invites infinite scrutiny and, indeed, the very kind of play on words we saw in this week's portion, between mishkan, or sanctuary, and mashkon, or pledge.   And the Torah is filled with constant injunctions about shmirat halashon, guarding the tongue, or restraint in speech.  'Do not go about as a talebearer among your people." 'Do not carry false rumors."  'Do not insult the deaf or place a stumbling block before the blind."

Even one of the rare genera possibly vague statements in the Torah, "do not wrong one another," is parsed and applied by later tradition precisely to the arena of speech.  We read in the condensed law code knows as the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch:

"Just as it is forbidden to wrong a person by dishonest buying or selling, even so it is forbidden to wrong a person by means of words, as it is written: 'lotonu oto, v'yaraita m'eloheicha; do not wrong one another, but you shall fear your God.' This prohibition refers to the wrong done by means of words.

What constitutes wronging by means of words? A person should not say to his fellow 'At what price will you sell me this article?' when one has no intention to buy. If one seeks to buy something, one must not send that person to one who has no merchandise to sell. If one's neighbor is a penitent person, one should not say: 'Remember your former deeds.'... If one is asked a scholarly question; one should not say to an unlearned person 'What is your opinion?' To same applies to all forms of speech which tend to hurt the feelings of another person.

If a person has an opprobrious nickname, although accustomed to it and does not seem to mind it, nevertheless it is forbidden to call the person by that nickname with the intention of conveying an insult. Itis wronging by means of words.

It is forbidden to create a false impression, that is, to deceive any human being, Jew or non-Jew, even by mere words, without causing any loss. It is forbidden, for example, to sell unkosher meat to a non-Jew who seeks to buy the meat of a ritually slaughtered animal. If one sells an article having some imperfection , although it is worth the price, one is nevertheless obliged to inform the purchaser of the imperfection ...

We must not invite anyone to dine, if we know that the invitation will not be accepted. Nor should we offer someone a gift, when we are certain that the gift will be refused. In all cases where one expresses something with the tongue, and does not really mean it, as when one compliments a neighbor, when it does not express one's true opinion, it is forbidden. One should always harmonize the tongue with the heart, thereby cultivating the qualities of being truthful, upright and of a pure heart.

Careful speech, we see, is about fur more than not telling tales.  Our tradition treats speech as a moral virtue, applying its insights to many areas of our daily life and conduct.  Even... padding a guest list, or trying on clothes in a store, to see what

we look like, with no intention of buying... constitutes deception through speech.

L'shon ha-ra, literally, ''the evil tongue," is, according to Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, "the practice of making a derogatory, deceptive or damaging statement that is not motivated by a constructive or beneficial goal" Or, even more broadly, Rabbi Stephen Wylen defines gossip as "any statement that lowers another person in the esteem of the listener."

To guard our speech in the way we are expected to do is a hard task indeed. It is a constant struggle, a never won war. I struggle in this area, and frequently fail I admire those who are further along in this struggle than am I. I am humbled, and I grow, from trying to apply the Jewish insights of the ages to my daily life through what I say.

To use restraint in our speech, we must think about the language we use, the words we choose in terms of intent, impact and integrity.

Intent.  What is the goal the purpose in saying what we say?  1bis is a more subtle question than it at first appears.  For the intent must be measured, in the end, vis a vis the subject and not the speaker.  Was the intent to lower, or elevate, in the esteem of the listener?

Using Rabbi Wylen's definition of gossip, the truth of a statement does not matter. In fact, as he points out, the fact that something is true is definitional of gossip – if it is not true it is slander, which is even worse. The fact that something is already common knowledge does not matter. Your willingness to say the same thing to the person directly does not matter. Your feelings about the other person -- making it clear, for example, that you think well of him or her, but that this one thing really bothers you -- that does not matter. Even seeking advice from a third party does not matter, if you state your case in a way which will leave the subject lessened in the eyes of the listener. (How therapists would make a living under such a definition is an open question. Seriously, however, it is precisely the issues involved in sorting out and holding separate the realities and world views of disparate patients, helping along without bringing inside, which is precisely what makes therapy more an art than a science and a difficult art indeed.)

The question of intent relates not to your own needs or safeguards, but to your intent regarding the subject.

Now, that seems to be about the implications of your words, but it is not. For intent is in your hands. The implications of your words, as they bounce beyond you, is not. But those implications are still your responsibility. It is still incumbent upon us to consider the e:ffact on others of what we say.

Impact. The ownership of not only what we mean, but how we are heard. To the extent that it is possible to do so.

You know, there is a debate that continues in our culture about this whole ''pc" business . What is "pc"? It is the acronym for ''politically correct." There is a backlash going on against a heightened sense of sensitivity to those who are different. And it is precisely a battle... about language.

Yes, even language sensitivity can be taken to extremes. Earlier I used the term circumferentially challenged, instead of well, "overweight." The one implies a struggle, but the other defines a noun You know some of the others: vertically challenged, instead of short -- or tall; chronologically challenged, instead of too young or too old. We use these, and we laugh at how ridiculous we have become.

And yet let us not too soon throw in the towel of sensitivity. (Although  perhaps I should not be associating innocent towels with defeat by using that phrase.) For the  what we say really does shape reality; words really do build work.ls.

As a student, I once sat through a Ritual Committee meeting in a synagogue where certain members were arguing against the use of gender-neutral language. In that same meeting, someone said, referring to Kol Nidrei, ''when the men take the Torahs out of the ark..." In that synagogue, the task of holding the sifrei Torah on Kol Nidrei fell to past presidents -­ and the immediate past president was a woman. The rabbi then said: ''If you can convince me that you included this woman in your mental picture when you just said 'men,' then we can go back to male language in the service." Those arguing against gender neutral language leaned back in their seats, thought for a moment, and, to credit their honesty, ceded the point.

What we say shapes how we view the world. If reality is connected, then, indeed, words make worlds. And we are entrusted with a sacred responsibility ... to be aware of the kind of world we are making.

Integrity. Using care in what we say will make us the kind of person others will look to with respect.

One ofthe common criticisms heard about sermons early in the career of a rabbi is ''oy, too many quotes." But there is a reason for this. The tradition teaches us the value of saying something "b'shem omro, in the name of the one who spoke it." To give credit where credit is due. More, and not just for rabbis: to acknowledge our own place in the chain of a tradition, standing on the shoulders of those who came before us.

And more: when we carefully sift our words through the filter of time, when we sort out the influences upon our thought, we will surely know, as we grow, which words are our own.  As time goes on, when we stand up for what we stand for, we will know it.  And everyone who hears us will know it.  D'varim sh'yotzim min halev, nichnasim lalev.  Words that come from the heart, the tradition says, enter into the heart.

The tongue, says the Talmud, is like an arrow. Once unsheathed , it is able to do harm both near and fur. Once in flight, there is no guarantee where it will land.  Worse: while an anow can strike only one target, the evil tongue slays three: the one who speaks, the one who listens, and the one about whom it is spoken.  And one who causes blood to drain from another's face in embarrassment, it is as if we have shed their blood.

Rabbi Artson writes: A community in which l'shon ha-ra is common practice is one in which people cannot afford to trust one another; it is a community in which we can expect our deeds to be construed in the most unflattering light.

My friends, from my heart I share the hope that we can grow in all our lives from the wisdom of our tradition. For our world, and our own community, hang in the balance, of how we speak to each other, and what we say about each other.

Often there is far too much hate in our words to each other, and far too little love.  And sharp words cut the cords that bind us together.  For a shared past does not of necessity a common future make.

Speaking at his first inauguration, to a nation on the verge of civil war, Abraham Lincoln wrote that ''We are not enemies, but friends.  We must not be enemies.  Though passion may have strained, in must not break, our bonds of affection.

True mystic chords of memory... will yet swell the chorus of Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

May the words of our mouths, and the meditations of our heart, be acceptable to you, 0 God, our rock, and our redeemer.