Lev Vygotsky, the renowned early 20th-century psychologist, theorized that human behavior develops in response to social and cultural context, especially in relationship with those perceived to be more knowledgeable. The first such influence is from parents, who will recognize how Vygotsky’s theory operates. Every parent develops a look to cast on their children to communicate nonverbally that behavior is undesirable. Every child knows that look and tests the boundaries of it.
Think of a toddler, eyes locked on her parents, moving slowly toward something she wants, but knows she is not supposed to have. The look tells her that she is doing something wrong, but the child will keep moving toward the forbidden item to test how far she can go before her parents act.
In the beginning, the look might be enough to dissuade her, but eventually, the child will test how bad the punishment will be.
From such interactions, human beings learn right from wrong and how to rationally evaluate social reward and consequence.
Over time, a child’s world grows beyond parents to include other children, other adults, and media, which also exert social and cultural influence on development. Each of us learns from these sources what is or is not socially acceptable or desirable.
For the most part, we assume that a communal understanding of right and wrong will ensure that those social standards fit within a range of acceptable behaviors, guaranteeing the opportunity for all to survive and thrive as human beings. But what happens if that communal understanding begins to break down?
When people who engage in or advocate for hateful behavior proliferate and become venerated as more knowledgeable, a perversion of the effect described by Vygotsky emerges. Bigotry, discrimination and even violence can become socially acceptable or desirable if they are encouraged rather than condemned.
Notably, this is precisely the warning we receive from Torah in the story of Sodom. The Midrash explains that the crime of the people of Sodom was that they had so perverted the concept of justice that they became irredeemable. One example was that if a man cut off the ear of another man’s donkey, the donkey would be given to the perpetrator until the ear grew back. When right and wrong are inverted, human beings will behave immorally and call it just.
Choosing examples of this phenomenon in our time is unfortunately all too easy and therefore frightening.
For the Jewish people, who have repeatedly been victimized by the veneration of hate as a virtue, it is easier to recognize when this is happening. For others, sadly, their privilege blinds their recognition, or worse, they eagerly join in, liberated from having to hide the darkness of soul they have longed to indulge.
Less than two weeks ago, the pogrom on Bondi Beach in Australia illuminated the meaning of “globalize the Intifada.” Not that it wasn’t clear before that horrific attack what this phrase means or that it is anti-Jewish, but the long overdue recognition of its meaning by the government of New South Wales illustrates the unwillingness of people to come to terms with how they choose to demonize Jews until it is too late.
In the US, non-Jewish politicians feel it is their place to lecture Jews about what is anti-Semitic and what is not, while decrying their opponents for being anti-Semitic yet refusing to condemn their own for their hate.
On the left, Zohran Mamdani refuses to acknowledge that “globalize the Intifada” is hate speech, but still received the endorsement of Hakeem Jeffries and Kathy Hochul for mayor of New York City because he was the Democratic candidate.
True leaders would be willing to stand up to the mob within their own party and condemn their choice. Instead, by endorsing the man, they implicitly endorse the message as socially acceptable, aiding the normalization of hatred.
On the right, Vice-President JD Vance was willing to vulgarly denounce white supremacist Nick Fuentes for using racial slurs about Usha Vance, but denies that anti-Semitism exists in any meaningful way in the US, proving that he will defend his wife from bigotry, but not mine or yours.
Tucker Carlson gets to take the stage to cheering crowds at Turning Point USA where he said that Jeffrey Epstein became prominent because he was “working on behalf of intel services, probably foreign” and “no one’s allowed to say that foreign government is Israel because we have been somehow cowed into thinking that that’s naughty.”
At the same time, three of the 10 most popular podcasts (This Past Weekend w/Theo Von, The Tucker Carlson Show, and Candace, featuring Candace Owens) all feature anti-Israel hosts who freely spew false accusations of genocide (Theo Von) and whose venomous use of anti-Jewish rhetoric and imagery is too voluminous to summarize here (Owens).
Back on the left, add to the above the recent statement by Colorado’s Rep. Diana DeGette that her sole reason for voting against the National Defense Appropriations Act was because of “additional offensive weapon sales to Israel that could be used against innocent Palestinians.”
There was nothing else in the largest appropriations bill of the year to which she objected. Not funding levels for Ukraine, not a demand that support be conditioned on rights for trans soldiers, not the systematic exclusion of women and people of color from military leadership. No, the only reason was that Israel uses weapons against “innocent Palestinians.” Never mind the murderous assault perpetrated against Israel on Oct 7.
The growing cadre of politicians, podcasters, and online influencers together with performers and musicians whose vehement anti-Israel rhetoric is a euphemism for anti-Jewish hate, is moving steadily toward normalization as not just socially acceptable, but socially desirable. By abetting rather than obstructing this phenomenon, even those we thought of as allies are ensuring a descent toward Sodom.
For our own survival, we must quickly amplify anyone as a more knowledgeable other whose message will break the mounting tide surging our way, but does anyone know who that might be?