Elie Kaunfer, "Toward a Pluralism of Substance"

3 views

Skip to first unread message

David Shasha

unread,

May 23, 2013, 8:09:49 AM5/23/13

to david...@googlegroups.com

Toward a Pluralism of Substance

By: Elie Kaunfer

“Pluralism” and “Peoplehood” are two of the biggest buzzwords in the sterile and conformist Jewish institutional world.

As is the case in Zionism, such terms are defined according to Ashkenazi ethnic identity and thus create the illusion that there is indeed a multiplicity of opinions in the Jewish community. And it is true that if you are an Ashkenazi Jew there are many different viewpoints that jockey to be heard.

The problem is that this “democracy” is limited to Ashkenazi Jews. Sephardic Jews, unless they “Ashkenazify,” are locked out of the conversation. One look at Rabbi Kaunfer’s article and we will quickly see that the only people permitted to speak are Ashkenazi. One the most prominent names mentioned here is the academic historian Jonathan Sarna who has helped to transform the study of American Jewish history from a linear model where Sephardic Jews received their proper due, to a conceptual model that has incrementally erased the Sephardic foundations of American Jewish life.

It will be argued that contemporary Jews do not know much about Jewish culture and history – Ashkenazi, Sephardi, or otherwise. Given the dominance of Israel and the Holocaust in American Jewish concerns it is impossible to make such an assertion. When a particular group dominates Judaism as the Ashkenazim now do, it is not necessary for them to point to their own identity as decisive. That identity is simply taken for granted. Their history and culture is implicit in the discourse. “Jewish” food is Gefilte Fish and Chopped Liver; “Jewish” music is Klezmer; “Jewish” literature is Bellow, Roth, and Oz.

The problem is that there is absolutely no sense that anything is amiss with this formulation.

Jewish problems are understood in light of an age-old Ashkenazi sectarianism. The integrated synthesis of Sephardic Religious Humanism is not even presented as a possible option to these problems. The idea is to bring the various Ashkenazi factions together and just have them get along even when this is highly unlikely.

For those of us inside the Jewish community it is clear that such an option – as has been the case with similar attempts by do-gooder groups to bring Israeli and Palestinian children together – has been an abject failure. In point of fact Kaunfer intuitively understands this when he cites Sarna’s admission that the Orthodox have achieved a remarkable success through controlling key educational institutions.

As is also the case in Israel, what we are seeing is an increasing domination of the Jewish community by the Orthodox and an alienation of those who will not sign on with it. Hence there is a pressing need for institutional professionals like Kaunfer to pay lip service to the idea of pluralism and entente within the Jewish community. The big money philanthropists like to hear the conciliatory message even as the Orthodox encroachment increases. Mouthing the correct platitudes is crucial to achieving success and financial security in a Jewish institutional world that is high on pretense and vanity and low on substance and integrity. Being “positive” is the order of the day even when reality tells us that things are falling apart for the Jews.

The clash between a largely secular-atheist institutional leadership and the fundamentalist Orthodox is one that exists all over the world and the institutions need to feel that they are addressing the matter at the same time that the Jewish community is breaking up. Most Jews in America are opting out while in Israel the ongoing battle between religious and secular is ratcheting up to the boiling point.

To repeat, the Sephardic tradition – harshly suppressed by Ashkenazi-controlled institutions – offers a number of important correctives to the problems Jews face today, but all we get is the same stale rhetoric with its empty promises of unity. In point of fact – as Sephardim know all too well – our own religious institutions are also dominated by Ashkenazim who have brought their dysfunction into our communities.

Until Ashkenazim are able to identify not only their racist elitism but their serious socio-religious dysfunction, we are all fated to see extremism and alienation inexorably advance in the Jewish community in spite of all the vain protestations to the contrary.

Does pluralism help or hurt the goal of fostering feelings of peoplehood? It depends on what we mean by “pluralism.”

Pluralism is a difficult concept to define. In the March 2006 edition of Sh’ma, Susan Shevitz helpfully distinguishes between “coexistence pluralism” and “generative pluralism.” In the former, “people and groups holding different positions can still work toward shared goals.” In the latter, “Jews need to encounter people and ideas that are different from their own … and generate new approaches that draw from a multiplicity of perspectives.”

On the one hand, it seems one must maximize pluralism to increase feelings of peoplehood. After all, if I do not feel welcome, or tolerated, by my Jewish brother, than how am I supposed to feel a deep bond with him? Jews are a diverse bunch, so if, in Shevitz’s language, we are to coexist, and work toward the shared goal of a vibrant Jewish people, we must allow for people to “hold different positions.” Certainly if we are to rise to the level of “generative pluralism,” we must not just tolerate, but seek out, a “multiplicity of perspectives.” The more perspectives that are represented, the more Jews feel included in the project of Jewish peoplehood.

But on the other hand, there is a cost to pluralism in the quest for strengthened peoplehood. Jack Wertheimer pointed to one danger in his 2006 essay, “All Quiet on the Religious Front?” He writes: “American Jews … have concluded with great self-satisfaction that the magic bullet is ‘pluralism,’ a fine ideal that simply avoids confronting differences by celebrating them. American Jews who disagree can ignore one another when the issues are too uncomfortable, and agree to meet only when the issues are uncontroversial and therefore safe.” (p. 24).

Can I really feel connected to other Jews if I know, deep down, that we aren’t surfacing the core issues that divide us? Strong feelings often lead to strong bonds. If peoplehood is modeled on the image of a family, which family is ultimately stronger: the one that brings conflict out in the open, or the one that keeps interactions limited to the surface level? Granted the former is riskier, but, when managed well, engenders real relationships.

I would like to raise one other concern with pluralism, namely: the assumption that all “different positions” are on a level playing field. Indeed, this assumption, when in fact true, is very powerful. Having participated in a number of explicitly pluralistic Jewish environments (Dorot, Wexner, Harvard Hillel), I have experienced robust conversations around core aspects of Jewish identity and values. In the best of circumstances, these connections have truly been generative, in Shevitz’s categorization, and made me re-examine my own positions on numerous fronts. I have felt closer to the Jewish people because of its diversity.

However, what was distinctive about these environments was that the Jews involved had a deep grounding in Jewish identity and education. They had arrived at different conclusions, but were able to hold a sophisticated conversation.

But too often today, the push for pluralism, often in the service of Jewish peoplehood, is one that makes no demands on the participants’ education and sophistication regarding the basic questions at stake in pluralistic conversations. The result is that pluralism has often come to be synonymous with blind affirmation of one’s Jewish identity, regardless of its content or depth. Instead of encouraging a path toward deepening identity, pluralism celebrates the status quo.

Ironically, this attempt at being welcoming, in the name of a pluralism of acceptance, weakens feelings of peoplehood. Ultimately the bond between someone who can express a deeply grounded Jewish identity and someone who cannot is weak. People who have no common ground, beyond a vague attachment to the identity “Jewish,” are not able to have a meaningful, critical engagement with each other. It should be noted that unlike the criticism that Wertheimer offered of pluralism, which focused exclusively on American Jews, this criticism extends to the many Israelis who also have trouble articulating their Jewish identity beyond a sense of nationalism and connection to calendar or Hebrew. When it comes to articulating the deeper reasons for being Jewish, most Jews – Israelis and Americans – are often at a loss. And that inability is a long-term challenge to fostering deep feelings of peoplehood.

In our collective work to engender feelings of peoplehood, I would advocate for a more focused approach to pluralism: a pluralism of substance. In this model, the key to peoplehood isn’t pluralism per se, it is education. Only through education will Jews develop a deeper attachment to their Judaism. Critically, education doesn’t lead to cookie-cutter people with identical Jewish values. It may in fact lead to deep differences among Jews. However, when those Jews encounter each other in pluralistic settings, they will be able to debate the core issues, as opposed to finding commonality in surface issues.

Prof. Jonathan Sarna once remarked: “Orthodoxy bet the house on education – and won.” Imagine a world where not just the Orthodox, but the entire Jewish people, bet the house on education. In that world, the substantial differences between Jews would be no less, but the depth of their positions would be so much greater. And the encounters between them could lead to significant “generative” results.

A peoplehood that is based on thin and broad points of unity is one that is doomed to fail. But a peoplehood that is based on the encounter between deeply educated Jews – representing a wide range of positions – is exciting. It is that challenge – a challenge of mobilizing around deep education – that is ours to take on.

Rabbi Elie Kaunfer is executive director of Mechon Hadar, and author ofEmpowered Judaism: What Independent Minyanim Can Teach Us about Building Vibrant Jewish Communities (Jewish Lights).