Each Other’s Business

In the article “We Are Each Other’s Business,” Eboo Patel illustrates his ideas with references to art and literature. What point does he make about the Norman Rockwell painting? How does he use a Gwendolyn Brooks poem to support his ideas? Do a Google search for these two works and see what they mean to you.

In the article "We Are Each Other's Business," Eboo Patel expresses his ideals about pluralism. In the article, he mentions the painting Freedom of Worship by Norman Rockwell. For Patel, he views the painting as an illustration of a world where people have the same goals and pursuits and as a result find comfort in the presence of one another - yet, they are apart because of their difference in their beliefs. For him, it is a "vivid depiction of a group living in peace with its diversity, yet not exploring it." This is an illustration of his earlier childhood, where he was friends with people from diverse backgrounds; yet, their topics never touched the ambiguity and hazard of the difference in their culture and religion.

He also cites literature to back up a story he told about intolerance. He quotes a Gwendolyn Brooks poem, which says "We are each other's business; we are each other's harvest; we are each other's magnitude." This is to portray his belief that if someone has the power to stop an injustice, then that person should do so. It is also a support to a story he told about when he failed to protect his friend from an unjust act against him.

Both of these references instigate at least a small response in me. For the most part, I agree with Patel's point of Norman Rockwell's painting. It is as I have mentioned in previous journals - people need to have a sense of mutual respect for one another between those of different cultures. However, his belief that people can live in peace with diversity, yet never exploring it, is somewhat idealistic and quite impossible - it wouldn't be long before disagreements would occur because of a disparity in beliefs. To understand means to explore, and this is where Patel has a minor mistake in his beliefs.

In addition, I agree with Gwendolyn Brooks to an extent. The truth is that yes, if one has the power to stop injustice, then that one person should utilize his power to try and stop it. However, this often borders on arrogance and nosiness. On an individual basis, this principle can be kept fairly reasonably. But this has its limitations - if a person is being hurt or manipulated, then reporting the offenders to the authorities is necessary; but if your neighbor's dog has died, you shouldn't go searching for the killer when it isn't your job to. In addition, on a global or international scale, it really isn't wise to stop "injustice" in the world just because you have the power to.

In conclusion, I think that Patel is, unfortunately, occupying the far left of a scale. These ideals can be taken for truth, BUT there needs to be moderation and self-judgment to see when the ideals apply.