"It depends on the context"

Who could have imagined a week ago that the words “it depends on the context” would take on such a chillingly horrific meaning? Who could have contemplated that the heads of three of the world’s most prestigious universities could testify that, in their institution, a call for genocide on Jews was not per se objectionable but would depend on the context in which it was called for. This post does not propose to repeat the debate that has taken place so far on the social media and beyond. Rather, it addresses just one aspect of context: its place within Jewish thought.

In one sense everything we do and say is given its meaning and its significance by context. In purely physical terms, the impact of the laws of physics depends on context. Thus an apple will fall faster from the tree on Earth than on the Moon. Legal rules too can depend on context in much the same manner: this is why the amount of tax a person pays depends on the laws that apply in the jurisdiction in which he or she is registered to pay tax. This sort of context explains why some actions are mandatory in one context but prohibited in another, and this is why the driver of a motor vehicle must sometimes keep to the left of the road, sometimes the right, according to the highway code that applies to the road in question.

Every form of human society is based on rules. In some exceptional cases, for example North Korea, these rules are enacted and enforced by an authority that is above and beyond challenge, an authority that has the absolute power to determine what is permitted or forbidden, what is right and what is wrong. But for most of us, we live in societies in which laws are framed within the context of an understanding, shared by the governors and the governed, as to what lies within or beyond the bounds of tolerance, what is acceptable and what is not. When this shared understanding is lost, we witness the beginning of a process of social disintegration.

Jewish tradition recognizes the importance of context. One of the best-known passages in the Jewish bible, at Ecclesiastes 3:1 to 3:8, observes that there is a time for everything and then lists several pairs of contrasting and context-dependent actions (eg. “A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to wreck and a time to build. A time to weep and a time to laugh…”).

But context is not everything because it does not exist in a cultural vacuum. The life of a Jew is governed by laws, which are binding and by a code of best behavioural practice, which is discretionary and therefore a reflection of context. Pirkei Avot contains an important part of the latter. The tractate does not need to spell out the basic rules for life in a civilized society. This is “Ten Commandment” territory and is covered by many of the rules articulated in the written Torah. Rather, Avot guides us and advises us how to live to best effect in a society that is governed by those rules.

Both laws and moral precepts are fundamental elements of a mature society. Where there exist exceptions them, those exceptions too are governed by a broadly shared acceptance as to when they should (or should not) be applied. The wriggle room that permits laws and social mores to be waived or varied in individual cases may be described as “context”, but the fact remains that the law and the basic social norms that the law reflects have primacy, a primacy that is demonstrated by the fact that they so often define the range of contexts in which they do not apply.

The ethical code of Pirkei Avot and other sources of good Jewish conduct are built largely on the concept of middot, a word that is hard to translate or define but which encapsulates both good manners, common sense, and self-improvement. Avot addresses a zone of human conduct in which context is king, because social interaction is unending and ever-changing—and middot must respond to these changes on an ongoing basis.

I think that, when we discuss context, we have to distinguish between the different types of context and—if we are to be precise—the different contexts in which the word “context” is used. When the context is of a physical or geographic kind, one that governs which laws apply in any given situation, its significance is unlikely to be controversial. But when we use the word in debate over social, moral or legal standards, we must bear in mind that moral relativism comes into play. That is where the most serious discussions are reduced to the simplistic and infantile format of “You say it’s right; I say it’s wrong. Since right and wrong are only subjective evaluations, there is no such thing as right or wrong”. When this happens, we are reduced to arguments based on expediency, rhetoric, emotion and the tyranny of whoever has the loudest voice.