Neutrality is for the dogs

When caught in the middle of a heated argument between people you know, your first instinct might be to stay out of it. But a paper published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology suggests that declaring neutrality comes with consequences. In three studies, participants were surveyed about hypothetical barroom scenarios: They were locked in a verbal dispute with someone else, and a close friend either backed them up or stayed out of it. Remaining neutral wasn't considered a problem if the friend who was stuck in the crossfire was said to be equally close to both people who were arguing. But if the friend was closer to one participant than to the other disputant, then a decision not to get involved was typically treated as a betrayal. Participants rated neutrality in that case nearly as offensive as taking the other person's side.

Stepping back from a friend's fight may be perceived as a dereliction of duty and can send a worrying message, according to Alex Shaw, a psychologist at the University of Chicago and one of the paper's authors. "If I don't take a close friend's side over an acquaintance, then to some extent, the friend is getting a signal that I think of them the way I think of an acquaintance," he says. If you must remain neutral, Shaw proposes hearing out both sides, explaining your stance, and playing the part of mediator. All are ways to communicate that you still have your friend's back.

Rabbi Dr. Abraham Twerski retells a story that in Brisk a bitter feud broke out between two groups of Jews. The Beis Halevi, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, appealed to an influential member of the community to intervene and help bring about peace. The man declined. When the Beis Halevi reminded the man how big a mitzvah it is to promote peace, the man responded that he felt that remaining neutral was an even bigger mitzvah. Upon hearing the man extol the virtues of neutrality, the Beis Halevi shared the following Torah thought: In Parshat Bo, The Torah describes the contrast that will exist during the tenth plague. Egyptian firstborn will die causing a great cry among the Egyptians, however Bnei Yisrael will experience none of this to the degree that (11:7) “no dog shall whet its tongue”. Why does the Torah tell us this detail regarding the dogs?

The Beis Halevi explained based on a statement of the Talmud in Baba Kamma 60b: “When the Angel of Death enters a community- the dogs cry. When Eliyahu Hanavi enters a community- the dogs are playful.” On the night of the tenth plague the dogs had a problem. Since it was the night of the Jews’ redemption Eliyahu Hanavi, the harbinger of redemption, was present. But that night the firstborn were killed, so the Angel of Death must have also been present. Since the dogs didn’t know whether to be playful or to cry, they chose to remain neutral and not do anything. 

The Beis Halevi concluded that when there is an opportunity to intervene and bring about peace, remaining neutral is an option for dogs but not for intelligent human beings. While remaining neutral may at times be the easy thing to do, we should always remember the value of promoting peace and the importance of taking initiative. We should not be afraid nor reluctant to interject ourselves into a situation when we have something positive to contribute.