The Mishnah Avot is also referred to as the Ethics of the Fathers, and contains many ethical concepts, in some ways reminiscent of the Stoic philosophers.
One particular Mishnah I learnt as a child made quite an impression, and it is valuable to review this in light of psychological concepts, to see how valid it is today.
Avot 5:10
There are four types of character in human beings:
a) One that says: “mine is mine, and yours is yours”: this is a commonplace
type; and some say this is a sodom-type of character.
b) [One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is mine”: is an unlearned person ;
c) [One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is yours” is a pious person.
d) [One that says:] “mine is mine, and yours is mine” is a wicked person.
The four types are evaluated in moral terms, each different from the other. They do certainly provide 4 types of personal boundaries in relation to others, and how the traits of giving and taking are distributed. For the sake of analysis, I have prefixed each type with a letter notation, from a –d.
a) is
a strict relationship with essentially closed boundaries between all
parties. It is neither exploitative, nor
is it charitable. Interestingly, the rabbis alternate between calling it a
normal type, verses a trait of “
b) is total openness between both parties, and it is referred to as unlearned. Interestingly, this can be looked at as co dependency, which is not a healthy psychological relationship.
c) and d) are opposites, where c is “pious” and d is wicked. It seems that the only good feedback given is for type c, but how does this play in real terms?
A “mine is yours and yours is yours” type can only interact with the opposite, the wicked or pathological narcissist who behaves in a “mine is mine, and yours is mine” type. So d) is feeding off the open, uncritical generosity of c. c) , therefore, is enabling and perpetuating d) the wicked. Which means that even the pious c) can be self destructive, and enabling of the wicked, which should not be the aim of the Mishnah.
What if 2 c)’s interact? Does it become b (mine is yours and yours is mine)? If both parties accept what the other gives, then they are no longer c. If they don’t accept what the other gives, then there can be no c. So c can only work with its opposite, and this leads to enabling the narcissism.
The psychologist Dr Paul Dobransky has presented a typology of having strong boundaries, which are closed, and having doors to open to others at one’s own choice. Furthermore, instead of co-dependency, which coincides with the Mishnah’s b), he proposes inter-dependency, where a measure of closed boundaries, and then opening when it is beneficial to all. This more mature and durable typology avoids the problems of narcissism, and co-dependency. he refers to it as inter-dependency, which is open but also allows closing boundaries for one’s own personal space.
