The Myth of the Shiksa and Other Essays

Edwin H. Friedman, Shira Friedman Bogart

• Publisher: Seabury Books
• Year: 2008
• eBook ISBN: 9781596271869
• Topic: Teologia e religione
• Subtopic: Chiesa cristiana

"Why did I give advice to Eve instead of going directly to Adam? I knew I would never be able to stop the Creator's overall plan, but I thought I might really be able to frustrate it if I could screw up some relationships." So speaks Satan as The First Family Counselor in this collection of Edwin Friedman's most popular essays, edited by his daughter, Shira Friedman Bogart.

Friedman's signature wit and playfulness goes straight to the heart of human relationships from one generation to another. Throughout his life, Friedman eloquently applied the insights of family therapy to churches and synagogues, rectors and rabbis, politicians and teachers, and his humor, sense of paradox, and unique style of storytelling were trademarks of his teaching style.

One

AN INTERVIEW WITH THE FIRST FAMILY COUNSELOR

Having been involved in marriage and family therapy for almost thirty years, I thought it appropriate that I give a historical perspective by seeking out and interviewing the first creature in history to give advice to a married couple. Since all rabbis are given three outrageous wishes after ordination, and I had used up only one, I decided to cash in my second and received permission for this interview. I can’t tell you where it took place, but I can say it was over a period of several months.

First, an etymological note. In Hebrew the word “Satan” is pronounced sah-tahn. It is not a name but the noun form of a verb that means “to entice,” or to be an “adversary.” The grammatical form sah-tahn means, literally, one whose profession is to tempt, entice, or be adversarial. In rabbinic literature the term sitra achra is often used instead, lest by calling Satan by name one might invoke him. Sitra achra means “the other side.” It has always intrigued me that the late Dr. Murray Bowen’s understanding of paradox was an effort to get on “the other side” of the madness you are confronting, which he called a “reversal.”

I

FRIEDMAN: Satan, let me begin by thanking you for your willingness to grant this interview.

SATAN: It’s my pleasure, just as long as you don’t make fun of me. I can’t stand it when people don’t take me seriously.

__________

Originally conceived for the keynote address at the “Dialogue 94” National Conference of Pastoral Counselors, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 1994.

You mean like C. S. Lewis or George Bernard Shaw?

On the contrary; they captured my spirit completely, unlike that Job fellow. You know, he still doesn’t accept the fact that I exist.

Why should that bother you?

You’re right. I used to think I could throw people off course only if they believed in me; now I find it works better if they deny my existence completely.

I’d like to start with a rather simple question. I’ve always wondered why you began with Eve. Why didn’t you go straight to Adam and give him the fruit yourself?

That is not such a simple question. I really didn’t expect her to give it to him. That’s precisely what I was afraid she would do.

You were using paradox?

Yes, but I was new at it. I had yet to refine my technique. The outcome was the exact opposite of what I expected; why would I have wanted them to know the difference between good and evil?

Go on.

I could see right from “the beginning” —the second version is correct, by the way — they were created simultaneously — that the male of this species was not going to be the more aggressive one. Frankly, Adam was passive as hell. He would have stayed in that Garden till the end of time. Eve, on the other hand, had fire in her, desire, a sense of adventure, curiosity. And I realized if I was going to have to choose between an eternal struggle with this new species or absolute boredom forever, I’d better choose the former. Besides, the Creator wanted it that way.

He was using you?

If you must know, unlike some of the other gods, such as Mars or Venus or Neptune, this One makes life very difficult for himself. He wants his creatures to grow.

Then there are other gods?

Not in this universe. They all originally trained here and then went on to create their own worlds. Like Elohim they created their creatures in their own image. The difference was in the problem of reproduction. In Venus’s world everyone loves all the time; in Mars’s world they are perpetually at war. But Elohim wanted to try something different. The Creator saw himself as a God of individuation, of differentiation, of process; life was always to be in the act of becoming; the creatures might even be seen as co-creators. The problem was you can’t clone differentiation no matter how well differentiated the primary copy. Every parent knows that. So the critical component in the plan was that life was always to be challenging, and the secret to the process of becoming was in a creature’s response to challenge.

Then you were really working for the Creator. That must have been before the Fall.

Actually, I slipped.

Right into the choir, I understand.

But to get back to your original question — why I gave advice to Eve rather than going directly to Adam — I knew I would never be able to stop the Creator’s overall plan, but I thought I might really be able to frustrate it, if I could screw up relationships.

So you created the first marital triangle?

Exactly. Why, if I had gone directly to Adam, or had dealt with Eve one on one, they both might have started dealing with one another in very mature ways. But I saw that if somehow I could get all caught up in their relationship, I might keep them stuck forever. And I am proud to say that most counselors have followed in my footsteps ever since.

I’m not sure I’ll include that comment in the final version.

Anyway, the outcome was more than I could have hoped for. Each one immediately started to blame rather than take responsibility for their own response. I couldn’t believe it. All either one would have had to do was take a stand, any well-defined position on what they believed, own it, and I’d have been out of there. I’d have lost all my influence.

They were both only-children.

No. No. It was much deeper than that. I sensed immediately that it would show up everywhere, almost as though it were a natural part of their basic makeup, a flaw in creation, perhaps. Only-children have no monopoly on immaturity. But the exciting thing was I now knew the key to retarding the evolution of the entire species. Something that would work no matter what the age, the gender, the race, or the ethnic background.

You seem to be suggesting that if there were some original sin that has been transmitted down through the generations, it was not an act of disobedience, which, after all, could also be seen as an act of differentiation, but their response after they had disobeyed.

You got it.

Aren’t you afraid to tell me this? I mean, if the truth got out, things might swing against you.

Are you kidding? The failure of humans to take responsibility for their own emotional being and destiny is so much a part of their heritage that I can’t imagine how their simply knowing it would change things.

But that’s precisely what most counselors are engaged in doing. Trying to make people aware, giving them advice, pointing out their mistakes.

My best ploys.

Wait a minute, are you saying that you try to retard the evolution of the human species by tempting the helping professions into trying to help?

I do have to admit that sometimes when I am absolutely drenched in the self-sacrifice all around me, I get to thinking maybe the Holy One put troubled people on earth in order to give the good people something to do, but it’s a bit more complicated than that. Actually, I have a whole series of maneuvers, and I have to be resilient enough to adapt to the age, but, basically, I always work in the same direction.

What’s that?

To prevent people from reaching the essential position that is at the beginning of any mature religious philosophy.

Namely?

I will not make my salvation dependent on the functioning of others. And that works two ways. It means not using other people as the way to one’s own salvation, and it means not saving other people as the way to one’s own salvation.

That almost sounds like a philosophy of parenting.

Of course; they’re congruent. That’s why I keep parents all focused on the child instead of on themselves, getting caught up in issues like what’s the right method, who’s got the best statistical data, what’s the right proportion of leniency and strictness?

Sounds like counselors.

As I said, they’re congruent. . . . In all events, by keeping parents — and counselors — focused on the child, particularly on symptoms, I help them avoid the essential position at the beginning of a mature philosophy of parenting.

... and that is?

That the children who are doing best in this world — and by best I don’t necessarily mean the highest grades or the most awards but rather those who are working through the natural struggles of growing and being with the least amount of reactivity towards others — the children who are doing best in this world are those whose parents made them least important to their own salvation.

That sure is an interesting parallel between theology and therapy.

And let me add that the Creator himself struggled for centuries before he was able to work that one through. But, as I said, that’s what distinguishes the Holy One from all the other gods.

I’d like to hear how you go about diverting the human species from seeing what’s important.

As long as you give me my due.

Guaranteed, but before we leave the Garden I do have one trivial point of curiosity.

Yes?

I’ve always wondered what kind of fruit was really on that tree. I mean, ever since that damn painting everyone assumes it was an apple, but the text only says fruit. Was it a pear, an orange, a tangerine, a grape, a pomegranate, or was it really an apple?

It was an avocado.

An avocado? Why on earth — pardon the expression — an avocado?

I wanted them to have a yen for things that were fattening.

Your irreverence is outrageous.

Remaining authentic is very important to me.

Let’s get back to your methods. Just how do you ply your trade?

First, you must remember that I rarely do things head-on. Direct confrontation is not my bag. I saw immediately that this species with its immense intelligence and capacity for knowledge could never be led astray simply by ideas. Therefore, I always work with their intelligence rather than against it. Perversity is my game. In fact, I learned rather quickly that I could use their intelligence, and their good will, I might add, against themselves.

Could you give an example?

My primary tactic is to get flesh and blood to focus on the wrong information, on data, for example, rather than maturity, or on empathy rather than responsibility, or on self as a category of narcissism rather than a matter of integrity. I was going to say that things were different centuries ago when my main area of interest was religion. . . .

You’ve gone elsewhere?

Oh yes. Now I’m primarily into counseling, any kind of counseling — marriage counseling, family counseling, pastoral counseling, organiz...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Growing Up Friedman: A Foreword by Shira Friedman Bogart
• Acknowledgments
• 1. An Interview with the First Family Counselor
• 2. Secrets and Systems
• 3. How to Succeed in Therapy without Really Trying
• 4. The Myth of the Shiksa
• 5. Metaphors of Salvation
• 6. The Play’s the Thing: The Therapeutic Reversal as Psychodrama
• 7. Empathy Defeats Therapy: An Interview with Helen Gill
• 8. The Birthday Party: An Experiment in Obtaining Change in One’s Own Family
• 9. Mischief, Mystery, and Paradox: Bowen Theory and Therapy