The Chosen Discussion

Sorry if this is too much, but I'd love to engage in discussion with anyone! I know this is an older thread, but I did see the post that said "check the old threads", so here it goes.
******************

Although the young characters in Chaim Potok’s novel The Chosen were both highly intelligent, their fathers chose two starkly contrasting methods of education. Reb Saunders maintained a strong hand in his son’s life, minimized communication, and intentionally inflicted pain so his son would consider the pain of others. David Malter, on the other hand, allowed Reuvin to choose his own path, providing only minimum interference, while at the same time constantly engaging and inspiring his son. He urged his son to befriend a boy in pain- Danny - which taught Reuvin to feel for someone outside of himself. Although both methods managed to instill compassion in the boys, only one allowed for a close relationship between father and son.

Reb Saunders clearly dominates his son’s life. In their first real conversation, Danny tells Reuvin that he will be a rabbi when he grows up because “I have no choice” (pg. 74). His position as his father’s son requires him to shoulder the responsibility. And yet, even when Danny determines that perhaps his brother could inherit the position, he does not broach the subject with his father, planning instead to run away from what he feels his father demands. (The fact that his father accepted Danny’s choice has no bearing on the discussion, as Danny did not learn this until after he made his decision.) Furthermore, to engage in studies outside of those prescribed by his father, Danny must sneak off to the library, where he literally consumes books. Not surprisingly, the books he reads are those most forbidden by his father – Darwin, for instance, and Freud.

On the other hand, David Malter exercises gentle dominion over his fifteen-year old son. He encourages him to be a mathematician, but does not protest Reuvin’s desire to become a rabbi. He shows himself willing to accept Reuvin’s choice – in fact, he allows him to make a choice – whatever it may be, while still revealing his preference. He permits his son the opportunity to read many things, even those with which he disagrees. Instead of prohibiting, he oversees his son only to engage him in conversation about what has been studied.

And that, of course, is the second major difference in the two teaching styles. Malter actively discusses with Reuvin that which has been read. He helps his son to recognize the fallacies in any text, and to learn from them. Reuvin and his father constantly engage in conversation – over dinner, on the Sabbath, throughout the week. They talk of scriptures and of logic – but they always talk. Furthermore, as a published writer, Malter presents his beliefs and opinions to the world at large, which allows his son to glimpse further into his father’s soul. Not surprisingly, the subjects of his articles come under great discussion between the two.

Saunders, on the other hand, has prevented himself from discussing Danny’s education by isolating his son. He chose instead to limit communication to their analysis of the scriptures. He thus gives up the opportunities he could have had to correct the alternate point of views Danny was exposed to. Danny was obviously troubled as he read the history of Judaism, and even more disturbed as he plunged into Freud’s anti-moral writing. Had his father been by his side, he could have provided minute course corrections that kept Danny on the same moral path Reb Saunders pursues. Ironically, the things he read – particularly Freud’s amoral analysis of how the unconscious controls us – had the potential to hinder Danny’s compassion, the exact trait Saunders hoped to develop with his silence. Maintaining silence gives Freud the advantage and further turns Danny away from his father’s path. In addition, Saunders engaged his son only in fierce scriptural battles, discussions which called for Danny to repeat various interpretations of the Torah, but never to give his father his own opinion. Again, Saunders missed the opportunity to help his son apply God’s word in his life, thus nurturing his compassionate nature.

The greatest difference in the educational instruction of the boys, of course, came through the way the fathers taught compassion. Saunders choose to isolate his son from him, inflicting silence and pain upon him in the hopes that exposure to such pain would help his son to feel it for others. Fearing his son’s brilliance, he struggled to nurture his conscience the only way he knew how. In doing so, however, he neglected his own relationship with Danny. He could have engaged his son, helped to mold his education and thinking process, walked him through foreign books and opinions and helped him relate the holy words to his own life. But this path was lost to him when he first chose silence.

Malter, on the other hand, chose a different method of teaching his son compassion. After his son has been injured, while they sit in the hospital, he reproves him for his unkind treatment of Danny. “What I tried to tell you, Reuvin, is that when a person comes to talk to you, you should be patient and listen. Especially if he has hurt you in any way.” He prefaces this by citing scripture to back up his point, thus teaching Reuvin to apply them in his life: “You remember what the Talmud says” (pg. 68). He urges his son not only to forgive, but also to befriend a boy that he knows is already hurting. In short, Malter teaches his son to be compassionate by encouraging him to help someone who is in need. He provides real life examples and holy references, in stark contrast to Saunders’ silence.

Did both Danny and Reuvin learn compassion? Yes. One could argue, then, that Saunders’ methods were effective. However, when we teach our children, the results alone are not the only thing that matters. What also matters is our relationship with them. Saunders taught his son compassion, but at the cost of permanently damaging their relationship. Malter taught his son compassion and maintained a strong relationship with him. Ultimately, David Malter’s method of teaching is not only intellectually superior but also morally superior.