Navigating Crisis in Community: Q&A with Rachel Florman
Rachel Florman, MTS ’25, came into Harvard Divinity School with the intention of studying faith-based organizing in the context of reproductive justice, investigating how people use the same scriptures in pro- and anti-abortion contexts and “end up on opposite sides of the political spectrum.” Florman was particularly interested in how identity formation, in relation to religious peoplehood, affected reproductive control. She saw the RPL program presenting an opportunity to integrate religious studies with “advocacy-based and interactive aspects of work.” Believing that RPL could bridge the divide between the Divinity School with the non-academic world, was key to her ambitions as an activist, scholar, and community-builder.
As the events of October 7th erupted, however, Florman felt her first semester at HDS take a sharp turn. Thrust into intense conversations about Israel/Palestine, and the role of American Jewish community in this crisis, Florman reflected on how RPL helped her maneuver in this moment.
Shir Lovett-Graff: What role has RPL held for you in navigating this moment of tension and crisis?
Rachel Florman: I think that RPL has done a wonderful job of creating a space for students like me who did not arrive at this moment of crisis—neither at Harvard nor in the broader world—with clear opinions and expectations. A lot of my Jewish friends and I, specifically, are arriving at this moment in the middle of our journey of understanding how we fit into our communities, both in the wider world and at Harvard, especially as first-year students. RPL has provided me with a place to pause and not know all the answers; to think about, talk about, and explore the ways in which we fit into our communities.
For me, that means: how do I fit into the American Jewish community? How do I fit into American Jewish activism? How do I fit into religious services? RPL, as a physical space, through the events they've held, and the dialogues they have fostered, has genuinely allowed me to work through some of those questions.
SLG: RPL offers a space to break binaries, especially in the context of religious literacy. How do you understand RPL's role at this moment of religious and political crisis?
RF: RPL provides space to interrogate why something may be seen as good or bad, what the word “good” even means in the context of religious literacy, and where these biased perspectives may be coming from.
SLG: How do you understand "just peace"? What does that mean to you?
RF: To say we want peace is the most important thing. I feel that strongly, especially as someone who studies something that often turns to violence—whether it’s violence that's religiously motivated, politically motivated, or intimate, especially when thinking about reproductive justice and violence.
I often think about care. A lot of people at Divinity School think about love, especially from a Christian perspective. But being forced to reframe that—call it love or care—just peace gives me the opportunity to think about care in a structural format. I now understand how peace, and care, and love—whatever you want to call it—can be built into the systems of society.
SLG: Do you see RPL as a container for building community? If so, what has that community looked or felt like?
RF: There aren't a ton of spaces at Harvard Divinity School that cut across the MTS/MDiv boundary. RPL is one place where people who want to be professors, people who want to be policymakers, people who want to be spiritual leaders, and people who want to be caregivers are all brought together in pursuit of understanding our work outside the siloed context of Harvard.
I made some of my closest connections through RPL. There are people who I feel comfortable talking about global grief with—people who I know don't necessarily share my exact opinion, but who share my approach.
SLG: One of the key concepts in the “Religious Literacy in the Professions” course is around Galtung’s “Triangle of Violence.” He explains violence in terms of its three dimensions—direct violence, structural violence, and cultural violence. How do you see RPL's work as related to this triangle of violence?
RF: The tools and language of Galtung's concept of the “Triangle of Violence” aren’t new. But the framing—and again, the intentionality with which we're talking about the ways that people in society are harmed—that was new for me. Thinking about just peace is really a response to that triangle.
Just peace addresses what we might think of as the act of violence that lands someone in a position of incarceration. It addresses the reason for committing that violence. It does not excuse one type of violence, but helps us understand how violence begets violence at a structural level, at an intimate level.
Then, we need to understand how we talk about it because the language we use contributes to the structures we build. In that way, cultural violence is especially relevant to learn about at Harvard, when you're in a place with so many people who will become decision-makers, will go on to lead impactful work, and will be in positions of power. Understanding that there is more than just one mode of violence in this world that we have to address if we want to create peace is really important and fundamental to the work we're doing.
Rachel Florman is a first-year MTS student interested in Jewish community organizing and reproductive justice.
by Shir Lovett-Graff, MTS '24