In 2016, after the passing of Elie Wiesel, The Jerusalem Post, under the editorial leadership of Steve Linde, published a remembrance in his honor. The first article, written by Shimon Peres, presaged a theme mentioned by many: a “premier moral voice” has been lost. In reviewing the document, the emerging question is “What was that voice saying that we need to hear now?” Here are eight quotes from that publication.
1. Elie Wiesel, Nobel Prize acceptance speech, 12/10/86
I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
2. Natan Sharansky
[The book] The Jews of Silence was an impassioned plea to Jews around the world to shed their indifference and speak out for those who could not. ‘For the second time in a single generation, we are committing the error or silence,’ Wiesel warned.
3. Ronald C. Lauder, on what he learned from Elie Wiesel
People of good conscience have a moral obligation to speak out, be heard, and fight bigotry.
4. Barack Obama
Elie Wiesel implored each of us, as nations and as human beings, to do the same, to see ourselves in each other and to make real that pledge of ‘Never again!’. … We must never be bystanders to injustice or indifferent to suffering.
5. Elie Wiesel, US News and World Report, 10/27/86
The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, but indifference between life and death.
6. Elie Wiesel, Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, January 24, 2005. “Bearing Witness”
The witness tried to understand: How was such calculated evil, such bottomless and pointless cruelty possible?
7. Elie Wiesel, specific attribution disputed
Mankind must remember that peace is not God’s gift to his creatures; peace is our gift to each other.
8. Natan Sharansky
When strategizing about how to mobilize public support for the plight of Jews in the Soviet Union, Elie Wiesel said that we should not expect establishment organizations to take the lead and should instead mobilize students, who would pressure them from below to get on board.’
Implications of the quotes
There are several implications of these quotes. Quotes 1 to 4 implore us to not be bystanders. I am reminded of a similar sentiment expressed by Rabbi Joachim Prinz, speaking at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963. Reflecting on his experiences as a Jew under the Hitler regime, he said he learned that “the most urgent, the most disgraceful, the most shameful, and the most tragic problem is silence.” Referring to civil rights issues in the United States, he said, “America must not become a nation of onlookers.”
Elie Wiesel and Rabbi Prinz are speaking directly to the onlookers, issuing a call to witnessing, a call to speaking, and a call to acting. At every moment, we must ask ourselves, “How might the others involved be feeling?” “How would I be feeling if that were me?” “How would I be feeling if that was one of my loved ones?” Perspective taking and empathy are not just two “skills”; they are markers for our interdependence as human beings, which brings along with it a responsibility to not be a bystander. It sounds easy to say, but there is a reason that the words “bystander” and “onlooker” exist. By the very nature of the words, one cannot expect a bystander or an onlooker to act. There is a word for acting in the face of moral injustice or to uphold a moral principle: upstander.
A message people endorse but don’t follow
Wiesel knew that individual acts of courage could be counted on, but they would not be frequent, that they would not be the norm. He spoke up as often and as forcefully as he did because he knew he was delivering a paradoxical message that people were likely to endorse and yet not act upon.
Julian Rotter, a psychologist credited with articulating social learning theory, shed useful light on three key factors determining behavior: one’s expectations about the likelihood of one’s actions being effective; the subjective importance attached to successful action; and the psychological situation in which one perceives oneself to be.
This latter dimension requires a bit of clarification. Someone’s psychological situation includes perceptions of the norms around him/herself. Are we in a context in which our action is strongly supported by others, or will it be opposed or looked down upon? Will people think worse of us? Is the environment such that our job security or the safety of our family could potentially be affected by taking (or not taking) certain actions?
While behavior is more multi-determined than by these three factors alone, working with these three helps illuminate Wiesel’s concerns and why he tried to create a norm where silence in the face of injustice was perceived as unacceptable. For him, the dimensions of expectations, importance, and psychological situation all were in alignment. For much of his audience, less so.
Quotes 5 and 6 demand that we be brutally realistic about the harm people are capable of, and willing to do, to one another. That we personally may see ourselves as never engaging in intentional harm to others cannot allow us to believe that others are similarly incapable. (Wiesel would add that many of us are capable of inflicting more harm on others than we believe about ourselves.) As we now live in a media environment where news of suffering and death is constant, it is not impossible to understand Wiesel’s contention that too many of us are developing an indifference to death and to the nature and quality of life experienced by others. This reduces the subjective importance attached to particular actions.
Quotes 7 and 8 might provide the greatest illumination of the path forward: Waiting for leaders to do the right thing is not a wise strategy. That also includes waiting for God to bring peace. One might say that God’s contribution has been to give us the tools and insights to create peace for ourselves and those around us. That is a great gift that we have been squandering.
In the secular context, Wiesel warned to not expect establishment organizations to take a lead in change or reform in the name of justice. He and Prinz had seen firsthand how those with privilege and comfort were unlikely to risk what they had for the unlikely and relatively remote and non-urgent actions needed to offer help to those threatened or already suffering.
How do we improve the situation? The first step is to join something. Find something you care about and participate in it with commitment. Our democracy does not point to certain places to join. It asks all of us to participate. Initial participation in an important context can increase one’s expectations of being successful with less personally salient involvements. And the more that joining and participating becomes part of our psychological situation, the less we feel like bystanders or onlookers, and the more empowered we feel to be upstanders. This is not a fast process; but this road, once traveled, does not yield much backsliding.
The message of the moral voice
What was Elie Wiesel saying that must not be lost now, that must be heard around the world? We cannot accept injustice and the suffering of others as any kind of norm. Nor can we be bystanders or onlookers when our governments are taking actions that we feel are unjust. We cannot wait for others to act in the ways we feel are needed. By participating in causes we care about, we increase our own potential to take effective, collaborative action in the service of our own cherished values.
We cannot have silence and onlooking continue to be the norm.■
Maurice J. Elias is a professor of psychology at Rutgers University and co-author of the books The Joys and Oys of Parenting and Emotionally Intelligent Parenting. He can be reached at Maurice.elias@rutgers.edu.