A (3:23)

Thank you for having me.

B (3:24)

So I wanted to begin with treating the decision not to gather as rational, not to host as rational. What makes gathering hard? Intimidating? Why do people choose? Because we are choosing not to do it.

A (3:42)

We are busy, we are many of us overworked, we are constantly tethered to our phones. We are suffering from a childcare crisis. We no longer live with intergenerational families that allow us to also intergenerationally gather. We have beliefs about what we need to do or be in order to host other people. That, that by the way, are very modern beliefs. Our ancestors, whichever community you come from, if you go long enough back, were gathering. Whether their cave was clean or whether they had a boil on their shoulder, or whether they had a overbearing mother in law, they were gathering. And so in modern life, there's so many reasons that we choose not to gather or we feel like we can't gather and it is keeping us apart from one another. We also overemphasize the right and the space of the individual. And particularly in this country, this sort of hyper individualized context of self care and self help allows us to first focus on what the needs of the self are or the perceived needs of the self are. Before we begin to even think about the group.

B (4:51)

Say more about that idea of the perceived needs of the self.

A (4:54)

Well, we perceive that if I have my shit together, if I have the right step counts over the course of the day, if I have my right sugar intake, if I'm making sure that my hypoglycemic index is on the right count and I, you know, walk 20 minutes after I eat. All of these sort of decades of apps and books that help us optimize the self, right? We literally have a self help revolution. But self help doesn't actually help us answer the questions of our shared life. And what we actually need is also tools for group help.

B (5:25)

I've thought a lot about the rhetoric around boundaries. It feels like it became everywhere in the past five to 10 years and how important good boundaries are. I'm curious, as somebody who thinks about mediation and gathering, how you have thought about this sort of boundary revolution.

A (5:45)

So I'm a conflict resolution facilitator of groups and in group life, you know, a group and gatherings, people think it's all about the we, right? It's only the we. But that is a cult. Group life is actually about the dance between the we and the I. And so if you have too much we, it's a cult. And if you have too much I, it's a federation. And so part of group life is the tools we have to make sure we have enough voices in an individual. And then also the tools we have to choose to give up some amount of freedom to be part of something greater than ourselves, even if that's practically like, yeah, I don't usually eat cheese, but I'm gonna come over to your house and eat what you're gonna have. Serve me. And boundaries, at some level is the healthy sort of line drawing for the space of the eye. But in, particularly in therapy. And I love therapy. I'm in therapy. Therapy has helped many people in my family change their lives. And we are using therapy to draw boundaries over bridges. We are using therapy, the excuse of therapy to focus on separation rather than connection versus the tools of repair, versus the tools of the mess of relationship, versus the tools of thinking about how do we actually apologize and alter one another. By the way, most therapists would say this is not actually how we mean to use boundaries, right? So part of what is happening when we are overusing boundaries is we are isolating ourselves more and more and more. So we have. We're gonna end up door dashing our food, sitting alone in our twin bed watching Netflix, then you don't have the messiness of actually being in relationship with really annoying other people, right? With the friction of other people. And by the way, this sort of vision of doordashing, Instagram scrolling, mindless Netflix watching is not really also a citizen, it's a subject, right?

B (7:34)

I became obsessed with this quote over the past year from Bernard Crick. It's in this book called In Defense of Politics. And he says politics involves genuine relationships with people who are genuinely other people, not objects for our philanthropy or tasks for our redemption. But contained in that is something that you're getting at, which is other people.

A (7:54)

Are difficult and also other people are inherent to the interaction, right? When I listen to you, I think of Martin Buber and I vow no, when I listen to that quote, I think of Martin Boomer, right? And this idea, you know, I'm a conflict resolution facilitator. My mentor, Hal Saunders, the first book he ever made me read was Martin Buber's writings and the Relationship between I and Thou. And the idea in my field of dialogue, which is relationships get out of whack when relationships become an I, it an object of my charity or a task for my redemption and dialogue, which is the real consideration of other people moves the relationship from an I it to an I thou, it restores the relationship. It restores us to each other.

B (8:41)

For those of us asking for a friend who have never made it through Buber's I thou, what is I thou versus I it?

A (8:47)

So I thou is an idea that the relationship between you and me is sacred. It's divine. And by the way, this is. In many cultures, it's the same. There's a. There's a Hindu version of this, that basically every interaction between us and whether you believe in God or not, has the potential to be holy, to be sacred. And when I turn you into an it, into an object, that basically we've broken that sacred interaction.

B (9:12)

What turns me into an it for you?

A (9:16)

Hosting a party where I need bodies in the room versus hosting a party where I deeply think about who I want to be there because I care about them.

B (9:26)

So it's instrumentalizing other people.

A (9:27)

It's instrumentalizing. It's transactionalizing. It's using people rather than making them of use. I'll give a simple example right now, when people are thinking about how do we gather? And a lot of the reasons I think people don't gather is because a lot of gatherings are vague and diluted, and you'd actually rather be home netflixing and chilling. I saw this recently, actually, on Instagram. There was a woman who was hosting a baby shower, but the baby shower was all of her friends coming over with sponges, listening to music, scrubbing her walls, like, having the best time. They were actually feeling like they were of use to her. Right. She needed a clean house. She was completely overwhelmed. They came over, rocking, and, like, it went totally viral because it's very moving. They weren't being used, they're being of use. I want to be part. I want to know how I can help you in this time of need. I want to know that I can help a lot of people don't even think anyone needs them. It's so lonely.

B (10:22)

There's so much I want to follow up on there, but I want to talk about cleanliness for a minute. You were talking about, you know, we invited people over to the cave, whether the cave was clean or not. When I think about what stops me from hosting, what stops me from being more hospitable, what stops me from doing more gathering. And this podcast is somewhat motivated by my own New Year's resolution to try to do more.

A (10:45)

More gathering.

B (10:46)

More gathering. It's actually that the standards, not just that I have set, but That I feel like the culture around me sets, the people around me believe in that I believe in. There is so much work in the house, in the schedule, in the cooking, in whatever. Just to get to the point where I feel like I can have anybody over that it's intimidating. It's like I want to see and be with other human beings and play with kids. It's hard to go out. But if the expectation is that everything has to be perfect before anybody arrives.

A (11:22)

You will never gather. I mean, I actually think we are living in an era where no one has the same expectations. People are confused. We all, in traditional societies, shared norms, right? If you go to a southern India and you go to a brahminical red thread tying ceremony, everyone knows what that means. Everyone cries because they understand. And all of their previous generations did it in the exact same way, right? But I Remember reading around 2006, the UN said it was the first year in the history of humanity where more people lived in cities than villages, which basically means that people are uprooted. I mean, I'm biracial, I'm bicultural, I'm bireligious. I grew up in two different households that were also both joint households. And I can tell you, like, most families are making stuff up. Like two of our best friends. I'll give a simple example. Once we started becoming really close with each other these years and years and years ago, it was the first time they ever invited us to their home for dinner. And my husband and I showed up and we were dressed to the nines, and we wanted to honor them.

B (12:26)

You guys intimidatingly often are.

A (12:28)

We wanted to honor them. We both come from cultures on both sides that, like, feel like you dress for yourself, you dress for others as a sign of respect. There's a boundary between in house and out of house. Like, we love it. And our best friends opened the doors and they were in their pajamas. And we both looked across this threshold and we all burst into laughter. But actually, both sides were honoring the other side. For them, they would only be in their pajamas, for whom they're actually letting into their life. And so the good news is we have totally different expectations of what a gathering should be. I actually don't think everybody assumes that the room or the house should be totally clean. And part of the beauty and the power of modern life is you get to decide. So there's a woman who wrote into me, her name is Ryan. She and her friends have a gathering that's called the half assed potluck. Okay? They do it Every week, she and her closest friends. There's no holiday, there's no birthday, there's no milestone. They gather every week. And the rules are simple. Bring whatever is in your fridge or pick something up on the way. Wear sweats, don't clean, use paper plates, they eat what appears, they pile onto the couch. Talk, laugh, everyone's home by 8:30.

B (13:37)

The most successful shift in my own community since moving to New York has been there's another couple that have kids around. Our kids age and we spend all the time on the weekend co caring and we sort of have a name for it. But what emerged in it over time was a rule that you do not have to clean your house or put on real clothes before you get together.

A (13:57)

It's such a relief.

B (13:58)

And so then you can like hang out at 8am when the kids are actually up 100% and before you've done anything. So somehow in that we freed ourselves from expectations. It would have made this much harder.

A (14:10)

Yes, it's a beautiful example.

B (14:11)

How do you free yourself from those expectations?

A (14:13)

Exactly. Exactly what you're doing, right? You're feeling a need. You and your wife are feeling a need, right? Which is company, I imagine, in the weekend, which is people who aren't gonna be totally annoyed if your boys are running around and being loud. So you have a need, then at some level you invite someone with a shared need. Oh, this couple also has this. It sounds like you've given it a name, right? Names create structures, name creates stories. You've actually given it a wardrobe, right? No real clothes. That actually creates context, it creates permission. You're creating this permission around you and then what was the other rule? No cleaning.

B (14:49)

No cleaning.

A (14:49)

No cleaning. Right. So part of what you're doing is just you're doing it intuitively. Like, this is not rocket science. Every gathering I think of as a temporary, tiny social contract. But the part of the modern life that's both beautiful and terrifying is we create the social contract.

B (15:05)

One thing you focus on in the book that felt very real to me is the discomfort many of us have imposing structure on others. It feels somehow inhospitable for me to invite people over to my house and then tell them what to do.

A (15:21)

I would not recommend doing that.

B (15:24)

Don't you?

A (15:26)

I think you need to prime them well before.

B (15:28)

Got it. Tell them what to do before they come to my house.

A (15:30)

Yes, yes. I'm serious. I'm serious. Like part of modern is like, we are so confused about your question of like. Most people don't want structure to tell People what to do when they get in their home, right? A woman wrote me a few years ago. Her name was Robin. And she and her husband moved to a block outside of Chicago. And she wanted to be part of like a neighborhood that hung out. And as she got there a few weeks in, she realized that like this was not a neighborhood that hung out and she wanted to get people together. But if she had just invited eight strangers to never met to come over and then like talk to each other, it may not work. So she started priming them. She sent her six and eight year old girls out on scooters to hang a paper coffee cup on their door, save the coffee date. Then a week later they went around again on scooters and she went to Vistaprint. She told me she was like, she really thought about this. There's invitations. And it was like, come to our house for bagel and brew and if you'd like to come. And there's three questions. Please tell us your email. The number of years you've lived on this block and 2 interesting facts about you or 3 interesting facts about you. She practiced what I call call and response. Right? That's actually she's creating buy in. And then these cards start coming back. My dream is to go to Poland to visit my people. I once delivered a baby, not ours. And when they came, they were given name tags with the number of years they lived on the block. And then a second name tag with three interesting facts, but it was of someone else, like another neighbor. So they all mingle as casual as in the morning as coffee and bagels. And then right about, people are about to leave. She brings out a cake with the number 342 on it. And someone says, that's the collective years we've all lived on this block. And like years later, she changed the culture of that block. But if she had just said, come over and I'm gonna make you go around and tell three interesting facts about yourself, that'd be like, you know, buzzer off. Who are you to do that?

B (17:26)

I had two reactions listening to that. One was I felt myself clench up with the amount of work.

A (17:32)

Okay.

B (17:33)

And the other was what an incredible act of generosity. Like, what a gift to put that much work and intentionality into connecting other people.

A (17:42)

It's a deeply generous act. And I would say what clenches you up did not clench Robin up. She loved doing it. She loved sending her girls out for on the scooters. She loved designing those invitations. So you shouldn't do. You shouldn't do Something that clenches you up. Host a gathering that you want to attend. Simple examples. Again, this can look so many ways. It's like easing the barrier of entry of hosting. Pablo Johnson, he passed away almost exactly a year ago, January 26, 2025. And somebody who, from my group life community sent me an email and a video of these dinners that he had hosted around his table in New Orleans for 20 years. These were simple dinners. It happened every Monday night. It was the same menu every Monday night. Red beans and cornbread. He would literally. He did it around the table that his grandmother left him. There was no. No table was ever the same people twice. And it was everybody from his neighbors to maybe visiting actors, filming a TV to somebody. He literally ran into the coffee shop. And I posted this on Instagram and it went totally viral. It was the most viral post I ever posted at that time. And what was so interesting to me was when people posted it, the majority of the people, I wish someone would invite me to something like this and I'm thinking, host it. You host the dinner, right? This sort of assumption, it's like, why aren't I getting these invitations? It's like, no, no, no, no, no. You host the red beans and cornbread dinner. Like, it's enough. Just start. Just start. We're all sort of sitting there being like, I wish I was invited. It's like, host. One of the most powerful ways to even, especially if you've moved to a new place to begin to feel like you belong to a place is to host. When people move to other countries, my biggest advice to them Host something in the first week. Foreign.

B (19:55)

Is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow, gaps on Deck's loans up to $400,000 make it happen fast. Rated A by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star trust pilot reviews, Ondeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes@ondeck.com depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

C (20:23)

I'm Judson Jones. I'm a reporter and meteorologist at the New York Times. For about two decades, I've been covering extreme weather, which is getting worse because of climate change. And it's becoming more important to get timely and accurate weather information. That's why we send these customized newsletters letting you know up to three days in advance about extreme weather that could impact you or a place you care about at the Times, you can be confident that everything we publish is based off the most accurate, scientific, embedded information available to us. Because we want you to be able to make real time decisions about how to go about your life. This is the kind of work that makes subscribing to the New York Times so valuable and it's how you can support fact based independent journalism. So if you'd like to subscribe, go to nytimes.com subscribe.

B (21:23)

What if you're terrified to start? You're a very graceful person. I've known you a while.

A (21:28)

I really. The art of gathering. It's like, you know the movie Ratatouille? Anyone can cook. Anyone can gather and start.

B (21:34)

I really feel strongly that as much as ratatouille pretends that is its message, that is not its message.

A (21:40)

Exactly, exactly.

B (21:41)

Anybody with incredible gifts can cook. Any generationally talented rat can cook.

A (21:46)

Okay, you've watched and analyzed that movie and I don't disagree with you. But at some deep level, like we're almost over complicating it, right? Like our ancestors in any community that we miss to did this. And so like, first of all, I feel fear every time I feel nervous, every time I feel like, is anyone gonna show up? I feel sick to my stomach. I start snapping at my most beloveds. It's really normal to feel it's that being willing to hold that anxiety and be like, oh, I must care about this. So the first is to say like, hey, if you're feeling some amount of fear, that's cause you care about this. How, how interesting and build the ability to hold some of that anxiety. But the second is literally start with something you think would be delightful because that's gonna give you some energy, co host something with people. I know of a guy who got a champagne magnum. He worked at an ad agency like years ago. His boss didn't drink and so he like inherited this like massive bottle of champagne. He was like, what the heck am I gonna do with this? And he, he invited eight friends and the bottle to share it. And the year of the bottle was 2004. And the price of entry to the party was to bring a story from your life from the year 2004.

B (22:51)

That's cool.

A (22:52)

It makes the night. Michel Lapree. I read about this in the book. He travels a lot for his work and he wanted to trim his tree, you know, dress his tree for the holidays, for Christmas. And he invited 12 friends who didn't all know each other to send two moments of happiness, two photos, moments of happiness from their year ahead of time. When they arrived on the table was like scissors ornaments and their photos, their moments of happiness and inherent oh wow, you sold a house this year. Wow. I didn't know you looked so great in those tights. Oh my goodness. I didn't know you went underwater. Scuba diving. It created the context and the conversation for the whole night. He could kind of disappear and the rest of the night ornament making then conversations about the past year. It's like a play, it kind of. It goes its own way and people then feel like they're also part of it.

B (23:38)

We've sort of been talking with the perspective of you are hosting or attending a gathering, which implies you've been invited to one or you have the people to invite to one. It's a pretty notorious statistic that in 2021, almost half of Americans reported having three or fewer close friends. There are many people maybe who would like to be invited to things who aren't. What do you recommend to people who, yeah, this would be great if they were invited. This would be great if they felt like they had the people to invite. But they are first have to cross a chasm of social connection to go.

A (24:18)

Into your community, first of all. Yes, absolutely. If you feel a need and a desire to have connection or community, first of all, like protect that. Don't be embarrassed of it. You're not weird or like it's not cause you're like not strong enough. Like that is a yearning. That is a beautiful yearning to protect and to feed and to grow and then look into your community. I mean, by the way, this is what public spaces are for. This is what libraries are for, right? Palaces for the people. Eric Klinenberg's beautiful book about how libraries serve as this, you know, really important social third space. Most libraries have public programming. Again, go meetup. By the way, there are many institutions that have free programming where I'm not talking about going to a museum, going to a class and so looking at places where there's pre existing community but that's open to the public, right? The whole purpose is like we want more people presence and showing up and being consistent and going over and over and over again. Actually just builds trust, right? Proximity builds trust. And so going and treating it, highlighting it and making it like you are with this gathering resolution, making it a priority and something that is not a nice to have, that's something that is like fundamentally crucial to your life.

B (25:33)

So keeping two levels of this conversation in mind. One is my own interest in gathering and the other is a civic interest. I have in gathering something that you have mentioned a few times here is individuals and individualism. And everybody talks about late capitalism, which I don't think is a concept that makes a lot of sense. But I do think we live in late individualism, that we have gotten to an almost terminal point.

A (25:58)

I agree with you in how much.

B (26:00)

We understand ourselves as individuals and our purpose here as individual expression and fulfillment. I'm curious with the cultures you know and the gatherings you've explored, like how you think about the way we form our individualism now and the tensions that creates for us than living in, being in or creating community.

A (26:25)

I mean, you may be listening to this and thinking, well, isn't that the only way to be? Like how else would you structure society? And I think of so many examples in which again, whether you think of it religiously or whether you think of it as like the pursuit of purpose, where the design of the philosophy or of the society is based on, on each other. Right. I remember Raina Cohen, who you've had on the show. I know her beautiful book, the Other Significant Others. One of the things I loved about that book was she went back in lots of different societies. And I remember many religious traditions where attainliness of God was actually through the other person. Right. I'm half Indian and there are many, many different cultures and religions that inform India. And in almost every context, whether it's Bahaism, whether it's Hinduism, whether it's Sikhism, whether it's is virtue and attainment of God is through the other is through community. And there's a saying in Hindi, mehman bhagwanhe guest is God. And so there are so many traditions in which the sacredness, the sense of our purpose on earth is the orientation to the other. And by the way, many of these societies are oppressive to the individual. Right. There's also a reason why so many immigrants come to America. It's to sort of to escape the group, it's to escape the, you know, the oppressive community is to have absolutely multi generational household. I mean, my mother came here in the 70s. She secretly applied to PhD programs. She got into one in Iowa and one in Virginia. Had no idea what the difference was. Begged her parents to go. She's the third of five children. She was supposed to have an arranged marriage. They were theosophists. And to their credit, her father let her go. And she came to this country in part to think about what a self could look like for an Indian woman, Hindu middle child, person and so many people who come to this country are delighted, are so relieved to have a space, literally just a space to think. There are beautiful, beautiful parts of the protection of the individual right. Western civilization is based on the right of the individual. The individual deeply matters. But we have gone to late stage individualism where we've sort of fallen off the cliff and completely forgot that the individual also needs group life, that we are, what are we if we are not also through and with one another? It's also boring.

B (28:50)

Something that I see around me, something that I even see in my own family sometimes, is parents who immigrated here in part to find more freedom and more space for individual expression than are surprised or taken aback or disappointed on some level to see how far their children take it. Yeah, right. You move from not wanting to have the entire multi generational family, you know, under one roof and then you're here and you realize none of the families outside of the nuclear families live under one roof. And often they don't even live in the same states. And I've watched and including my own to some degree. My father came here from Brazil and we have much more family in Brazil than we have here. And I think actually among all of us, to some degree there's a yearning here for the closeness of the family there deeply. Like I live across the continent from the rest of my family. And you feel that we got what we wanted, good and hard.

A (29:54)

Absolutely. You know, I'm biracial, so my mother's Indian, my father's white American. And I remember one of my earliest memories of my father, I wonder if he would remember this was I went to shut my door, I was like really annoyed with him and I shut my door and I yelled out and he goes, what are you doing? I said, I want privacy. And he opened the door and he goes, in India there's no such thing as privacy. And my father loved being enveloped by my mother's Indian extended family right, this multi generational. And he always longs for it. And this idea of like, do I want privacy and not do I want privacy? What is the right role of privacy in a family, in a relationship to our in laws? What do we share or not? That actual moment I've come back to over and over and over again now with my children, because it's actually a deep question which is like, where is the right balance between the I and the we, between the self and the other? How do we actually do this? But I think it's important to ask the question.

B (30:55)

One of my favorite books by far this year was the loneliness of Sunny and Sonja.

A (30:59)

It's so beautiful.

B (31:02)

It's so. I mean, it sits in my heart. Like, I think about it a couple times a week.

A (31:05)

Me too.

B (31:06)

But it's all about it is this dance.

A (31:09)

Oh, I'm so happy you're bringing this.

B (31:11)

Up of, you know, the pride of the parent on, you know, sending kids out into America where they can find these destinies and fulfill them. And then, you know, the disappointment in the distance, knowing that in some ways you caused it. And then on the part of the kids. And again, I feel this. I'm across the country from my parents age, and we're partially here to be nearer to my wife's family. But that just speaks to how impossible now the choices are, right? We can't live near both families. They live on opposite sides of the country. And so you feel the loss.

A (31:46)

And I think one of the reasons, you know, I love that book. And she's so brilliant. It's by Kiran Desai. And the opening scene is the grandparents are sitting on this balcony and they're sort of like, whirring in the morning in Allahabad, like in northern Uttar Pradesh and India in the 90s. And they're worrying about, like, what the cook will make over lunch. And a phone rings and it's their granddaughter Sonia, studying in Vermont, crying. And the grandmother's like, but why is she crying? And he says, I don't know. She says, she's lonely, but why would she be lonely, right? And she. And the grandmother's like, she has Mexican food at that school cafeteria. She has something, you know, I can't imagine after all they've done, like the spoiled brat. I'm saying that in quotes. Sonia is, like, lonely in Vermont. And that's the opening of the entire novel. And I think what is so beautiful about what Kiran Desai does is she basically, like, puts a jackhammer to this myth that the east is connected and that the west is lonely. To me, the loneliness of Sonja and Sunny is actually that the east is lonely because they are unknown within their own families and that their roles are stuck and that there's no way to actually be an individual or to actually have an I thou relationship, to use our early language. And the west is lonely because it's the hyper individualism. And it's a beautiful book where she actually, through her characters, looks at the entire journey between the oppressive we to the oppressive I.

B (33:16)

So your read of that book is so much deeper than mine. So I'm so glad I got to.

A (33:21)

I have a lot related, you know, I could really relate to that.

B (33:24)

Well, I'm so glad I actually got to hear that from you. It's funny because you brought up something else that I think that's interesting and speaks in a strange way to the economics of it.

A (33:31)

All.

B (33:31)

Right. You just mentioned how much of the book, it revolves around the cooks and the housekeepers. And in America, where the cost of labor is high, which is wonderful. It's how we're rich. You don't have that which circles back to the. And then you're doing everything yourself. Right. You're cooking and you're caring for the kids and you're, you know, and you're not in an intergenerational household where the weight can be distributed among different people, some of whom are working full time, some of whom are not. You have stay at home, you know, usually women. And it.

A (34:01)

Something's gotta give.

B (34:02)

Something's gotta give. And it seems to me that what gives is community. What gives is hosting 100%. It is easier to be alone.

A (34:10)

Well, we say that, but it's actually devastating. Right.

B (34:12)

I should say shorter. It is easier on the question of the day to be alone.

A (34:16)

Yes. Like, if Americans don't gather more and there's so many ways to do it, we will slide even more into authoritarianism because we actually don't know each other. Right. Every legal expert in authoritarianism basically says the antidote to authoritarianism is connection. It's knowing your neighbors. It's knowing that, hey, how bad could they be? Their first concert was a Toni Braxton concert. Right. It's these tiny little social bridges. And part of modern life, I think, is not assuming that there's a way to host. Not assuming. I almost wanna like go over there and like get this framework of like a fancy dinner party or whatever your mental model is of like what it means to gather out of your head.

B (34:58)

So there's a long running argument that authoritarianism or totalitarianism is built on loneliness. It's a very famous quote from Hannah Rentz, the origins of totalitarianism, which when I read it out on the show, I got a bunch of emails from political sc just be like, we've disproven that.

A (35:13)

Can'T wait for the hate mail and whatever.

B (35:15)

People like to argue about it.

A (35:16)

Yeah.

B (35:17)

But I've been thinking about this from a different perspective because I can come up lots of examples of communities in America that have been, let's say, very pro Trump and are much more communally structured than mine is. Right. Evangelical churches are overwhelmingly pro Trump and better at much of the gathering and structure of community than Brooklyn creative class.

A (35:40)

Absolutely. By the way, Trump is a great gatherer. He's a great host.

B (35:43)

Say what you mean by that, Trump.

A (35:45)

When I first started, there was a show that was called. I forget what it was called, but these reporters would go around and go to all the rallies. This is in 2016. And they went to a Trump rally. And I watched. Maybe it's called the Circus. I watched. I saw the line. I saw it was a party outside the rally. I went in. They experienced is a temporary alternative world. He's creating the world you wish you were a part of. There is merch. It felt fun. It felt vibrant. It's alive. He's just sociologically, you may not like anything he stands for. He is an excellent host.

B (36:17)

This, I think, gets to something that you say is one of your more interesting premises for being a good host, which is that the reason for a gathering should be disputable. It's not just, hey, we're all getting together in a room. In a way, a Trump gathering is very disputable. Right. You have to agree on Donald Trump, and a lot of people don't agree on him. So I'd like you to talk a bit about disputability and why you think it's so important for gatherings.

A (36:48)

When you're gathering about everything, you're kind of gathering about nothing. And when I actually started researching for the Art of Gathering, I wanted to basically demystify how anyone can create a meaningful, transformative gathering. You don't need a fancy house. You don't need the right silverware. You don't need to be an extrovert. And I interviewed over 100 types of gatherers who other people always credit with creating transformative gatherings. A hockey coach, a choir conductor. And they all had two things in common. One was they didn't have a mental model in their head of what a hockey practice has to look like or what a choir practice has to look like. But the second thing is they were okay not being for everybody. They were okay for having a disputable purpose that not everyone would agree with. When you are actually thinking about bringing people together to start by asking, why do I want to do this? Or what is the need in this community or in this workplace? And when you actually think about what your specific disputable purpose is, it helps you all the way downstream figure out who should be there, who should not be there, where should this be? And a disputable purpose just basically Allows people to understand what this is for.

B (38:00)

Let's do this in real time. I want to host Shabbat dinners this year. If I was to name the main kind of gathering I want to do, it's that. What would be the disputable version of that? What would not be?

A (38:13)

So I'd first take a step back and say, why do you want to host a Shabbat dinner? What is your purpose? What is your need? What is it that you're seeking?

B (38:21)

Well, I want to build a Shabbat practice. I've wanted to do that for a long time. I get closer and further at the same time. But I've gotten better at it for myself. Staying off electronics, building some structures, having the intention not to act upon the world in the way I normally do. But I also recognize that that cannot be a real practice if it does not have community around it.

A (38:42)

And what do you mean by a Shabbat practice? Give me your boundaries. What does that mean to you?

B (38:46)

I want a 24 hour period in the week when I rest. Actually rest in the Jewish spiritual sense. The thing I find very moving about Shabbat, among other things, is the idea that what decides what you can and can't do is whether you are trying to undertake that action with the intention of creating, of changing, of manipulating, of acting upon the world versus accepting the world as perfect or holy the way it is, and simply living in it for a day.

A (39:23)

And do you have a sense of who you would like to do that with?

B (39:28)

No, because. And this has actually been a problem for me, I have a much more specific sense of this and the people. My sense of what I want here is in some ways too disputable. It is not what my children want. They would like to act upon the world at all times. I don't wanna speak for my wife's interest, but she has her own schedule and needs. Then you're inviting people over and they've not spent as much time reading Abraham Joshua Heschel as you have. And I don't want it to just be necessarily a thing that I only invite other Jewish people to. And even most Jewish people I know don't necessarily have the relationship to this. They've one that is either much more intense than mine or less so. So, no, that has actually been one thing that has stopped me because I don't want to impose this weird search I'm on on everyone else.

A (40:18)

I mean this to me, it's a beautiful question because it kind of gets to. You know, in many religious traditions people have Left the church, synagogue, temple, and sort of in some ways try to create their own collective practice and then realize why there's a church and a tem. It was like the infrastructure, the institutions actually matter. It's a forced, shared collective. I mean, I would. And if you're all listening and thinking about starting a gathering that you do regularly, whether it's a week or every month, here are elements that allow groups to take off. Okay, the first is there's a beautiful book called. It's something called the Dynamics of Small Groups. I mean, it's very nerdy, but basically.

B (41:00)

That does sound beautiful.

A (41:01)

It's beautiful to me. Welcome to my brain. One of the core elements of that book is they look at what allows for nurturing long term group commitment. And there's what I consider a magical equation. A group that has long term commitment to it has two things true about it. That every member feels like they're valuably contributing to the group and that the group feels like it's valuably contributing to the member. Okay, that's it. And part of what I think for you to think about this Shabbat dinner is I would create a container. I would experiment. I would think about what you most need. I would start with the invitation. I would think about who you most would want to be part of this. I would think about if you are wanting the same people the same night, which is a huge commitment. And in that case, if the question is what would allow them to meaningfully contribute to it, it's probably six or eight or maybe 14 people that you do a lot of work ahead of to think about. Would you like to have this shared collective resolution with me? And so that's one version where it's actually building community intentionally.

B (42:12)

Just boil that down to what makes that the disputable purpose. Because the disputable purpose is such an important part of your book that I wanna, I wanna find it.

A (42:19)

I mean, I think the dispute, I think actually inherently the category of Shabbat, I'm not Jewish, but so from my understanding of it is Shabbat in and of itself has a specific disputable purpose. There is an edge. Shabbat creates the negative space in the to turn off your phone. It is a specific and disputable purpose to be in modern life, to be at the same place, the same week, no matter what may come. It is a specific indisputable purpose to go to the same house over and over and over again. And it's not for everybody. And so I think you could create if you wanted to. There's one version where you create a really thick and strong boundary and you say, actually, I'm gonna see. Are there other people, and there probably are in your community who feel a similar tug. Do they need to be Jewish? Do they not? Do you have specific non negotiables? I'm basically giving you your social contract, right? That needs to be true for people to show up. Do they need to show up on time? Does the 8pm does the lighting of the candles? If you're gonna light candles, does that matter that everyone is there? Can they come when they want? Right. This is when I'm starting to say that boundaries are specific and disputable and you feel uncomfortable creating structures. But actually structures are such clarity because then people understand where and how do I show up. Or is this a Shabbat like experience where you are inviting whoever that you've ever met, like Pablo Johnson, you met somebody in the coffee shop in the morning to come, but you're creating this temporary alternative world where this is. If you're gonna come into my home. This is what we do here and across cultures. It's such a relief to be told.

B (43:46)

I think you're. And I wanna be talking about this both. It's like a good specific example, but I mean it to be illustrative. Cause not everybody wants to do a Shabbat dinner. But one thing that I do hear you tracing here, that I think is tricky in hosting often is the discomfort between making your vision and your needs. The group's vision and demands upon the group. So, yes, I want something that feels like time out of time. Right. What makes Shabbat disputatious, to use your term for me is actually whether or not I make it a dinner or make it a Shabbat. Right. You're not supposed to be working. Right. One thing I could do is say ban all conversation of work and politics at this dinner.

A (44:27)

Great example.

B (44:28)

And that would make it something different than it would otherwise be. And I feel as a host in any respect, a discomfort with that kind of stricture and structure on other people.

A (44:42)

So this is where it comes to be a social contract. People think invitations are like a carrier of logistics. Date, time and place. Invitations are your opening salvo of your mini constitution. I'm serious. It's your opening salvo to say, I'm gonna create this temporary alternative world.

B (44:57)

Even in that you feel how aggressive that is.

A (44:59)

No, I.

B (44:59)

The opening salvo.

A (45:00)

Langu. Yeah. I mean the first line of your opera, like use whatever metaphor you want, which Is this is something I'm trying to do. And by the way, if you are uncomfortable with this, my advice is to actually find a co host or find two co hosts that would love to do this with you. And by the way, as anybody who runs any group will tell you, anybody who is really passionate about it, you're gonna bump up and think about new norms. You're gonna see what works and see what doesn't work. And so there is a part of you that may need to grow this muscle of practicing what I call generous authority, which is using of the host to protect the guests from each other, to enforce these pop up rules, to connect them. And then if they're the right structure, this beauty arises and people may realize like, oh my gosh, this is the first time in three years that I haven't looked at my phone in three hours. Thank you.

B (45:49)

I love the term used generous authority. Can you talk through what that is?

A (45:53)

So generous authority, you know, people think gathering is all about connection and love. Gathering is also about power because all relationships are also about power. It's about decision making. And so one of the challenges of modern gathering is in part because we're trying not to impose or, and it comes from a good place, like, who am I to say how we're supposed to gather, what culture we, you know, what God we pray to. But often in modern life, we under host. And a host has power, if you choose to host. And part of practicing what I call your generous authority is to use your power for the good of the group, to help it achieve its purpose, for the good of the gathering, to help it achieve its purpose. And in part because you are suggesting a thing, you're creating a thing. Tell them ahead of time so that they're not coming in and being like, what do you mean these pop up rules? What do you mean? I didn't sign up for this. Cause they didn't sign up for it. You know, when my husband and I first moved to New York, I read this book. I think it was called, maybe it's called Literary Brooklyn. Very nerdy. And it was where different writers had lived in Brooklyn. And I loved the tracing, so the geographic tracing of that book. And we came up with this idea. Cause I realized, like, I don't really, I'm not a native New Yorker, I don't really know the city. I said, what if we once a month went and spent 12 hours in a neighborhood on foot and didn't look at our phones? And he was like, great, we moved to the city.

B (47:11)

Did you have kids?

A (47:12)

At this point, I did not have kids. And we moved to the city and happened to tell a friend about it, and she was like, that sounds great. Can I join? And we're like, sure. And again, we weren't. It was organic. There was a real need. She also was an immigrant to the city, and she's like, yeah, I've lived here for four years and I've never been anywhere except where I live and where I work. So then she brought a friend. And long story short, over five years, we hosted what ended up being called I am here days. And there were 12 hours. If you were gonna join, you had to come at 8am or 10am Join us for the meal, and be there the entire time. No leaving early, no micro coordinating with people who wanted to pop in and out. In part, again, it wasn't controlling because we were trying to be off our phones. So if you're micro coordinating with someone who's dropping in for the 2pm walk or whatever. And we're. We spent 12 hours in East Harlem, 12 hours in Inwood, 12 hours in Staten Island, 12 hours in Red Hook. And part of what was really interesting about these days is first we learned and we created these boundaries as we started bumping against what was working and what wasn't working. But the second thing that was super interesting was the first four hours and different people would come. Sometimes people would bring friends. It was always a group of about 6 to 12. 12 was a bit big because we couldn't find a table, but we would nap in parks. We'd do all sorts of things. And the first four hours, everyone was in a great mood and on their best behavior. Then the next four hours, they'd start. People would often split off into different side groups and talk. And then, like by hour, sort of eight, people started getting cranky, tired, not on the best behavior. Someone might burst into tears because all of their guards are down. And we would have these beautiful conversations that were so real. And the timbre of that third, third of the day was fundamentally different. It felt like what it used to feel like to, you know, talk till two in the morning, college room, or like to hang out as friends. And so much of what ended up happening as this experiment was, we created some structures. Some people were like, I can't leave. I was like, yeah, but you don't have to come. This is a very specific thing. I'm not asking you to come, but this is a category that worked for a specific period of time. And then we had kids and we Stopped. And that was okay too.

B (49:25)

What you just said about the way the I am here gatherings ended, I think is very real for a lot of people, which is that people maybe had.

A (49:35)

Meaning kids having kids.

B (49:38)

Yes, meaning kids end.

A (49:39)

Not that we had like a powerful ritual at midnight.

B (49:41)

No, no, no. Although that would be fun too.

A (49:44)

Absolutely.

B (49:45)

I think there are a lot of people out there who had a structure of their social life, of their gathering, of their hosting before they had kids and then kids broke it and that now they don't really know what to do. They sort of know how to do a play date maybe, but the kids have to go to bed. How do you think about gatherings after becoming parents and making things open to kids, but not completely about the kids? I think people really struggle here.

A (50:16)

They really struggle. I really struggle. It is a landmine. I will first say it might seem like, oh, this is child's play. Parenting has become political. Parenting styles has become incredibly, incredibly divided, including judging of one another. And it's crazy making. I mean the Surgeon General issued parenting as the latest mental health crisis. And so I would say a couple of things. The first is I think that 0 to 3 is a fundamentally different phase versus 3 and up. So let me take 0 to 3 first. The first is we keep hearing so much about everybody wants a village, but no one wants to be a vil. There was this awesome piece in the cut maybe a year ago and I can't remember the exact title, but it was something like can people with kids and people without kids still be friends? One of the elements of saying yes they can is to choose to still want to be part of a person changing. So becoming a parent is also a new identity. Right. And so part of that is also it's a relationship across difference. Being a parent and being a non parent. And relationship across difference needs conversation and it also needs reciprocal. So what does that look like reciprocity could be like again, if you want to be part of this family life, that's a big if. Offering your friends to babysit their kid for a night and letting them go on a date and then the parents being like trusting and teaching the person without a kid how to roll a diaper. Right. So some of that is like actual, like a inter cultural relationship to teach both sides and to ask.

B (51:50)

So this goes a little bit to the way a society that becomes very individualistic changes, but a soc becomes low fertility changes. When I am in societies, countries where people have many more kids, like the number of kids like Americans used to, you just see that the expectation is children just running around underfoot everywhere.

A (52:08)

Yes, yes.

B (52:09)

And then here it becomes this very like, hey, is it okay if I bring my kids?

A (52:15)

And they, you know, which I actually think is okay.

B (52:17)

It's okay. But it is, it is.

A (52:19)

But also the ways in which, in a lot of the these places in which kids are allowed, there's also like kids benefit from being part of, around adults. And so they behave differently at a table than often many American children behave at a table.

B (52:31)

And around older kids and around older kids take care of them.

A (52:34)

I did a piece how to include kids without centering them.

B (52:38)

And how do you do it?

A (52:39)

So I'll give a couple of examples. Again, the age matters. So you.

B (52:43)

So let's say over three. We're just trying to survive until they're three.

A (52:47)

I mean this is a real example. Invited us to a New Year's party and couldn't get a sitter. Cause it's New Year's Eve and our kids I think at that point were maybe like 5 and 8. And so she was like, just bring em. And so we brought them and there weren't other kids there. And we wanted to have a good time, we wanted to talk to adults. We didn't wanna kind of be with our kids the whole time, but we also wanted them to have a good time. And so in this case, what my husband did was he. My son is really good at foil, like foil art. And my daughter at the time loved to draw. And so, so we took a foil of aluminum with us and my son spent the evening going and asking people what their favorite animal was. And then he'd go away and for five minutes crate that animal and then go and like hand it to an adult. And the adults were just like amazed. And my daughter would ask if she could sketch them and people would sit and just like quietly look at her and she'd sketch them. I mean it looked, you know, it's more Picasso than what if your kids.

B (53:41)

Lack an unusually party friendly talent.

A (53:45)

No, it's not. So forget the talent. A woman wrote me in on Instagram, she read this piece and she said, you know, I often take my daughter to the National Charity League meetings and she like sits and just does her homework and she's just so bored, she's on her phone and she said, but then after reading this piece and again taking forget the exact details, she gave her a little reporter's notebook and she went and met different members at that meeting and said, why do you come to the Junior League? And they left and she was so excited, the 12 year old, she had conversations. It wasn't gratuitous, it was asking about the actual thing. It was scaffolding. And so I think parenting is like seeing your kid knowing who your kid is, setting them up for some amount of success. This is why the age also matters. But then also again, this is not if other kids aren't there, but actually finding ways to give them scaffolding based on a way they actually want to spend time. And then to also just know that it's okay to be around and to listen to conversation that isn't for them or about them, but how adults talk.

B (54:44)

Something you've touched on here a few times that I think is worth pulling out is the idea of gatherings where you are asking people to help you. You talked about the baby shower where people sponge down the house. You've talked about kids inviting people to come learn how to baby show sit your kid. And this has been a strange lesson for me in my own life. It is so much easier to help than to ask for help. And oftentimes very deep relationships for me are forged when people will ask for help in a way that almost makes me uncomfortable. You know, I had a friend who went through divorce and just really leaned on me throughout it. And it was a great gift to me because we ended up much closer on the other side of that.

A (55:30)

Yes.

B (55:31)

And I think it in some ways inverts some of what we're talking about. The idea of the host making this offering, right. Making everything perfect and then bringing somebody in to experience the perfection and the structure. There's something very much else about the host asking for something. And the gift is a vulnerability and the opportunity to be of use. I'd be curious to hear you talk about that.

A (55:55)

And at some deeper level, like it's a deep and generous ask, particularly when it's in a group context, to be the vessel for the question. So what do I mean by that? I had a friend years ago who really, really wanted to quit her job. She was at one of consulting firm that like the moment, you know, they can sort of smell you're about to leave, they're like, here's a bonus, here's a raise. And she finally hosted a quitting party, but she hadn't quit yet. She was scared. And she invited eight of us. And she said, I need your courage. Would you come and would you bring. I'm really scared to leave this job. Would you come and would you bring one piece of art or poetry or a song? Anything that gives You Courage. And I was like, wow, what an interesting gathering. And we went and we all. She then told us about, she's really stuck. She knows she's super prestigious like everyone else. Many people in her life, they're like, you're so lucky, and she just needs to jump and leave this job. And we each shared moments where we took risks that no one understood. And we then shared to her like it was for her, ostensibly. And then she said, I've invited each of you here because you each are people who I think of as courageous. And I wanted you to thank you for blowing courage my way. And part of what she did there was we all then got this beautiful gift of everyone else's ways that they are courageous. We also. She reified our own, like, identity or sense of self. Like, wow, she thinks of me as courageous. I still think about that thing, the poems that were read at that gathering 15 years ago when I'm terrified of making a decision that feels really scary, I think about. And so it was also, you need to think about how to make it fun and interesting for folks at some level. But people want to be of you not used. And most of us share common conundrums. And so instead of being isolated in these tiny little fragments where we're all, like, sadly wondering the same thing, when one person sort of takes a risk. It's Also Robin, for 30 years, her neighbor told her, we're not a block that hangs out. And she found with care a way that, for her, that was delightful to begin to shift that.

B (58:09)

Something that you're getting at there, which I think helps, as you've touched on a few times, is the importance of discomfort for something that is going to be really deep. And to me, that's important and actually gets us back a little bit, weirdly, to authoritarianism. So you were saying earlier that if we can't gather, we're not going to be a democracy. And I would say that there's plenty of people gathering in this country who are perfectly happy with at least the turn Donald Trump. Trump has been wanting us to take. I did an episode of Search Engine PJ Votes podcast, and he'd asked me to come on to talk about how do you talk to your family about politics at Thanksgiving? And you remember there was this period in which was all this content on the Internet about, like, how to argue with your uncle at Thanksgiving. And in doing that show with him, something that I began to think about was the way that all of that content was actually not about winning arguments. It was about because nobody really thinks you're going to win an argument at Thanksgiving. It was about protecting people from the fear of being in a social situation where there was going to be difference that they could not control. Because what we've been talking about here are gatherings that the host has an enormous amount of control over. And what I thought is interesting about all the content and the fear of being home with your families over the holidays is it reveals a way in which we have lost the comfort and maybe the capacity to be in social situations where we cannot control, where we don't feel we can just walk out, where we've not carefully curated everybody there to make sure we agree on all the fundamental things. And when I think what is going to break our democracy, it's not that we don't gather enough, although maybe it's that too, but that actually we've lost the skills not to be in a gathering that we control, but in one that we don't.

A (60:13)

I love that.

B (60:15)

And so I'd be curious to talk a bit about gathering amidst discomfort. Something that I thought was really interesting is you talk about being in college in the book and finding that the kinds of cross cultural and cross ideological gatherings that worked best were ones where there was actually an incredibly specific dispute between the people there.

A (60:39)

Not just a disputable relationship. A relationship.

B (60:42)

Do you wanna talk a bit about that and what you learned from that? Because I'm interested not just in your gathering side, but in your conflict facilitation side.

A (60:49)

Yes. I went to the University of Virginia. I'm biracial, as I've said. I was very frustrated by the unhealthy racial climate there. The first question people would often ask me is, what are you? And I literally didn't understand what the question meant. I realized I was supposed to answer, oh my. Like, racially, what am I? And I learned very quickly that, okay, race really matters here. Like, okay, got it. And I learned about a process, actually through my mother, called Sustained Dialogue. And we launched these dialogue groups called Sustained Dialogue. We learned to become moderators. There'd be two moderators assigned for the first year. Student groups of 10 to 12 students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds to come together with the intention for the entire school year to meet every, I think it was every other week for three hours at a time to deepen relationships, to be able to have trusting relationships, to begin to see across race, to bring the conversations that often happen behind closed doors into this group, to moderate them, and then to begin to see if you can change your relationships. To begin to change the culture. We launched it September 10, 2001. So 911 happened in the next day.

B (61:55)

Wow.

A (61:57)

In part because of the timing, it became a very popular student group. One of the things we found was, in the beginning, we really didn't know what we were doing. We were sort of throwing stuff on the wall. And many of the groups were diverse. And while it was kind of interesting and beautiful, as soon as we would come up to sort of a very interesting conversation around black and white dynamics on the college campus, after about 20 or 30 minutes. Minutes always, and for good reason. The Latino person, the South Asian person, be like, gosh, this drama again. Like, what about the rest of us? There were two groups that were started by two students that were different. One, if I remember correctly, was college Republicans and LGBTQ student group. And the other group, if I remember correctly, was. I think it was Jewish American and Arab American students. And in our moderator groups, basically every single time the other groups, the moderators would come and be like, yeah, it was a fine conversation. And the facilitators of these two very specific groups were electric. We had incredible conversation. We went into territory that we barely ever get to go in. We also don't know how to handle. Those groups were transformative because there was a specific and disputable line. Everyone knew why they were there. They're also willing to be together in that this is 2001, 2002, 2003. And that actually having the boundary of the relationship was so helpful.

B (63:17)

Is that why you became a conflict facilitator?

A (63:21)

I think I became a conflict facilitator in part. I actually. I'm conflict averse. And when my parents divorced, when they separated, everyone was shocked because they never fought. And I learned from an early day that human connection can be as threatened by unhealthy peace as it is by unhealthy conflict.

B (63:46)

So then you were a conflict facilitator in the. Let's call it the 2014, 15 to 2022, 2023 period. You have had this outlook and been in these worlds during what people now call wokeness or, you know, the. There was a huge period of social ferment.

A (64:09)

Yes.

B (64:09)

And we began. Began talking about things that we did not talk about we being American society very much before that, and me too. And it felt like everything was changing and what we could talk about was changing, what we could and could not say was changing. And then you watched with 2024 and Trump's return, that shatter into a million pieces. And I think there's A tendency for actually a lot of people on the left to just, like, move on. Like, let's just not do whatever that was. Again, whatever it was. I'm curious if you have reflections, as somebody who thinks about these questions, is what was done well there and what lessons need to be learned if we are going to not just avoid everything that got talked about or pretend it was all wrong? Because that, I think, would also be a mistake. How have you reflected on it?

A (65:04)

I mean, that's beautiful. Question. I think that the movements like MeToo, the movements like Black Lives Matter, unearthed deep power imbalances. They revealed the collective treatment, powerfully revealed the collective treatment of black people in this country. And with me too, sort of the cultural. If we go back, I mean, it feels so long ago, to this very simple invitation to put online and to verbalize elements that before, as a woman, one would never talk about. Right. These radical, radical movements. And I think I would say a couple of things. I think first, structurally, there was not enough focus in actually creating laws to change what has been revealed rather than trying to change workplace culture. The second is I remember reading this beautiful, beautiful, surprising piece. It was in buzzfeed back when they had an investigative journalist department. And it by Katie Baker. It was a female journalist who went around and actually interviewed college students who had been accused of sexual assault. And I remember a quote, and it was something like. And they had maybe in some cases been expelled, been suspended, kind of gone through all of the structural movements. And the quote was, there is no place for me to go. There is no place for me to come back to. I don't understand what you want me to do. Do you want me to commit suicide? And I remember the quote just struck me in my being. And I think part of what in all of these social. Like, there's the social movement and then there's the. What needs to actually shift? What do we actually need to create space for? And then where and how do we repair and allow people to collectively, socially, structurally make amends, to come back reformed if they want to? We have no. Again, it goes back. I know I sound like a broken record. We have so many tools for self help. We are so impoverished for our tools of group help. One of the books that I think is a powerful book in this new bookshelf that we're gonna call Group Help is Dania Rutenberg's On Repair and Repentance. It's a beautiful book. She's a rabbi, and she basically says, American culture is pretty bad. It overemphasizes forgiveness, the Christian notion of forgiveness, and under emphasizes the Jewish notion of repair and repentance. She says, we don't have meaningful mechanisms to actually repair with one another. And she says, by the way, everybody causes harm like it shouldn't be this big scary thing. Everybody, all of us, in our friendships and our relationships, everybody causes. Everybody has been harmed and everyone has witnessed harm. And we don't actually. We don't have the tools to actually even understand how to apologize in our interrelationships. And she looks towards the 12th century. Do you know this book or this work? This 12th century Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, through the entire book, basically says, these are the steps to think about. If I did something, what does it look like to first just understand a name, what I did, did, without even beginning to look to see if you forgive me or not, how do I then begin to understand? How do I change to be a different person? So I would not do that again. And so I think so much of what has happened structurally is like, we don't have tools to help people who used to have power, whether they're men or whether they're white people, to kind of integrate, to have a new way of being a man in the world, to have a new way to be a white person in the world in a multiracial, multicultural context.

B (68:44)

I think one thing that went. I don't know if awry is exactly the right word here, but I think about now, as I've watched, what it has all come to, is that there was often an assumption that we knew who was oppressed or oppressor, wrong or right, should be listened to or should be discounted, had had too much power, had had too little. And my point isn't even that those judged judgments were wrong or always wrong. But I think that's a very political way of thinking about things or judicial way, in some ways, that there's going to be clarity, and then you need to figure out what the reparation is. I guess the thing I am getting at is that we went through this period where the point was to understand each other better. And it is very hard for me to not believe we understand each other much worse. And I don't think that was just a failure of the left or something. I mean, the left has its own failures. I have my failures. But something went profoundly wrong in our ability to sit in not just conflict, but diverse narratives, uncertainty.

A (69:55)

I mean, I think part of this. And by the way, I think that what the MeToo movement revealed, what Black Lives Matter revealed, was True. Like, it was deep and profound generational cultural work. And it's not always the job of. Of the organizers leading that movement to be the people, then integrating it and doing the work in those communities. And so these are, you know, complex questions, but I think one of the elements that goes actually back to our gathering in modern life, which is like, we each can think about where and how do we want to shape and help based on where we are. And I'll give an example. There's a black facilitator, she's biracial, called Alicia Walters. I've worked with her for years, and before Black Lives Matter hit, she had this kind of art project called the Black Thought Project. And you walked into Oakland Museum, you would go in and see this maybe 10 foot by 30 foot wall, huge, huge wall. And it said something like, this wall is for black thought. Black thought is sacred. And then it was, what are your dreams? And they had multicultural trained facilitators, I think non black, non white, if I remember correctly. And if there was a white person who went to reach for a chalk and went to, like, write on the wall, would, like, with care, interrupt them and say, do you see that this wall is for black people? And always or often the person would kind of recoil and be like, oh, sorry, like, what am I supposed to do here? And then they would, so you don't want me here? And then the facilitator would say, no, no, no, no. You have an incredibly important role. Your role is, and it was also written there, to use your power to witness and to honor and to protect. Oh, you mean I'm of use here, right? Again, you may be listening and be like, oh, my gosh, this project. You know, you may be really triggered by this project. It's one project. It's one experiment. It's one person who has seen in her own life. How do feel you? How do you help white people readjust when they're not the only ones in the room? When maybe for a moment another community, for whatever reason, is centered and part of this project and why it's so radical is they're literally like, retraining and holding that moment of rejection. They're slowing down that moment of like, well, what am I supposed to do here? They're slowing down their role, and they're just practicing. They're giving them practice with a different stance, a slightly different stance. And I think, you know, I'm biracial, I'm half white, and I was actually raised by a white biological family because of the strain configuration of my family. My father is white. He remarried a white person and so in a lot of ways I was raised both Indian and then white every two weeks. And so I have deep empathy for being a white person. And I think part of these projects like Alicia's are interesting because they allow us to just turn the heat down a bit, turn the volume down a little bit, not putting it on social media for everyone to judge and to literally practice like lambs learning new steps. It is a radical thing to be trying to be part of a multiracial democracy. It is a radical thing. My husband always says this. No country in the history of the world has tried it. And Anand Girodas often says like we are falling on our faces because we were trying to leap so high. It's Alicia's specific and disputable purpose as a gathering. If you don't want to go to it, don't go to it. But I think the inter stitching and the ability to practice these new roles when you have lost some amount of power is a deeply important way to actually integrate and still feel like we all belong here. Foreign. Ondeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team or bridging cash flow, Gaps on Deck's loans up to $400,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star Trustpilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes@ondeck.com depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

B (74:29)

The New York Times app has all this stuff that you may not have seen.

A (74:32)

The way the tabs are at the top with all of the different sections.

B (74:35)

I can immediately navigate to something that matches what I'm feeling.

A (74:39)

I go to games, always doing the.

B (74:41)

Mini, doing the wordle.

A (74:42)

I loved how much content it exposed me to things that I never would have thought to turn to a news.

B (74:47)

App for this app is essential.

A (74:50)

The New York Times, all of the Times, all in one place. Download it now@nytimes.com app.

B (75:00)

One of my worries in this sort of post2020 period that we're in very very post has been the throwing of the baby out with the bathwater. The tendency for people to say, well, the lesson of losing politically is to not try, right? Turns out maybe talking about systemic racism isn't good for winning elections. Don't talk about it or even Begin to persuade yourself it isn't there, which is, I think, factually wrong. And at the same time, when you're in a conflictual multiracial democracy, you have to find ways, at least within the political construct, the construct of political gatherings, to bring people in and to make people who have very deep disagreements and differences with each other feel welcome. You were involved with the gathering side of the Zoran Mamdani campaign and the Zoran Mamdani campaign in terms of its in person. Actually, it's vibes all the way through.

A (75:59)

It is vibes all the way through.

B (76:00)

But from him himself and a sort of omnipresent smile. Your husband wrote a beautiful substack piece about the rhetoric of his smile. But then all the way down to the ways people gathered together, which I understand you advise him on. Tell me about the thinking behind that. Because it's about a successful social movement with the underlying social, like actual in person socializing, as I have seen in a long time.

A (76:27)

Absolutely. I mean if Donald Trump is a great host and a great gatherer, Zahran Mamdani is a great gatherer. I'm sort of the right place at the right time. 14 months ago I had permission to share this publicly. I got an email saying, hey, I took your Art of Gathering digital class. I've read the Art of Gathering multiple times. This is from Katie Reilly, the deputy campaign manager. Could you come and I want to infuse joy and meaning into politics. And we want to do what we believe in, which is be in love and be part of New York City, not New York City politics. I would argue New Yorkers didn't vote for Zahran Mamdani because they all became became social Democrats overnight. They voted for Zoran Mamdani because he was throwing a party they wanted to attend. Right. He was throwing a party over and over and over again. Whether it was a thousand person scavenger hunt across the city or whether it was his early day house parties and he hosts and his team and the campaign gathers in a way that has two things which I know you believe also creates a great vibe at a party, which is great vibes and serious policy ideas. Right. They every single time.

B (77:42)

That's absolutely not what I think creates a great vibe at a party. I want to defend myself from this slander, but part of spent one of my parties, I didn't make everybody talking.

A (77:50)

About like serious ideas. You're seriously arguing about stuff. You're serious. I have been to your parties. They're awesome. Like the vibes are awesome. And people are arguing about all high and low. Like Zoran Mamdani, they hosted a shredding party, meaning literally, they went around in trucks where people would come together and bring all of the paper that they had in their home to shred. And it was like, Katie Reilly, their deputy campaign manager's in charge of a lot of these different gatherings. And she kept on saying to me, we had. I actually interviewed her on my group Life substack, and she said, people kept asking me, why are you doing this? And they're like, cause it's fun. And at those shredding parties, there'd be a dj, there'd be a dance party. People would also then, interestingly, like, get rid of this weight.

B (78:34)

Yeah. Why shredding?

A (78:35)

Well, Zaron loves it, apparently. Like, again, I'm telling you, like, host the gathering you want to attend. He loves shredding.

B (78:41)

It's such a relief. It's such a feeling of, like, it's such a relief.

A (78:44)

It's. Where are you in New York City? Where are you gonna take. Who has a shredder? Right? And so literally, like, you go around and have these shredding parties, but by the way, while you're having all this fun, while you're like, this is kind of random. Oh, government can help me. Government can provide services. Right. They, from the very beginning, threw this party. And whether it's how, you know, they did a scavenger hunt. They announced it on Instagram, and so many people showed up, they ran out of supplies. But then it wasn't. The scavenger hunt was they got hints. And all of the hints were based on past mayors. Right. Even though we don't agree with this former mayor, we really loved what they said about public transit. Oh, the David Dinkins Memorial Building. Right. And so New Yorkers were running around taking public transport. And so every single party, every single gathering was like, you want to be there. You want to be part of it. And every single rally, they deeply knew what they were for. They knew what they were trying to transform. And it felt. The merch is amazing, but it's not a trick. It is serious vibes and serious policy. And at some level, like, again, New Yorkers didn't all of a sudden overnight become social democr Democrats in the same way. Honestly, you said earlier you have to like Trump to be one of his rallies. I actually, if you look at some of those exit interviews, people are like, I can't really believe I'm here. I don't really think the guy's this. I don't really agree with all this, but, like, it feels good, it's created. Anand Girderas wrote this in the Persuaders. These gatherings can create a sense of home, belonging.

B (80:16)

I have been to probably more political rallies than your average person, than your average man, and I have been to some that you leave feeling a sense of communion, a sense of almost spiritual unity with the other people who are in that mass of human beings who became one body with you. And I've been to many that you leave feeling like, what was that exactly? And it gets me to a question I had while we're reading the book. People always say that, and I feel that there is nowhere you can be lonelier than inside of a crowd. So from there, what is the opposite of a gathering if it is not simply being alone? What is the opposite of a gathering that nevertheless has a lot of people in a room?

A (81:10)

I don't assume gatherings are all good. I actually think you can have a terrible gathering. I think you can have a gathering that leads to exclusion, that leads to people feeling deeply alone. I think of a gathering as anytime three or more people are coming together for a purpose, for a reason, for an intent, with a beginning, middle, and end. You can feel deeply lonely at a gathering, and you can also feel deeply content at a gathering. So I might frame it slightly differently. I would just say I think there's a healthy relationship to an antidote to being together with other people, which is also being contentedly alone. And I spend a lot of time alone. I refuel alone. Actually, one of the interesting things about the art of gathering, when I was interviewing all these hundred people, how many people identified as interesting? How many of the hosts who other people credited with creating these transformative gatherings identified as people who are often, their language loners, slightly on the outside of things, don't really like people. And I asked one of them, like, so many of the people I'm interviewing, identify as introverts. Why do you think this is? And she said, I am so uncomfortable at most of the gatherings I go to. I finally decided to host a gathering that I would be comfortable at, that I like and other people seem to like.

B (82:18)

So I also identify increasingly now as an introvert. And the thing I particularly dislike is small talk and unstructured conversation. Not because I don't think people should do it or it's boring, but I actually find it unclear and stressful. And I actually have found a lot of podcast hosts identify that way because podcasting creates structured conversations 100%. Like somebody walks in the door and you'd be like, what do you think about death? And it's like, it's a relief to, you know, you have a context for them, you've prepared on them. And I do think there's some dimension of that in gathering too, hugely.

A (83:01)

I mean, podcasts are rituals. And, you know, I walked into this studio, there's a red mug here that I can, you know, pick up and hold. You enter. We're both wearing the equivalent of, like, not real clothes in our case is we're both wearing matching headphones. There are norms. I was primed and briefed ahead of time, but not too much. Right. This is a. It's a. It's a virtual, distributed, asynchronous gathering. And so, absolutely, it's a ritual in which you feel very comfortable using your power. And so I would harness some of that. I would harness some of that, and I would take that same resonance and permission and apply it to your Shabbat dinner.

B (83:40)

I want to end on actually something maybe that relates to the Shabbat dinner, but relates to something that you had talked about earlier, which is the way older societies thought about treating strangers, thought about hosting, but specifically thought about hospitality. And this has been on my mind. I did a show a year or two ago now with Marilyn Robinson, the amazing writer, but she had written a book about the book of Genesis. And so I was preparing for that. I was rereading Genesis, and I was so strict struck by how central hospitality was to the Bible. I mean, so much else that you see in the Old Testament and the New Testament, we talk about kindness and compassion, but the idea of welcoming in the stranger, of feeding them, of washing their feet, of clothing them, it is constant. And we don't talk about it now actually that often. And then I was doing reporting work in Israel and Palestine, done. And I was so struck by among people from the absolute poorest people who had almost everything was being taken from them and saying they would not talk to me without trying to feed me, all the way up to the wealthiest people. And it's very different than doing reporting here, which I've had those experiences too. It's just the hospitality is working in a different way in both of those cultures. I'm curious how you think about not gathering as a purpose, but hospitality as a virtue or part of a human being. I mean, you go into our old books, in Judeo, Christianity at least, and it is all over what you're commanded to do.

A (85:23)

It is a virtue.

B (85:24)

What is it? What is hospitality to you?

A (85:26)

I mean, hospitality Is treating the others as you would be treated. Hospitality is loving on the stranger. Hospitality is opening your heart and your home to somebody who might be in need. And again, I said earlier, gathering is about connection, but it's also about power. Hospitality is also about defanging the enemy. Hospitality is also a structure to assess and to defang a threat. Hospitality is the ability to first be humans to together. Right? Also when you gather, when you bring people together, it's not always great. It's not even just always friction. All groups to become groups have to fight. They have to fight. And so no group is without conflict. I actually the first book is called the Art of Gathering and this is the first time I'm allowed to talk about it publicly. I've spent the last five years looking at what happens when people come together and when they fall apart. And so I'm writing a book called the Art of Faith Fighting the Transformative Power of Conflict. Because so much of what actually that hospitality does and what the gathering does is it actually, it's like water on a garden to allow us to actually grow the muscles so that when we do have difference, when we do have conflict, when we do have to think about whose land this is, we have pre existing ties in which we've drunk the same water and we've broken the same bread and we think, you know, yes, we have these different identities and yes, we need to sort this out, but we're also proverbially sort of standing on the ground holding hands first and saying, we too are here.

B (87:01)

What if somebody's intention is having heard this and having heard maybe the second half of our conversation is not just to host people like them, their friends, but actually to move beyond themselves and their circles, to be in difference, not in sameness. As somebody who thinks a lot about community, what options of that sort are open to people?

A (87:27)

I mean, so many I think first is think about depends on where you live, but what pre existing communities in which there's shared interests or shared activities that you could join, where there's actually a lot of different people interested in that. Right? Mahjong is apparently all the rage. And yes, there may be some Brooklyn hipsters playing mahjong, but also Chinese grandmothers and elders are all playing it. You know, where and how. Whether you go to Trivia night and meet people who you would never otherwise meet outside of your social circles, outside of your age group, I think we are deeply, deeply bifurcated across age. It's like we assume that to be friends we need to have the Same life experiences at the same moment. Also, like, my husband says this, he's like, why would all of the advice I get be from other mothers who have given birth in April 2015 versus looking up and looking down and having different generational cohorts. But so first is think about what your shared interests are. But the second is, if you're wanting to intentionally do this, think about one person in your life or at work or for whatever reason who might also either be interested in this or be different from you in one vector. And again, like the Shabbat dinner, start to think with care where and how might we want bring people together? And here's my last piece of advice is I would not talk about your differences. Pause. Sometimes what a community needs, it's actually talk less. Sometimes what a community needs is a soccer game. They need to stop talking. They need to play together, they need to have a dance party. They need to have a kickball team. And so, so much of it is like, don't be humble about what it might take for what form it might take. But if you feel this need, and it's a very important need right now, I mean, Americans have fallen out of love with each other. Find someone else, ideally that might hold a different identity than you. Start building trust and relationship there and then start asking the question, what would really bring us joy and what would others want to do with us? Or find a local shared project in your community that everyone can agree on and start organizing around cleaning up the park or building the waterway. I once heard David Brooks say at a conference, no question worthy of pursuit is answerable in a lifetime. And I think gathering is a question. And group life is a question worthy of pursuit that's not answerable in a lifetime gathering. And part of gathering underneath is we are gathering all the time in our classrooms, in, yes, dinner parties, in our rallies. And like, these are human beings that are dynamic and are not always going to like what it is. And this is so fascinating. And so part of that's like, it's okay, look, learn like we're alive. We're trying to figure this out. We're bumbling through this together. Like, how interesting.

B (90:11)

Then I'll ask our final question. What are three books you'd recommend to the audience?

A (90:16)

Well, we actually went over a couple of them. So I was going to say the Loneliness of Sonja and Sunny, but I'll take the opportunity to actually talk about the Politics of Ritual by Molly Far. It is a book that came out a few years ago and she from I Think Princeton University Press. And she looks at, we think about ritual as a way to basically keep solidifying older values. And she looks at ritual and says ritual is a tool and looks at all of the different ways where rituals can be also used to change communities. So I love that book. I think it's a beautiful book that looks at rituals and its relationship to power. My second book was going to be Dania Rutenberg's Repentance and Repair. So clearly we've had the conversation.

B (91:02)

We're supposed to recommend books you had in the conversation.

A (91:05)

Okay, great. So I would really recommend Repentance and Repair by Dania Rutenberg. It's a beautiful, careful book in which she basically lays out these five steps of repair from this 12th century philosopher. But she demystifies them and looks at what does this look like interpersonal, what does this look like between organizations and within organizations? And what does it look at the state level? What does it actually look like structurally? To repair? It's a beautiful, beautiful book. And then I would recommend Boy mom by Ruth Whitman. Boy Mom. The book is called Boy Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity. I'm a parent of a boy and a girl, and this is a book. Ruth Whitman is a journalist. Do you know this book?

B (91:45)

Not well, I've heard of it, but.

A (91:46)

So Ruth Whitman is a journalist. She was raised by, she says this in the book. A feminist mother who like for her, put her in second wave generation, put her in gender neutral clothing, and she wasn't a lot of Barbies at home. And then she got married and had three boys. And the mental models and the structural framework of how she was parented was simply not working for what she was doing. And so you went out and basically looked at what are our mental models. And as the feminist revolution expanded, what women can be not just in the home, not just connection, vulnerability, but power and being out in the world. It didn't have have an answer for men to also be able to equally expand. And if that's the shot, I would have a chaser of. The book Talk to youo Boys, which recently came out, is by Christopher Pepper and Joanna Schrader. 16 conversations to help teens and tweens to grow into confident, caring young men. This is a brilliant book that literally is like, these are the conversations to actually talk to your boys. This is how to have the conversation. Whether it's porn, whether it's sports, whether it's bullying, whether it's power, whether it's dating, it's a brilliant and beautiful book. I both of them together and the reason I love both of these books is because I think to go back to our earlier conversation, these are ways to help deeply think about how to equip all people with group help tools with the tools of connection across parenting and children and across also helping boys and young men have thick and connected relational lives.

B (93:14)

Priya Parker thank you for gathering with me.

A (93:16)

Thank you for thank you for singing.

B (93:33)

This episode of the israel clancho is produced by annie galvin fact checking by michelle harris with kate sinclair and mary marge locker. Our senior audio engineer is jeff geld mixing by I. Isaac jones. Our executive producer is claire gordon. The show's production team also includes marie cassillon, roland hu, marina king, jack mccordick, kristin lin, emma keldek and jan kobel. Original music by pat mccusker audience strategy by christina seymilwski and shannon busta. The director of new york times opinion audio is annie rose strasser.