Community and UU and Humanism and HUUmanism

As a new member of HUUmanism (Pronounced "HU-U-manism"), I received a welcome packet including two issues of their journal “Religious Humanism”.  In the Fall 2012 issue, the Editor’s Preface says “Increasingly, we face a choice, framed elsewhere by Mike Werner, [an author of one of the articles] between secular Humanist groups who do a better job of embodying a rational approach to life, and UU congregations who do a better job of providing full-fledged community.”  And several of the articles emphasized the role that “community” plays in UU congregations and also Humanist groups. 

“Community” is one of those words that we use in everyday parlance and seldom stop to think about.  I found myself reacting to the word with the first associations of friendly and welcoming group of people.  But as I reflected on the word a bit more, I realized that there was another aspect to it for me that adds a new, fuller dimension to the word.  (I realize that the word “welcoming” may sometimes mean “welcoming to the GLBT community”, but I am using it here in the broader sense of welcoming of anyone and everyone.) 

When I first moved to the Boston area, after living in the Philadelphia area and before that in Chicago, I found the people here to be friendly and welcoming.  I could talk to people in line at the supermarket and talk about the weather and other superficial, friendly chit-chats.  I found friendly folks in the choruses I joined, the Boards of Director of non-profit organizations where I served, and even at work.   But I found that the people were not inclusive.  No one would say “Let’s get together for lunch”, or “We’re doing such and such this Saturday, would you like to join us?”  There was no opportunity for engagement or building of a relationship.  I found that if I met a man I respected and desired to get to know better, I would ask to get together for lunch, or a drink and I would realize that he thought I was trying hit on him as if we were in a singles bar.  And I found the same type of response if I suggested that to a woman.  That type of friendliness just isn’t practiced here. 

A few years after moving, I attended the Arts Week Conference at Star Island which has a history of being connected to both the UU and UCC churches.  With my Fundamentalist upbringing but my non-religious current beliefs, I wasn’t looking forward to the daily Chapel services each morning.  But after the first service, I mentioned to my ex-wife that I loved a service where the word “god” wasn’t mentioned once.  That was my introduction to UUs.  I became friends with the UU minister and met with her for meals and at other times that week for some great conversations.

After returning from Star Island, I checked into our local church which was also a combination of UU and UCC.  (It turned out that the UCC half was much larger than the UU half.)  I arranged to have breakfast on several Saturday mornings with the minister.  I’m sure that on our first meeting or two, the minister looked at me as a missionary would view a Tutsi and was hoping to corral me as another member.  However soon we were having peer-to-peer discussions on issues international, national, local and even issues within the church.  (Like the fact that she loved my bumper sticker “When the love of power is replaced by the power of love, then the world will know peace”.  But as a minister of that particular church she wasn’t allowed to put any such bumper stickers on her car.)  I did become engaged in the church and was the editor of their newsletter, participated in several special projects, and even gave a few “sermons” in her absence. 

But I felt badly that I didn’t have other close friends in the church.  We would have a time of refreshments after the Sunday service and also discussion groups following the refreshments.  The other members would be friendly and we might talk about the service or other issues, but we’d never get together outside of the church activities.  So one January 1^st, I resolved to do something about it myself.  (I’m a believer that I must be the change that I want.)  My resolution was to invite someone from the church for dinner (or whatever) once a month.  That month, my ex-wife and I invited the minister and her family over for a Sunday dinner of fondue.  But I found that the social dynamic of the minister, her husband, their five-year old, and my ex-wife meant that the discussion never rose above the chit-chat level.  Friendly, yes.  But still superficial. 

And then I failed at getting anyone else from the church to get together with us.  Like a well-brought-up adolescent, I would make it easy for them to say “No”, I would try three times, and then I would accept that it isn’t going to work and would move on.  So my ex-wife and I tried another UU church.  But the minister there wasn’t interested in a peer-to-peer relationship and viewed me only as a congregant filling a spot in a pew.  And during the social hour following the service, it became apparent that the level of interactions with the members would not rise above the superficial level.  Friendly and welcoming, but without depth. 

Then I moved to another city and again had trouble developing any kind of a relationship with the minister or the church members outside of the church activities.  And then I heard of a Humanism group which met once a month.  I went there and really liked what I learned about Humanism and felt comfortable with their philosophy as well as the stimulating environment.  Again, I became quite engaged in the group even giving a multi-media presentation on Dewey as a Humanist and was asked to be on the Steering Committee.  But again, the only personal interactions were a few minutes before or after a planned activity.  For that reason, plus the reason that I felt their definition of “Humanism” was too narrow in that it seemed to only include Pro-Science or Anti-Religion, I left.

I then found another Humanist group – the Concord Area Humanists.  After going to a few of their meetings and not really talking to many people, I at first wondered how long I would last there.  But then one of the leaders started to talk to me and realized that with my background I might be able and might enjoy an opportunity to participate.  So I was invited to be on their Steering Committee and became actively engaged in their activities.  But more importantly, I found not one but several people who would, through their actions, say “You seem to be worth developing a non-superficial relationship with.”  In a short period of time I actually got together with three different leaders of the core group.  These “core leaders” were also the ones who introduced me to HUUmanism. 

Through this journey I realized that I was looking for a church or belief system that resonated strongly within me, and was of course, friendly and welcoming.  But I also was looking for an environment which would provide me the opportunity to develop relationships that would be deeper than friendliness.  I required an opportunity to become engaged in the organization, and also I required relationships that were more than friendly interactions. 

In my thoughts on “Self Culture”, a sermon by Ellery Channing in 1838, I developed what to me was a rather unique definition of “Culture”.  “Culture” here is not the culture of art and humanities, nor is it an ethnic culture that we often think of.  Rather, it is like the biology culture dish (Petri dishes).  This is an environment which is specifically designed to promote the development of an organism.  In this case, the “organism” would be a developed relationship with another human.  So to me, when I think of the “Community” that I want to find in a UU church, or a Humanism group, or in a HUUmanism group, I am looking for an environment which is specifically designed to promote interactions to the point of developing relationships. 

David Kimball

Isaac Asimov

The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” but “That’s funny …”

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent

Life is pleasant.  Death is peaceful.  It’s the transition that’s troublesome.

I don’t believe in an afterlife, so I don’t have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or feaing heaven even more.  For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse.

Creationists make it sound as though a “theory” is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.

Self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what’s right.

And above all things, never think that you’re not good enough yourself.  A man should never think that.  My belief is that in life people will take you at your own reckoning.

No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be.

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.

Humanity has the starts in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.

There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.

To insult someone we call him “bestial”.  For deliberate cruelty and nature, “human” might be the greater insult.

When I read about the ways in which library funds are being cut and cut, I can only think that American society has found one more way to destroy itself.

It is change, continuing change, inevitable change that is the dominant factor in society today.  No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be.

If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn’t brood.  I’d type a little faster.

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge”.

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.

From a song:  “Tell me why the stars do shine/Tell me why the ivy twines,/Tell me what makes skies so blue,/And I’ll tell you why I love you.”  Response:  “Nuclear fusion makes stars to shine,/ Tropisms make the ivy twine,/Raleigh scattering make skies so blue,/Testicular hormones are why I love you.”

Emotionally I am an atheist.  I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.

I prefer rationalism to atheism.  The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don’t have to waste your time in either attacking or defending.

There are no nations!  There is only humanity.  And if we don’t come to understand that right soon, there will be no nations, because there will be no humanity.

Gradually, though, I became aware that there was a movement called “humanism,” which used that name because, to put it most simply, Humanists believe that human beings produced the progressive advance of human society and also the ills that plague it. They believe that if the ills are to be alleviated, it is humanity that will have to do the job. They disbelieve in the influence of the supernatural on either the good or the bad of society, on either its ills or the alleviation of those ills.

(In 1984, Isaac Asimov was named “Humanist of the Year” by the American Humanist Association

Holiday Chaos

“Billy, Susie, Carolyn, you all come in from the cold.”

As six stomping feet shake leaves and dirt from boots.

And see what they have been smelling through closed windows.

Creating chaos regardless of the drill-sergeant’s commands.

At the table, sounds of glasses clinking and forks chunking

And 10 simultaneous conversations from five different people

Creates more chaos than that experienced during preparations.

But at least everyone is laughing – at least on the outside.

After the pies, and the dishes and the football games

The three leave to their schools or their jobs and friends.

And what seemed like children when entering, are now adults.

How did they grow up so fast that now we’re alone in our own chaos?

David Kimball

The Morning After the Night Before

I just came across this version of  “The Night Before Christmas” written as a parody and celebrating the Court decision of Kitzmiller v. Dover that established the unconstitutionality of teaching Intelligent Design (ID).  Josh Rosneau and Glenn Branch are with the National Center for Science Education.

’Twas the night before Kitzmas and all through the land,
No creationist was stirring, not even Ken Ham;
The briefs had been drafted and filed with great care,
In hopes that Judge Jones’s decision’d be fair;
The plaintiffs were nestled all snug in their beds,
While Bill of Rights visions ran round in their heads;
And Nick blogged for PT, and Vic played The Boss,
And fretted and fussed o’er the chance of a loss,
When over the wires there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my bed to see what was the matter.
Away to NetNewsWire I flew like a flash,
I started my browser and cleared out the cache.
The ruling I found at the federal court
Was a verdict I knew I would love to report.
For what to my wondering eyes should appear
But a hundred-plus pages, all written so clear,
With lawyerly flourish like ten score trombones,
I knew in a moment it must be Judge Jones.
More sharper than razors the experts they came,
Whom he cited, and marshaled, and quoted by name:
“Now, Miller! now, Alters! now, Padian—why not—
On, Robert T. Pennock! on, Forrest and Haught!
The Establishment Clause says that Pandas must go,
ID isn’t science; heck, Fuller says so!”
The case had been brought in a federal court
When the Dover school board thought it wise to consort
With Disco. ’tute shysters who sold them a line:
“Don’t call it creation, but ID should be fine.”
As rats that behind the Pied Piper did flow,
The school board had taken the DI’s say-so;
The teachers they ordered to point to ID,
“Evolution’s a theory, with gaps, don’t you see!”
A book had been bought to be put on their shelves;
Who purchased the book? No one knew, maybe elves.
More likely, a church group had ponied the dough,
But when pressed on the point Buckingham had said “no.”
His lies how they winkled! His obstruction so crude!
In the face of such efforts, eleven folks sued.
Tammy and friends brought the ACLU,
Steve Harvey and Rothschild joined pro bono too,
The quartet was finished by Richard B. Katskee,
With sciencey backing from Nicholas Matzke.
(The opposite side was in sad disarray:
For Dembski and Meyer had scuttled away,
While Minnich and Fuller and Michael J. Behe
Gave tragicomedic performances, e.g.
Comparing ID to a view like astrology—
I think that Jeane Dixon is owed an apology.
The More Center’s Thompson was no Machiavelli;
His case was as firm as a bowl full of jelly.)
To the court came reporters, in need of news hooks,
And Lauri and Gordy and Edward wrote books.
And Matthew wrote also, of Darwin’s own breed,
Each one of their books is a cracking good read.
Jones heard the case fairly, not tipping his hand,
Though the case it moved slowly, and forty days spanned.
His ruling was thorough, at times it waxed furious,
That board members lied he considered perjurious.
By then an election had sorted their hash,
Still Jones fined the board around two million cash.
In reading the ruling I filled up with glee,
The flaws of ID for the whole world to see!
In schools ’cross the nation I knew folks would say—
“Happy Kitzmas to all, and to all a good day!”

By Josh Rosenau and Glenn Branch, with apologies to Clement Clark Moore.

Humanism, Humanities, and Humanity

 To me, Humanism uses the Humanities to help Humanity.  (That’s an original as far as I know.)  With that definition, I would like to present two quotes from the humanities, history and literature, and use them together to try to develop some compassion on the vulnerables in our present-day society.

George Santayana, a philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist is quoted as saying “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” 

John Steinbeck wrote The Grapes of Wrath which many of us read many years ago.  Howeverr we were probably too caught up in the story of the plight of the dust bowl migrants to have caught the significance of the title and how that significance applies to today and the vulnerables in our own present-day society.

“And the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed. The great owners ignored the three cries of history. The land fell into fewer hands, the number of the dispossessed increased, and every effort of the great owners was directed at repression. The money was spent for arms, for gas to protect the great holdings, and spies were sent to catch the murmuring of revolt so that it might be stamped out. The changing economy was ignored, plans for the change ignored; and only means to destroy revolt were considered, while the causes of revolt went on...and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.”

One possible deconstruction/reconstruction of this passage could be the following:  ( Perhaps in the vein of Derrida?)

1) The “Haves” have access to lessons learned throughout history.

1)  When property and money is owned by too few people, it is taken away

2)  When the “have-nots” become a majority and are hungry and cold, they will seize what they need

3)  Repression works only to strengthen and build the repressed

2)  Society is in a time of crisis

1)  Lessons of history are ignored

2)  The income gap between the “Haves” and the “Have-nots” is widening

3)  The numbers of the lower class are increasing

4)  The 1%, are doing everything they can to marginalize the 99%

5)  The efforts of the “Occupy” movement are forced down and/or ignored

6)  The taxes are spent on incarcerating mass numbers rather than alleviating the causes of unrest

7)  The National Debt, paid mostly by the 99%, is increasing because of increased wars

8)  Government spying is increasing

9)  The tanking of the economy is ignored

10)  Efforts to change the economy are obstructed

11)  Competition and control takes precedence over the paradigm of collaboration and cooperation

12)  The causes of dissent, unemployment, lack of education, and lack of hope are never addressed

13)  In the eyes of the people, there is failure and the lowest approval ratings in history

14)  In the growing ranks of the Working Poor, there is a growing wrath

15)  “In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.”

The last point did not need to be reconstructed.

An Interview with Baruch Sponza on His Excommunication

(The following is a combination of storytelling and a new genre called creative non-fiction.  Although the facts in the story are true and based on research, the dialogues and scenes are made up.)

An interview with Baruch Spinoza on his excommunication:

INTERVIEWER:  Bento, or do you prefer to be called Baruch, could you tell us your first thoughts when you heard that you had been excommunication?

SPINOZA:  Sure.  I prefer Baruch for that was my name in the Hebrew community in Amsterdam.  Both names mean “blessed” and I thought of the irony of my name as I received this curse.  As you know, I wasn’t there at the time that the curse was laid on me.  My first thoughts were, “Excommunicated!!!  I’ve been excommunicated?  And I’m not even Catholic.”  I wanted to say “Oh my God, or OMG in today’s electronic vernacular, but since I didn’t believe in that kind of a god, I couldn’t even say that.”  (smile)  I thought I might get a rebuke but nothing this severe.

I was very familiar with the viciousness of religion as my family had been driven out of Portugal during the Catholic Inquisitions even after they had been forced to convert to Christianity.  But I never expected this harsh treatment from the Talmud Torah congregation as I and my family were upstanding members.

INTERVIEWER:  What was life like during the time you were excommunicated?

SPINOZA:  I was excommunicated in 1656 which was a very heady time politically for both Portugal and Amsterdam.  The Dutch had taken Columbo from Portugal and King John of Portugal had died and been replaced by his son.  So we Jews from Portugal who were now in Amsterdam were very wary of our precarious situation.  Jews had been expelled prior to this from England, however Oliver Cromwell was considering readmitting Jews into England.  In fact, my teacher and mentor, Manasseh ben Israel, also a Portuguese, was in England conferring with Cromwell about our readmission at the time of my excommunication.  I still wonder if I would have been excommunicated if he had been with me in Amsterdam instead of England.  But he died only a year later so he wasn’t able to help me.  He was the founder of the first Hebrew printing press which allowed our Jewish ideas to flourish and circulate as never before. 

It was a rich time artistically. Rembrandt, for all his great paintings, officially declared bankruptcy and the Dutch painter, Vermeer, was changing the world of art as he was painting the middle class rather than nobility.  

INTERVIEWER:  What did you see happening in your life leading up to the excommunication that might have given you pause for thought as you look back?

SPINOZA:  Well, there were a few things going all the way back to my birth which, if I were a believer in a god, I could consider it Providence.  But since I don’t, I’ll have to say it was just synchronicity.  I was born in 1632, one year before King James of England.  But the same year that Christopher Marlowe’s play, “The Jew of Malta” was published posthumously.  It described itself as “The Tragedy of a Jew” and was used by Shakespeare in “The Merchant of Venice”.  It actually is about the struggle of power between Spain and the Ottoman empire which could easily be used as a metaphor for the power between organized religion and infidels.  It espouses that power is amoral and a quote from it could describe my life:  “I count religion but a childish toy/And hold there is no sin but ignorance”.  This thought, birthed in the same year as my birth, could easily have become my epitaph. 

Another synchronicity was that the year I was born was also the year that the Leiden University Observatory was built.  This was momentous because it was the first time that observations rather than theoretical discourses were used to further knowledge at the university level about the heavens.  Telescopes and microscopes had been used by individuals but not universities before this.

My birth coincided with the Dutch colonialism as they settled in the New World in Connecticut, occupied Formosa, the English Virgin Islands, French Martinique and were expelling the Portuguese from the Gold Coast in Africa which provided a great deal of wealth through slave trade when it was so lucrative.  Religiously, this was the period of Jansenism, which was a Dutch movement in opposition to Catholicism espousing original sin, depravity, necessity of divine grace for salvation, and predestination – much like Calvinism.  But it was this crack in independent thinking and breaking away from religious authorities and traditions that helped me to start with a crack and then create a complete break.  This was also the time of the founding of Harvard College in 1639 which at that time was strictly a religious institution. 

But this was also the time of the beginning of what was later called the Period of Enlightenment.  I’ve heard some people even say that I was the “spark” that ignited the conflagration of this Period of Enlightenment.  I was fortunate to be able to witness the works of Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton.  Together we were able to forge a new paradigm of basing our thoughts on observations rather than traditions.  So in a way, my life was easy and natural to develop into a life of independent thinking.

INTERVIEWER:  What exactly did the excommunication include as they placed this curse on you?

SPINOZA:  As I look at this now, I find it humorous.  It was the worst curse the Jewish community in Amsterdam had ever placed on anyone.  Here is an English translation of it:

“By decree of the angels and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of the entire holy congregation, and in front of these holy scrolls with the 613 precepts which are written therein; cursing him with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho and with the curse which Elisha cursed the boys and with all the castigations which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down and cursed be he when he rises up. Cursed be he when he goes out and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him, but the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven. And the Lord shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law. But you that cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day.”

This excommunication meant that no one could pass within six feet of me and no one was allowed to even read my work. 

INTERVIEWER:  This is a very extreme curse to put on a person.  What did you do to deserve such a curse?

SPINOZA:  The interesting thing was that I hadn’t done anything at that time except raise some questions.  I didn’t even write any books until 10 years later.  But I did question anyone and everyone – even my family.  I asked questions like the following:

“Why are anthropomorphic characteristics attributed to a god?”

“How can a god be a personal god with attributes of psychology and ethics?”

“How can a god have a will?  Understanding?  Emotions?  Preferences?  Plans?  Commands?  Expectations?  Judgments?  Morals?  Goodness?  Wisdom?  Just?  Deserving of prayers?  Or Worship?  Be comforting?  Perform miracles?  And how can a god have a ‘Chosen People”?”

“How can a god be anything other than what is found in the natural world?” 

“How can a god be a cause if everything that happens happens just because it is natural?”

“How could a god divinely create the world which is only a product of nature?”

“Why are believers in a god dominated by passions of hopes and fears?  Rather than knowledge?”

“Why are religious institutions so dominating of believers through ecclesiastical authority as this only leads to bondage through psychological, moral, religious, social, and political enslavement?  Especially when true knowledge is so liberating?”

“Why are the religious ceremonies of the Jews, and Catholics, and all religions so empty and devoid of reason?”

“How can the soul be immortal if it is a part of one’s natural body?”

“How can there be any kind of a life after death?  Other than one’s knowledge and ideas and thoughts?”

“How can the Scriptures be holy?  Or divinely inspired?  Especially since they were composed over a long period of time by several authors and changed continuously with each translation?”

As I look back now, I see these questions addressed in my books, but at the time of my excommunication, all they had to go on was my questions – not my teachings.  Today, these would all be considered Humanist thoughts.

INTERVIEWER:  How did this excommunication affect you personally?

SPINOZA:  Fortunately, although I was asking all these questions, by the time of the excommunication, they had become rhetorical questions and I was no longer really seeking the answers.  I knew by then that I was not one cut out for a life based on faith but rather a life based on the pursuit of knowledge of only that which is natural and observable. 

At the time, I was running the family business of importing dried fruit with my brother, Gabriel, but the business had run its course.  So I was fortunate that I could find work in a place with lenses making telescopes, microscopes, and spectacles.  Amsterdam had become a center for optics as I mentioned with the Leiden Observatory.  Also, Amsterdam had received international acclaim for its optics which is why Galileo had telescopes from Amsterdam imported to Italy and then perfected for his proving the Copernican heliocentric theory.  And we know what trouble he got into by basing his beliefs on his own observations in opposition to the Church hierarchy.  After my book was published, I was offered a chair of philosophy at the University of Heidelberg but I declined it.  I was having too much fun developing my own mind to stop and teach others.  My work with lenses may have been the death of me as it appears that I may have died from silicosis which is exacerbated by fine glass dust inhaled into my lungs similar to the fiberglass lung problems people experienced much later. 

INTERVIEWER:  And speaking of books, why did you publish only one book in your lifetime?  Were you afraid of being called a heretic even though you had already been excommunicated?

SPINOZA:  As a matter of fact, Yes.  The one book I published was “Principles of the Philosophy of Rene Descartes” in 1663.  I loved his way of thinking and philosophizing as if it were geometry.  Geometry is based on a minimum number of axioms and postulates and then everything is “proven” from there.  However there were a few areas where I disagreed with Descartes.  Descartes was a Dualist in that he believed in a god, or the supernatural, in addition to the natural world.  And he also believed in the duality of the mind, or soul as being distinct from the body.  I was a Monist in that I believed only in the natural world and that the mind was of the same substance, or mode, as the body.

I wrote two other books but they weren’t published until my friends published them after I had died.  Even though I had been excommunicated, I was still afraid of being branded a heretic by both Christians and Jews.  In my book “Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect”, I promote the development of the human mind through knowledge which can be verifiable by distinguishing that which is true from that which is false.  And in my second posthumous book, “Ethics”, I emphasize Reason and I wrote: “Without intelligence there is not rational life: and things are only good, in so far as they aid man in his enjoyment of the intellectual life, which is defined by intelligence. Contrariwise, whatsoever things hinder man's perfecting of his reason, and capability to enjoy the rational life, are alone called evil.”  Even today, I would consider that a pretty good ethic to live by. 

INTERVIEWER:  What advancements do you see today that you would have liked to have seen in your lifetime?

SPINOZA:  That’s an easy question to answer.  I love all the advancements that neuroscience has uncovered regarding the workings of the mind.  Through the use of fMRI’s, we have been able to observe that the mind is nothing more than the brain and all those functions of the mind are natural and observable. 

INTERVIEWER:  Thank you for this interview.  After this time with you, I feel I should be called “Baruch”. 

Behind the Kitchen Door - Book Review

“Behind the Kitchen Door “ by Saru Jayaraman

All of us are familiar with the “front” people at restaurants – those who take our orders, who serve us our meals, who pour our water for us, who serve us our wines and drinks, and tempt us with tasty tarts.  But do we really know them?  Even the waitstaff that know and recognize us as big tippers.  Do we really know them?  Probably not.

And how much do we know of the “back” people?  The salad makers?  And pastry chefs?  And grill chefs?  And line chefs?  And dish washers?  We hardly ever see them to say nothing about know them.  Yet many, if not most of them are among the “Working Poor” in a society where one is paid not according to the value which they add to a product, but whose pay is minimized the most when the surplus of people looking for work is greatest – like now. 

I remember years ago being challenged with the question, “What would a head of lettuce cost if our society paid fair wages to the migrant workers?”  And that same challenge could, and should be asked regarding restaurant workers.  And while this book doesn’t try to answer that question, it does raise the issue of why the working conditions of the restaurant workers should matter to all of us who eat out – not just for the sake of compassion, but also for our own safety and especially for our own enjoyment.

The objective of this book is to “ensure that dining out is a pleasurable experience for everyone – on both sides of the kitchen door”.  It describes the problems on several fronts such the fact that our society is often more concerned with the well-being of the animals used for meat for the meals than for the welfare of the workers.  Poverty wages, denying medical benefits and sick pay, tolerating racism and sexism create an environment of exploitation and lack of hope require our society to enforce existing labor laws and raise the minimum wage for these workers.

Employers have done a good job of creating an environment filling the workers with futility and inevitability so that those with only one job skill never get a chance to advance and never get a chance to change careers.  Each chapter of this revealing book presents an issue, case studies, and then presents what Restaurant Opportunities Center (ROC) has done to address these problems. 

When 9/11 happened, over 13,000 restaurant workers in New York City lost their jobs and needed help.  The author started to work with a handful of these workers and found that the environment for restaurant workers was deplorable, humiliating, and oppressive.  She and some of these unemployed workers formed ROC and ROC soon became a national movement addressing the sorry conditions of so many restaurant workers. 

Many restaurants operate under a paradigm that doing the minimum will maximize the profits.  The problem here is that this is an unsustainable approach as it is only a short-term approach looking at only the financial bottom line immediately.  To be sustainable, a restaurant, actually any business, needs to approach their business in a sustainable fashion by asking the question:  “What do I need to do today to be viable 20 years in the future?”  This means that the focus needs to be shifted from the shareholder to the stakeholders.  If the stakeholders, such as the workers, are not treated in a sustainable manner, the business will not be viable in the long term.  The current environment of many restaurants are unsustainable for the stakeholders due to poverty-level wages, wage theft by management, discrimination, and lack of benefits. 

Lack of benefits includes non-promotability and also no health benefits.  Many workers are forced to go to work even when sick because they need those few dollars.  This increases the odds of food-borne illnesses being passed to the consumers as well as often makes the sick worker even more sick.  The industry puts workers at high risk of injury (burns and cuts) without providing them the wages or health benefits to deal with them.  Restaurant workers are the third highest in total number of non-fatal occupational injuries and illnesses in the US. 

Restaurant workers hold 7 of the lowest paid occupations in the United States at an average of $8.90 an hour after tips.  They are the Working Poor as this amount does not allow them to pay rent for a modest apartment on their own.  And considering that many workers have dependents, either children, or parents, the problem is extreme.  In many States, they are paid a minimum of $2.13 an hour by their employer and then a meager share of the tips.  This minimum has been frozen for the past 20 years.  The restaurant owner must see that the minimum, plus their share of the tips equals the standard Federal minimum wage of $7.25.  However many managers will clock a worker out early, or skim money from the tips personally.  This is why many, if not most restaurant workers need food stamps for subsistence.  Which means that the government is subsidizing the restaurant industry.  Because of a lack of oversight of managers, some workers don’t receive the minimum pay, some don’t get proper overtime pay, some don’t get paid for all the hours they are required to work, and some get paid late or not at all.  Some are even required to pay for customers who walk out without paying. 

Racial discrimination is rampant in restaurants.  White workers get to wait on tables while people of color are relegated to more servile positions like bussing or dishwashing.  Workers are segregated in the workplace by position in the restaurant (server, busser, dishwasher), segment of the industry (fine-dining, family-style, and fast-food), and location (poor, middle-class, and upper-class neighborhoods).  Diversity of color within a restaurant does not mean that there is equality in position or advancement opportunities.  Managers can be very discriminating when it comes to position as well as advancement because they are seldom held accountable for their decisions or actions. 

Sexism is also rampant in restaurants.  The median weekly wage for women for servers is $387 while for men it is $423 – a difference of almost 10%.  Most women who get positions of chef, are relegated to the lower paying positions of pastry chef or salad chef with little or no hope for promotions.  Many female chefs from culinary schools or with hospitality training wind up as cake decorators in supermarkets.  And sexual harassment is ubiquitous.  Women experience this from the male consumers, from management, and from the other workers.  Since managers are considered “untouchable” in terms of recourse, they often try to get away with as much as possible.  And since the managers are the ones who determine positions, hours, and promotions, they often expect “favors” from the female workers. 

What can and should be done by the average consumer?  1)  Adopt a definition of “sustainable food” that includes sustainable labor practices; 2) Talk to the workers when you eat in a restaurant; 3) Engage restaurant managers in a conversation about labor practices; 4) Help raise the federal minimum wage for tipped workers!  Tell policymakers and restaurant managers that you think $2.13 is unacceptable; 5) Vote for paid sick days for restaurant workers.  And tell restaurant managers you consider workers’ health when choosing where to eat; 6) Picket with your wallet – don’t eat in restaurants segregated by race and gender; and 7) Join the ROC campaign to support workers all along the food chain. 

I found this book to be a wealth of resources for gaining empathy for these restaurant workers.  It was very similar to another book I read “Nickel and Dimed” by Barbara Ehrenreich.  In this book, the author travelled to five places in the US and attempted to live on the minimum wages of $7.00 an hour.  Her final point was that – it cannot be done without devising ways to beat the system or without safety nets.  Both books are revelations into the lives of the Working Poor.  The Working Poor are those people who work 40 hours a week (or as much as they can) and still cannot afford the necessities of life.  And this is a timely issue as there is much discussion about this as in the Huffington Post article about the Working Poor:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/working-poor_n_4463606.html.  Also, recently in the Huffington Post there is yet another article about raising the minimum wage

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/minimum-wage-poll_n_4466009.html.

I was surprised that the author did not make a greater case for the irresponsibility of the managers because there is seldom any oversight or responsibility to a Human Resources Department like there are in many business offices.  And I would have liked more information on the training programs for hospitality students and also other groups dedicated to helping the restaurant workers such as unions.

But this eye-opener tells us a lot about this industry and how it operates from the inside on both sides of the kitchen door and what is required for a restaurant to be sustainable.  And the biggest factor in a restaurant being sustainable is for the consumers to be aware of what it takes.  Transformation will only come when consumers are knowledgeable and insistent that restaurants be managed in a sustainable fashion.

(Note:  While reading this book, I took extensive notes which were then culled to develop this review.  For anyone interested, they may view the 7 pages of notes at this address:  http://writemeister.blogspot.com/2013/12/behind-kitchen-door-book-details.html)