And you keep half
And now for something nice, instead. A colleague and friend reminisces about Oliver Sacks.
A year ago, I lost my best friend, Oliver Sacks. For many years, each week, Oliver and I would cruise north on the West Side bike path at sunrise. Alone, our bicycles a few inches apart, we spoke about everything and anything, but mostly about interesting patients, natural history, and food. His voice was soft, and I struggled to hear his words. But his volume and pedalling cadence always accelerated when the massive TRUMP PLACE buildings appeared to our right. He detested the giant protuberances that unpleasantly punctuated the view from our bike seats, and often cursed them.
Sensible.
Instead, he looked forward to passing by the Seventy-ninth Street Boat Basin, which reminded him of his City Island days. There, he had a housekeeper who, once a week, would make a beef stew for him and divide it into seven daily portions. One day, when the portions began to decline in size, Oliver asked, “Did the price of beef go up? I will give you more.” His housekeeper sheepishly admitted to pilfering some stew; she could not afford it for herself. “Then I will give you money for eight pounds instead of four, and you keep half.”
That makes up for a lot of what I’ve been reading today.
He would have been crushed by the rise of Donald Trump and the electoral success of Brexit. Intolerance and fear-mongering, he knew, are rudders that steer societies in dangerous directions. Oliver knew life from the other side: a gay man in a straight society; a doctor who cared for people, not patients; a finder of strength among the infirm. His moral compass pointed to tolerance and kindness. Nearly a decade ago, departing the Havana airport after a swim trip, he was asked if he might donate some clothing for those in need. He told me that he handed over his entire suitcase, and left with his satchel of books, a journal, a magnifying glass, and a few odds and ends, because someone probably needed the rest of his things more than he did.
As he did in Havana, Oliver left us everything he had to give, a treasure of lessons. Care and have empathy for those who are different or less fortunate. Have fun and love often. Find wonder and beauty. Know gratitude.
Yes; all those things.
That’s a good story.
The world could use more like him. I love the story about the housekeeper. So many of us could do something similar (even if we don’t have housekeepers), and we don’t. Maybe we can be inspired by him.
Instead of providing charity or a ‘tip’, Sacks could have given his housekeeper a raise, and treated her as an equal.
What a patronising gesture.
@ ^
You heard it here first folks. “Here’s a bit more money” is equality. “You have half” is inequality.
@4
Ssssshhhh! Adults are talking. Back to your cave in the mountain above the fjord.
@3 – 5
A clear illustration of never let a good deed go unpunished. He not only increased her discretionary income by purchasing beef for her,thereby freeing up some of her food budget for other things, but he did it in a way that insulated her from vagaries in the price of beef! If, due to a winter storm, the price of beef increased by 50%, she still gets 4 lbs of beef rather than 2 2/3 lbs. He recognized that she is another equal person who has access to unequal resources. I grew up in a family worrying about whether we could buy enough food to last until the next paycheck. If someone had done what Mr. Sacks did, we would not have felt it patronizing, but simply said thanks and moved on secure in the knowledge that we were going to eat better all week even if the price of food went up.
RJW, no I don’t think it is patronizing, I think it’s good sense. She had to prepare this delicious stew every week but it was too luxurious for her to squander money on. I think he dealt with that particular issue in a very effective way. Sharing in the household food is often one of the perks of that kind of job.
And, I find it somewhat inspiring that the housekeeper felt so secure admitting to necessary pilfering when asked. The man must have exuded confidence to share, as well as the food. If the stewed metaphor is permitted?
Yeah, if she’s been pilfering some of the beef, then she _needs_ this beef, and that much more money would likely be going to, pretty much, that much more beef. For that matter, she’s been taking, guiltily, a bit of it. He’s offered her – without apparent condescension – a full half, for which the “worst” she’s invited to feel is gratitude. Furthermore, she’s still being paid to make it, and the time and effort spent to make twice as much will be less than twice the time and effort to make it just for him.
It’s a good thing. Of course, a raise would be a fine thing too, but – if we’re not talking about some much larger raise than the difference in the beef cost – just sharing the cooked meals this way is likely to feel a lot more like treatment as a friendly approximate peer rather than as a mere detached food service contractor.
I’m sure there may be more efficient ways to convert the resources he did there and with the Haitian clothes donation into benefits when you narrow it all down to a dollar value, and I’m not looking to downplay the value of such relentlessly efficient charitable activities. But there’s also something to be said about empathetic human touches and the anecdotes do convey those.
Yes to all that. I really like the story, myself – probably partly because I’m a greedy pig and I can easily imagine myself pining for some the stew I just made. But also because I remember once as a child feeling sad about a cook who worked for my rich aunt and uncle, who’d made a big elaborate cake for some occasion of theirs. I said something about it to my aunt – “I wish Pearl could have some” or similar – and she laughed at me. I think it was very excellent of Oliver Sacks to grasp that at once and go halvsies.
Exactly. It’s a very human thing– she’s been making this beef stew, and it looks and smells so good she wants some, too. So she takes one or two servings, telling herself he won’t notice the difference. But he does! He thinks maybe she’s trying to make it on the same budget but prices have gone up. She confesses, as it’s probably been worrying her and now her rationalization has fallen apart on her– but instead of being angry, he understands. Her work went into it, so it is her stew as much as his; so make twice as much, and we can both eat well. It’s compassionate and cares for her feelings as well as her needs.
I reread the story to confirm the housekeeper pilfered the stew (not the beef*).
For RJW #3, sentiments aside, you can see this as a utilitarian win. The stew was ingredients plus her labor and her time spent away from her other interests. If Sacks would pay her more money directly to offset the higher price of beef, then someone — I assume she — would still need to spend labor and time out of their life to cook food for her. So when Sacks paid more for their beef together, she got 1) More food for the same labor and time, 2) More time for her friends, family, or whatever she wanted in her life.
*no pork, just beef
@12 Dave Ricks,
Yes, of course. If Sacks have given his housekeeper a raise she might have spent it on non-essential items. So instead, because of his wise guidance she was (1) protected from descending into a life of crime and (2) provided with a nutritious meal.
RJW why are you being so pissy about this?! Keep in mind that you don’t know how much Sack was paying his housekeeper – for all you know it was an exceptionally generous wage. She had a yen for the luxury food item she made him every week, so he shared it with her – and that was a nice thing to do.
Ophelia,
I don’t think that ‘pissy’ is an accurate assessment of my attitude. I interpreted Dave Ricks’ comment as being satirical, so I replied in a similar style.
I’d agree that we don’t know at what rate what Sacks paid his housekeeper, that information could be important to resolving the discussion.
Oh – ok, never mind. I misread you.
(I actually agree that often employers giving people stuff instead of money can be wrong in all sorts of ways. But the converse is also true.)