At first glance, gratitude is a simple concept. Expressing gratitude is one of the first things we learn as human beings. When we are children, we are taught the importance of good manners, like saying "please" and "thank you" and showing respect for those who can provide us with our needs. The way we are taught about gratitude, however, both as adults and as children, is that it lacks sophistication. This article will attempt to deepen our understanding of gratitude.
I propose that gratitude can be expressed or felt in two primary categories. First, there is the basic expression of gratitude, which we will call "Things Gratitude." One expresses Things Gratitude when they say "thank you" to someone who gives them something or does something for them. This form of gratitude is about receiving. Things Gratitude can be further divided into two sub-categories. Within Things Gratitude, one can feel "Gratitude For" and "Gratitude To." Gratitude For is the gratitude one feels for having something, like health, friends, or support. Gratitude To, directs gratitude towards the person, power, or situation that enables one to have the thing they need, want, and experience Gratitude For.
A second category of gratitude is "Relationship Gratitude". This type of gratitude expresses appreciation for the mere presence of being in a relationship. It is independent of how one benefits from the relationship with that other from tangibles or intangibles, or even how one might develop or grow by virtue of the relationship. Relationship Gratitude is simply gratitude for being in relationship.
Though the concept of gratitude exists in the Jewish tradition, it is not often paid the attention it deserves. For example, there is no specific Hebrew word for gratitude in the same way that "acts of loving kindness" has a single word, "chesed." Similarly, many communities have "Chesed Committees," but there aren't committees to address gratitude in a similar way. (The Hebrew phrase “Ha’karat ha’Tov” seems more of a response than an a posteriori pre-disposition.) If gratitude is meant to be more than a responsive, but moral a motivator in one's daily life, it must be understood it in a more nuanced way.
The two forms of gratitude outlined above, Things Gratitude and Relationship Gratitude, can be seen in a number of philosophical frameworks, including Utilitarianism, I-Thou, Covenant, and Yin-Yang.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832, London) defined as the "fundamental axiom" of his philosophy the principle that "the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." This philosophy is known as Utilitarianism. A utilitarian philosophy is largely functional. When one needs to make a decision, the morality of that decision will depend on to what extent it is bringing the greatest amount of happiness and goods to the greatest number of people.
Over 100 years later, Pope John Paul II critiqued utilitarianism as "a civilization of production and of use, a civilization of things and not of persons, a civilization in which persons are used in the same way as things are used." Pope John Paul II notes that utilitarianism turns people into means or objects, divorced of relationships. A just act, in this view, is not concerned with who one is doing good for, but rather the impact or benefit of the good being transferred.
This most reflects the concept of Things Gratitude mentioned above. In Things Gratitude, the expression of gratitude does not transcend the thing itself and resides only in what it can do for the recipient. The transaction may not connect people; it’s “good” may reside primarily in its utility to the recipient. Any resulting relationship is precarious because it will collapse as soon as another person is able to provide something that brings the recipient a greater level of utility, or when the recipient’s need wanes.
Contrasted with Bentham's Utilitarianism, Martin Buber's concepts of I-It and I-Thou leads one to Relationship Gratitude. In his "I and Thou" (1925), Buber (1878–1965, Austria-Hungary & Israel) proposes that human life finds its meaningfulness in relationships, and that we experience existence in the context of two relationships.
The first is one in which someone relates to another person as an "It." An I-It relationship describes one's relationship to an object that is discrete and separate from them, drawn from a defined set, which "I" (the subject) use or experience. "It" can be quantified and described by virtue of its detail or feel, color, name, distance, emotion or function. When a person interacts with an object (or person) and sees its smoothness or beauty, for example, they are interacting with it as an "It." Such a relationship is not inherently negative; it is an example of Things Gratitude, most similar to Bentham's Utilitarianism, because it represents a world defined by relationship with "things" in a quantifiable, sensible way.
The alternative form of relationship Buber puts forth is one of I-Thou, where the subject, "I," appreciates the presence of and being in unity with the other subject, "Thou." The relationship between an "I" and "Thou" is pure; the "I" does not objectify any "It," but rather acknowledges a living relationship. I-Thou abandons the world of sensation as the two, the I and the Thou, stand in direct relationship with one another. The "I" encounters the presence of the other, "Thou," but does not experience its attributes, seek to quantify what they are feeling, or contemplate the utility they can get from the relationship. For Buber, when one feels an I-Thou encounter with God, they are experiencing a form of revelation. However, when the subject begins thinking of God as a provider or savior, the relationship is transformed into an I-It relationship. I-Thou, then, introduces a form of Relationship Gratitude, where one deeply appreciates the relationship itself.
Rabbi David Hartman (1931-2013, Brooklyn & Israel) presents the model of Covenant, which defines the bilateral relationship between the Jews and God. He defines the biblical covenant as the following:
In the Bible a covenant is an offer by a stronger party (such as a king) to a weaker party. Sometimes the offer is an unconditional promise on the part of the stronger party; sometimes it is conditional upon the act or acts of the weaker party.
The model of covenant presented by Rabbi Hartman includes Things Gratitude. For example, by virtue of the power dynamic between the stronger and weaker parties, when one engages in petitionary prayer (bakasha) from a stronger party, they are engaging in a utilitarian act. Gratitude for receiving one's request is within the realm of Things Gratitude.
Rabbi Irving "Yitz" Greenberg (b. 1933, New York) presents a model of covenant that integrates Relationship Gratitude:
…through the mechanism of the covenant, infinity and eternity are converted into finite, temporal, usable forms without losing their ground in the absolute. The covenant makes possible Judaism's functioning in history.
Rabbi Greenberg maintains that there may be a distance between finite humans and the infinite God, but the covenant helps bridge the two, thereby creating a relationship that is more than simply utilitarian. Underlying one's engagement in petitionary prayer, for example, is a deep and long relationship that is needed in order for the individual praying to stand before God with their request. Even when one is disappointed, feeling they've been denied their petition, or when they disagree with a certain outcome or command they attribute to God, the covenantal relationship remains because the relationship is strong and transcends utility. In short, when there is a deep and long feeling about the person or deity we are relating to, the "It" doesn't always matter. One can feel gratitude for the relationship with the other, even in the absence of "things." This is distinct from Buber, who maintains that I-It and I-Thou are two disparate and mutually exclusive relationships. For Rabbi Greenberg, the covenant helps bridge the two. The covenantal relationship, then, is more complex and real, and what one will experience from their day to day lives.
In the Torah, we see God define Godself in relation to humans in a way that is reminiscent of I-Thou:
(13) Moses said to God, “When I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” (14) And God said to Moses, “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.” And he said, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh sent me to you.’”
God and Moshe first engage in dialogue at the burning bush. In this dialogue, God defines Godself as Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, which can translate to "I will be what I will be" or "I am that I am." God is neither redeemer nor sustainer here; God is in relationship with Moshe, but without attributes or predicates. In this verse, God simply is. God presents Godself as Presence, which sounds like Buber's I-Thou relationship.
Yet, when prompted further, God tells Moshe to tell the Israelites that Ehyeh sent him, rather than the full name of Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh. Furthermore, the second sentence in verse 14 begins with "He [God] said," but in the sentence before, God was already speaking, as the verse opens, "And God said to Moshe." This "He [God] said" seems superfluous. The Rabbis understand this to signal some break in conversation. They suggest that Moshe had said something else - something left out of the text - to which God was responding. The Gemara picks up on these questions and the Gemara’s answer expresses the importance of a covenantal relationship of presence:
When Moses asked God what to say when Israel asks him God’s name, “and God said to Moses: ‘I will be that I will be,’ and He said: ‘Thus you will say unto the children of Israel: I will be has sent me to you’” (Exodus 3:14). The Holy One, Blessed be He, told Moses to go and tell Israel: I was with you in this enslavement, and in this redemption, and I will be with you in the enslavement of the kingdoms in the future. Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, it is enough for them to endure. Let the future suffering be endured at its appointed time. There is no need to mention their future enslavement. The Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with Moses and said to him: Go and tell the children of Israel only that, “I will be has sent me to you.”
In the Gemara, the language of Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh is doubled to show God was with the Israelites in this enslavement (Egypt), and God will be with them in other enslavements as well. God's presence with the people, then is constant and ongoing. Moshe proposes that it is more focused and less distracting for God to reveal God’s present relationship with the Israelites, and not to look ahead. (Hearing that there will be future enslavements is not “redeeming“ news that needs to be revealed at this moment.) God’s message to the people is not “i will help you”, but rather, “I am with you”.
Another Gemara in Berakhot similarly uses literary creativity to express the primacy of I-Thou over I-It relationships:
It was stated: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: The practice of praying three times daily is ancient, albeit not in its present form; prayers were instituted by the Patriarchs. However, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the prayers were instituted based on the daily offerings sacrificed in the Holy Temple, and the prayers parallel the offerings, in terms of both time and characteristics. The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, and it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The Gemara elaborates: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: Abraham instituted the morning prayer, as it is stated when Abraham came to look out over Sodom the day after he had prayed on its behalf: “And Abraham rose early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the Lord” (Genesis 19:27), and from the context as well as the language utilized in the verse, the verb standing means nothing other than prayer, as this language is used to describe Pinehas’ prayer after the plague, as it is stated: “And Pinehas stood up and prayed and the plague ended” (Psalms 106:30). Clearly, Abraham was accustomed to stand in prayer in the morning.
The rabbis of the Talmud here debate the conceptual origins of daily prayer in the post-Second Temple era. One position proposes that it is based on the prayers of the patriarchs, while the other suggests it is based on the daily sacrifices. The former opinion attributes the morning prayer service (shacharit) to Abraham, based on Genesis 19:27. The verse says that "Abraham arose early in the morning to the place where he had stood (amad) before the LORD." The word "stood" is understood by the rabbis to refer to the standing prayer, the Amidah. In context, Abraham returns to this place following the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:
This proof text, of Abraham “standing” before God, in context is as follows:
(God's angels tell Lot) Hurry, flee there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there.” Hence the town came to be called Zoar. As the sun rose upon the earth and Lot entered Zoar, the LORD rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfurous fire from the LORD out of heaven. He annihilated those cities and the entire Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities and the vegetation of the ground. Lot’s wife looked back, and she thereupon turned into a pillar of salt. Next morning, Abraham hurried to the place where he had stood before the LORD,
As the verse in Genesis 19:27 notes, Abraham had stood in this place before God once before. Just yesterday he was there to argue for justice on behalf of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18:22:
(22) The men went on from there to Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the LORD. (23) Abraham came forward and said, “Will You sweep away the innocent along with the guilty? (24) What if there should be fifty innocent within the city; will You then wipe out the place and not forgive it for the sake of the innocent fifty who are in it? (25) Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that innocent and guilty fare alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”
It is striking that the Gemara in Berakhot (above) sources Abraham's shacharit prayer with the text of Abraham's second "standing" (Genesis 19:27), rather than the first when we hear him beseech God (Genesis 18:22). The first “standing” before God, is the typical prayer - a request of God. In the second “standing” before God, nothing is said.
This editorial choice to use Abaraham’s return to "the place" of yesterday’s request suggests that prayer, like the relationship between God and Abraham, is not a need based, utilitarian relationship. Defining a relationship or encounter by the act of petitionary prayer would render it an I-It relationship. The relationship is, instead, an ongoing relationship which outlasts the outcome of one's previous petitionary experience, even despite outcome and disappointment. The covenantal relationship is epitomized by strength, depth, and consistency. Abraham stands before God today (post facto), simply because they are in relationship. Abraham does not need to talk to God, he needs to be with God.
So far, we have explored and deepened our understanding of gratitude by seeing how it is reflected in the philosophical frameworks of Utilitarianism, I-Thou, and Covenant. Lastly, we will look at gratitude through the lens of the Daoist concepts of Yin and Yang (lit. "shadow and light").
Yin and Yang describes how polar opposites or seemingly contrary forces are actually two interconnected and complementary parts of a greater whole. Instead of being two disparate elements, they are actually two points on a spectrum, one of which may be more powerful or appropriate at one moment than another, and one of which may feed into the other.
The Gemara in Chagiga expresses an idea that supports the mutually reenforcing perspective of Yin and Yang:
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Ten things were created on the first day of Creation, and they are as follows: Heaven and earth; tohu and vohu, i.e., unformed and void; light and darkness; wind and water; the length of day and the length of night.
Whereas the Gemara describes ten things created on the first day of creation, it does so by structuring them as five (Yin and Yang) pairs. Each item is created along with its polar opposite (literally feng shui translates to "wind-water").
Yin and Yang also helps us understand the concepts of tov and rah (good and evil), and how the experience of rah may actually help inform one's Relationship Gratitude.
(6) So that they may know, from east to west, That there is none but Me. I am the LORD and there is none else, (7) I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil— I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah describes God as the creator of all, including opposites like good and evil, light and darkness. One function can only be understood in relation to the other; in the universal and latent “presence” (albeit not temporal presence) of the other.
Within the Yin andYang construct, I may be living in one realm, at the moment, (light, male, uplifted…) but my attributes are all in relation to their polar opposites that coexist for me and others. It helps me to appreciate my situation by seeing it in relationship to opposites that are equally plausible, and maybe inevitable. By understanding my context and its relationships to opposites, I am able to participate in the flux of events and circumstances with gratitude for the dynamics, even if I am not “happy” with the things dealt to me at this moment.
Pirkei Avot helps bring together the Yin and Yang and Covenantal frameworks by drawing a distinction between love driven by Things and love driven by Relationship, while still maintaining that each is worthy of being called "love":
(טז) כָּל אַהֲבָה שֶׁהִיא תְלוּיָה בְדָבָר, בָּטֵל דָּבָר, בְּטֵלָה אַהֲבָה. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ תְּלוּיָה בְדָבָר, אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה לְעוֹלָם.
(16) All love that depends on a something, [when the] thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [all love] that does not depend on anything, will never cease.
Pirkei Avot teaches that in “Thing Gratitude”, when love is contingent on something, when a person stands in the presence of things, love will dissolve as soon as the contingent thing disappears. However, when love is experienced as simply the presence of the relationship (as in “Relationship Gratitude”), not dependent on any thing, then come what may, that love will last.
In the same way, a relationship driven by Things Gratitude only endures as long as the Thing endures. In the spirit of Yin and Yang, this type of love is no less real than another in that particular moment in time. Love held by Relationship Gratitude, however, is stronger and will not waver as long as the other is present in relationship. (1)
In conclusion, I hope these ideas can be a framework for a gratitude infused life, where we are grateful not only for the things we are given, but also for the various relationships that enrich our lives in immeasurable ways.
(1) Thus, e.g. even when Abraham's petition to God yields a disappointing outcome - perhaps one that even felt rah, or evil, thereby compromising Abraham's Things Gratitude (he didn't get the “things” he asked for) - that unfortunate experience, that void, sadness, confusion, anger toward God, may still have helped him further develop a sense of Relationship Gratitude with the very God who disappointed him, because Abraham does show up and stand before God, and according to CAZAL, that is the moment of prayer.