Fruit First You Idiots
The juicy lure of righteousness
We don’t see uncle Eddie, my father’s younger brother, anymore. He had a fallout with the family a few years ago. There’s nothing unusual about family fallouts. Disagreements over money, politics or religion are some of the most common reasons for the cutting of familial ties. However, the reason uncle Eddie “left” the family was comedic in a sad sort of way, and it got me thinking about how strange we humans can be. When I enquired about what happened, I had assumed money or division of caregiving labor might have caused the rift, but it wasn’t anything that dramatic. It was fruit.
The incident happened over dinner at my aunt Margaret’s home. My late grandmother, who was in her 80s at the time, was living with my aunt. All seven of grandma’s adult children were at Margaret’s place for a home cooked meal. After the meal, Margaret served sliced oranges for dessert. Eddie said that fruit should always be served before proteins and carbohydrates because fruit gets digested quicker so eating it first allows for optimal absorption of nutrients. (I’d read this too, in the mid ’80s, in Harvey and Marilyn Diamond’s book “Fit for Life” and tend to eat fruit first myself). My aunt said that it didn’t matter, she didn’t care, it was absolutely fine to eat fruit after the main meal. Eddie stuck to his guns and insisted that fruit should always be eaten first. The disagreement escalated into a full-blown argument about who was right and who was wrong. Eddie left his sister’s home in a huff and no longer comes to family gatherings. It was like he disappeared from our lives after that incident.
I wasn’t there that night, so I have no idea how things actually unfolded, but knowing my father and his siblings, I can imagine how things went awry. The members of my father’s side of the family are strong willed and hot headed. Righteousness is a personality trait that runs strong in them (and in me), so when two Kohs don’t see eye-to-eye on something, they seldom arrive at a place where they can agree to disagree.
Here’s a parody of how I imagine the conversation might have taken place.
Oranges are brought to the table after a meal of rice, meat, fish and vegetables.
Eddie: You shouldn’t eat fruit after the meal. Fruit must be eaten before protein and carbohydrates.
Margaret: Says who?
Eddie: Says Harvey and Marilyn Diamond who wrote about natural body cycles and the principles of natural hygiene in their 1985 book “Fit for Life”.
Margaret: Who are they that I should listen to them? We’ve been eating fruit for dessert all our lives.
Eddie: You, my sister, are stupid for not following the gold standard for optimal digestion and nutrient absorption, which is gospel truth. You are harming yourself by doing it any other way. Why would you not save your health and life by doing it the correct way?
Margaret: That book was written more than two decades ago. It’s probably outdated. Mom has been eating fruit after meals since she was a child and she’s lived to be 85, so what the hell are you talking about?
Eddie: No, no, no. You’re just being pig headed. If you want good digestion and long life, you must eat fruit before not after your meal. That’s the right way to do it.
Margaret: I don’t care about what you think is right. We’ve been doing it this way all along and we haven’t had any problems.
Eddie: Why do I waste my breath on you! You are so stubborn. I’m telling you, fruit first is the only way to maintain optimal digestion. Your way is going to ruin your health. It should always be fruit first.
Margaret: Oh shut up. It’s my home, my dinner, and my oranges.
Everyone at the table eat the oranges.
Eddie: Oh yeah? Well, adios family. I’m outta here cos you’re all idiots for eating those oranges when you did.
Righteousness — a real party pooper! It’s the king harmony destroyer because it doesn’t yield to context, circumstances, the perspective others, or new information. It leaves no room for doubt or differing opinions. Righteousness is like an overweight person with arthritis sitting in a rickety, kid’s size chair. It’s bloated and stiff and makes everyone nervous and uncomfortable. Righteousness stands in opposition to open-mindedness, empathy and the willingness to put oneself in the shoes of another. It’s all about claiming the moral high ground. “No time for losers. Cause we are the champions”, as Freddy belts it. An attitude of righteousness does not bode well for relationships.
I once had dinner with a born-again Christian friend who kept telling me that what she liked best about her new Christian identity was that it meant she was now “clothed in God’s righteousness”; that believing in the Christian God has made her “righteous”. Her statement sent shivers down my spine. I understand that in the context of Christianity, this verse (Isaiah 61:10) is meant to signify that a person is seen as right/made good in the eyes of God not because of their own merits but because of their faith; they are seen not as “sinners” but as saved souls. Still, there is something about the word righteous that just stinks, because it insinuates that those who do not believe in the same God are “not right” or “less good”.
I am aware that there is a difference between righteousness and self-righteousness but it ain’t that big of a difference.
According to Merriam Webster, “righteousness” is defined as “acting in accord with divine or moral law”. The Cambridge dictionary defines “righteousness” as “morally correct behavior, or a feeling that you are behaving in a morally correct way”. “Self-righteousness” according to Merriam Webster is defined as “convinced of one’s own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others; narrow-mindedly moralistic” and “the quality of believing that your ideas and behavior are morally better than those of other people”.
Self-righteousness — “I think I am right and you are wrong” — certainly sounds like the uglier of the two…at first…but if you look deeper, righteousness (in the divine, ethical, moral, or scientific sense) is equally, if not more arrogant because it says “God (moral law or the authors of “Fit for Life”) decrees that I am right/good/healthy but you are wrong/bad/unhealthy because you have no faith in God (moral law or the natural hygiene philosophy of Harvey and Marilyn Diamond)”.
Righteousness, self or otherwise is troublesome because it breeds judgmentalness and a critical appraisal of another person, group or way of life. When we take a righteous stance, we are choosing to see the world through darkened rather than clear eyeglasses. Righteousness primes us to differentiate and disapprove, so we end up focusing on how someone else’s opinion, way of doing things, or value system is unlike our own and therefore, unacceptable. This then gives us an excuse to react to them with fear, resentment, distrust, or disgust. It gives us a reason for war.
I myself suffer from the compulsion to be right often enough, and I don’t like it. Yesterday, I wouldn’t lend my husband my Apple EarPods on principal. In our marriage, I am the one who purchases things like batteries, pens, lighters, safety pins, phone chargers, sticky tape, rubber bands, toilet paper and headphones. I am fastidious about ensuring that I always have these “security” items close at hand in case I need them. My husband on the other hand believes there’s no need to purchase these things unless you absolutely need them (like when we’re down to the last two rolls of TP), and sometimes he teases me for being “neurotic” about always needing to stock up, or complains that I am spending unnecessarily (“How often will you use a battery charger anyway?”). He’s Mister “chill out and go-with-the-flow” whereas I am Little Miss “detail oriented, list-making forward planner”. He’s “don’t spend unless you absolutely need to”, I’m more “pennywise pound foolish, you gotta spend it to save it or make it”.
So yesterday, he was getting on a flight to Boston and realized that he would have to pay for an inflight headset if he wanted to watch a movie on the plane’s entertainment system. He asked me if he could borrow my EarPods. I have three wired headphones but only one with the type of USB plug that fits into the plane’s audio socket, and it’s the only one I use when I go to the gym. I could easily not go to the gym and just let him have it for his flight. But because I don’t like the fact that his attitude and beliefs around “trivial necessities” (and around forward planning and money) are so different from my own, I decided to teach him a lesson by withholding my generosity and support. “No, I won’t let you have it! Now maybe you’ll understand the value of forward planning and investing in electronic accessories. Serves you right for not thinking more like me. You’d better rethink your approach to such things in the future Mr. Too-laid-back.”
I would have liked to have been kinder and more supportive, but I felt like I needed to make a point, and this was my chance to do so. Getting my point across, ensuring that it was heard and accepted became my number one priority, my sole mission at that moment. Not my husband’s wellbeing or peaceful, pre-departure time together but MY POINT!!! “Don’t you get my point of view? How can you not?? My point of view makes the most sense. How can any other point of view except mine be correct, be the best? What’s wrong with you that you can’t see it my way. My way is common sense. Your way is delusion.”
I forgot, what works for one person doesn’t always work for another. I forgot, all choices have their merits and deficiencies. When I remembered, I apologized to my husband and offered up my EarPods, but by then, he was already hurt and in an antagonistic mood, and it took a few hours for the damage to be undone.
The axiom that one can choose to be right or be happy — popularized by psychiatrist and author Gerald Jampolsky — helps me re-align my priorities when I catch myself in righteous mode. When I’m at that point however, where I feel that the other person is one hundred percent a stupid buffoon, I take Jampolsky’s statement to the next logical conclusion — I can choose to be right and alone, isolated, and disconnected, or I can choose to possibly be wrong and continue to remain in union with others.
