Many of the categories of Jewish life which were born in the late 19th and early 20th centuries are shifting and changing, leaving us unsure of the manner in which Jews around the world continue to connect to the Jewish People. What are the nature of current commitments and the identification of Jews with the Jewish People? By what means and in which modes do Jews continue to connect to one another? This short article offers a three part framework for making sense of possible modes of Jewish belonging.
1. Traditionalism – “obvious Jewish belonging”
In the 19th and 20th centuries Jews transitioned from traditional to modern society, in the process shaking the conceptual and organizational foundations of Jewish life. Traditionalist concepts of Jewish belonging assumed the existence of “a Jewish People.” That there are Jews with a coherent set of beliefs and practices for determining who is and is not Jewish was as obvious as there are clouds in the sky and birds that fly. The regimes in which Jews lived enforced belonging and empowered traditional hierarchies to control the pace of change. The result was that one did not ask if a person is Jewish, but rather what level of piety and local customs he or she held to. Questions such as “what constitutes the Jewish People” and “how best to change tradition to meet the demands of the times,” were not topics for community wide discussion.
2. Modernism – “boundaries for distinguishing ‘us’ from ‘them’”
Since the advent of the modern state in the late 18th century, traditionalist understandings of who is a Jew have steadily weakened and all but disappeared. Modernity rests on the shoulders of individual citizens who are granted “the right” to decide, if, when and how to belong to an ethno-religious group, such as the Jews. The “obvious nature of Jewish belonging” upon which traditionalist Jewish life rests, disintegrates as each individual can now choose to opt out or in. Personal preference, rather than received tradition becomes the touchstone for determining the character of collective Jewish life. Individuals will seek out a Jewish life-style and community, which they feel appropriate to their needs. The result was a rapid generation of new and innovative forms for Jewish expression, such as the various forms of Socialist, Zionist, Liberal and Orthodox Judaisms which arose in the 19th and 20th centuries.
The paradox of modernity is that on one hand, the secular and religious Jewish movements seek the adherence of individuals. They are built to cater to the ideological preferences of their constituents. On the other hand all propose “collective solutions.” Each movement competes with the other for the loyalty of the Jews, arguing that their solution best guarantees the future of the Jewish People. The classic modernist ideologies offer sharp distinctions between Jew and non-Jew, and right and wrong Jewish ways. While the modern ideological movements offer conflicting definitions of who is a Jew, it is nevertheless obvious that there must be clear sets of criteria for determining, who is in and who is out. Jewish education is the effort to socialize adherents into a clear set of beliefs and practices that Jews should do when they are together and which distinguish them from non-Jews.
3. Late modernism – “meaningful Jewish belonging in a collective context”
We currently find ourselves in a situation of flux between modern and late modern society. The rise of global society and the weakening of the nation state, grants individuals even greater authority to fashion a personal connection to collective life than ever before. Increasingly individuals across the spectrum of Jewish life are disregarding or loosening their affiliation to the modernist ideological movements and national communal frameworks and are searching out more intimate forms of group life.
Late modern sensibility does not assume the existence of a coherent group of Jews with clear rules for determining insider/outsider; nor, does Jewish education focus on establishing boundaries between Jews and non-Jews and socializing someone into a clear set of values and practices. Rather, late modernity provides individuals with the means and motivation to search out the company of others Jews on their own terms. For educators, the assumption is that Jewish continuity depends on intensifying each individual’s personal Jewish journey within a collective context. If an individual sees value in building Jewish relationships, he or she is more likely to seek out Jewish family and community and less likely to marry out, for these are the basic conditions for fully exploring and developing a meaningful Jewish life.
The primary concern of the late modernist is not with constructing boundaries against intermarriage or assimilation, or declaring commitment to a particular ideology. Rather, than keep the dangers of modernity at bay, the late modernist seeks to offer positive content which will compel individuals to seek out the company of other Jews within the context of modern society. Modernity is background, a resource, rather than a danger for Jewish belonging. When Jews perceive Jewish life as a means for building a rich human life they will opt into the Jewish People. The end result are associations of individuals with one another in institutions that enable them to connect and interact with other Jews in the richest possible way; and, at the same time live life as full citizens integrated into the broader society.
Post-modernism – “disconnected individuals”
Many of the ideological clashes at all levels of Jewish life today, the world over, are occurring as Jewish leadership attempts to grapple with the pull of the classic and late modern solutions for enabling Jews to connect to the Jewish People. However, beyond the politics and debates of Jewish life, all are battling a common danger, namely the disconnected or free floating individual often identified as by the term “post-modernism.” The post-modern Jew is apathetic or even opposed to living in the context of an organized network or community of Jews. In contrast, modern and late-modern individuals embrace group life; each according to their own sensibility. One, other or a mix of the modern and late modern sensibility is vital for Jewish Peoplehood. Jewish life depends on the fashioning of strong and vibrant connections between Jews.
Towards a renewed understanding of the ways in which Jews fashion connections to the Jewish People
The role of research is to help us understand the extent to which Jews continue to connect to one another. If a survey question uses a scale of 1=”no connection” to 4=”strong connection,” anything from “2” above indicates continued connection. Once the Jewish connection is confirmed, we can then inquire into the nature of that connection.
For example, a major challenge for educators is to move Jews away from simplistic, one dimensional understandings of what Jewish belonging is about. For many Jews, Jewish life is reduced to “religion.” For the assimilating Jew – “If I am not religious, do not believe in God or do not identify with religious ritual then why should I be Jewish.” In contrast, for the fundamentalist it is all about a particular set of religious beliefs and practices - “If you don’t do it like me, then you aren’t an authentic Jew.” Both extremes rest on too heavy an emphasis on religion, which is but one medium (albeit very important) for connecting to the Jewish People. Whether in a modernist and/or late modernist modes, a connection to the Jewish People occurs when an individual expands their “Jewish consciousness” – “ahh, it is not just about being religious.” Is that happening? Where in the Jewish world are there Jews who are “getting beyond religion,” and expressing a multi-faceted connection to other Jews and the Jewish People? What do those connections look like? To what extent do modern and/or late modern approaches prevail?
