In response to my post on 9 Av, Will S. asked why non-religious Jews choose to remain Jewish by choice:
Is it just shared experience, and/or sense of high degree of persecution by outsiders, that inculcates the sense of “we’re a people” in secularist Jews, making them want to live amongst their own rather than assimilate completely into the cultures into which they may have been born, and circumcise their children even though not actually believing in the divine covenant thus symbolized? Or is it some residual level of religious belief, even though most would likely deny such?
This touches on the core question that has confronted the Jews since the dawn of the modern era and one that continues to matter in general society, over and over again, for no good reason, generation after generation. It’s called the Jewish Question and, though most people may be familiar with one group’s “Final Solution” to it, there actually have been many solutions proposed over the years, some of which have been implemented with certain successes and others of which never could have been.
Like most questions, the way it’s asked informs in some ways its answer (“The formulation of a question is its solution”). Will’s question – why be Jewish if you’re not practicing Judaism? – is a typical phrasing for liberals, because it is a cornerstone of liberalism that Jews and all other minorities are nationals of the state in which they reside, with the main thing differentiating them being “faith,” and all liberals are taught to believe that Judaism is the only thing different about Jews. Further, liberals believe that you can identify a person by his “faith,” but you can’t ever challenge his “faith” or question its legitimacy, because religions are somehow inviolate in ways that other ideologies are not.
So Will’s question reflects a liberal approach to the Jewish Question – I of course mean “liberalism” here, as I always do on this blog, in the traditional and true sense of the word, in the sense that North American conservatism is liberal – but it doesn’t ask the question exactly. The question really is: What is a Jew? And the answer a person gives to this question, phrased correctly, will always reveal what he thinks ought to be done with the Jews or about them, or what they should do with or about themselves.
Before liberalism, Jewishness was understood by everyone to be more than a religion. Jews were a corporate entity in medieval society that had their own religious beliefs and prayed to a different god, in a different manner and on different days; were governed by their own laws; spoke a somewhat distinct language; intramarried and were largely genetically distinct; ate different foods; dressed differently; performed different labor; etc, etc. And in many ways, these differences were a function of how Jews were viewed by outsiders (eg, moneylending became a disproportionately Jewish profession in Europe partly with Christian encouragement). The best comparison to a group in modern times would be to native North American Indian tribes, who are recognized as “nations,” that are distinct linguistically, ethnically, religiously, legally, etc.
Two centuries ago, this started to change, as Jews who had the opportunity to be emancipated essentially made a bargain with Christian society that they would allow themselves to be classified as different in some of the above ways but not in others. This was the dawn of the wide acceptance of the liberal approach to Jewishness. Most Jews and most Christians accepted the bargain, but some on each side didn’t. All three of what westerners consider to be the main branches of Judaism came after this change and are products of it: Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews all follow the maxim: “be a man on the street and a Jew in your tent.”
In the above framework, both Christians and Jews are supposed to treat Jewishness as equal to Judaism and to treat Judaism exclusively as a religious confession. It follows that a liberal defines a Jew as “a person who follows Judaism,” with more religious Jews being Orthodox and less religious Jews being Conservative, and the somewhat irreligious Jews being Reform. This has worked for a lot of people because the Jews and Christians both got a lot in exchange for giving up what they did. The Jews got emancipation (in Europe) and also legitimacy (in north America) and Christians got one of their most intractable minority problems solved.
Unfortunately, the breakdown in this arrangement was encoded in it from the beginning, and its demise was that it denied something that everyone knew was true: Jews are different in some other way besides religion. Even after the new phenomenon of “Germans/Frenchmen/Americans of the Jewish faith” became dominant, there were Jews who just didn’t feel like not eating their own foods and speaking their own language and, most importantly, most Jews always professed a preference to marry other Jews and thereby to keep themselves distinct, which flies in the face of the liberal compact (a man should be judged by what kind of person he is, not by his religion, which can never be criticized).
Besides being an understandable, if not legitimate, reaction to Jewish emancipation and the Jewish attempt to eat their cake (emancipation and legitimacy) and have it (separateness and familiarity) anti-semitism also puts forward an answer to the What is a Jew? question that’s the opposite of the liberal answer. Where liberals say that a Jew is like everyone except that his religion is Judaism in the way that someone else’s religion might be Methodism or Catholicism, anti-semites observe that religion is irrelevant and that Jews are essentially (ie, genetically) different. And just like all answers to the Jewish question were both descriptive and proscriptive, so was the anti-semitic answer.
If emancipation led directly to anti-semitism, in a straight line they both led directly to Zionism, which tries to answer that same question in yet a different way: Jews are a nation like any other. In many ways the early Zionists were allies to the anti-semites of their day and learned a lot from them. The Zionist answer had its own program, and so did all of the other answers that I won’t bother discussing; the point is just that Will is asking that question whether he realizes it or not, and that there isn’t anything wrong with the question, but that we should be aware that when we ask it, we’re sometimes asking something way more complex than we know.
You might like these related posts:
- JFS and Racial Discrimination As a university student in America, I once read an...
- Libertarians and Jews I was thinking about Half Sigma’s question Why are all...
- 9 Av Today is a calamitous day in Jewish history, when we...
- Birobidzhan: The Worst Idea Ever How do you know you’ve got the worst idea ever?...
- Ancestor worship is idolatry While reading the recent article in Slate about gravers, I...
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for the interesting and thought-provoking response, Genius.
Hmmm. For my part, I don’t self-identify with either classical liberalism or its modern, “group-rights” liberalism descendent; nor to I identify with anti-Semitism in a genetic, racial sense (though I will freely admit to not liking, collectively, North American non-religious Jews who are Zionists and try to bully everyone into supporting their and Israel’s foreign policies by accusing their opponents as anti-Semites, nor do I care for the types of North American professional agitators like Abraham Foxman who see it as their duty to speak out against Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” rather than merely ignore it). As a religious Christian, I have some sympathy for (though I have little sympathy for Zionism with) Conservative Jews, and even more for anti-Zionist Orthodox Israelis; I have less for non-religious and esp. Reform Jews (as I have little for mainline “Christians”). I identify with conservatism, particularly, as a Canadian, in its British, collectivist, old Tory sense, rather than any sort of Yankee neo-con sense (which really is merely a “whoa, slow down a bit!” version of classical liberalism, since they seek to conserve America’s liberal political heritage, whether or not they realize that consciously). And I like how Benjamin Disraeli decided to be English rather than Jewish, since he clearly didn’t believe the religious beliefs of his people, so why not convert to Anglicanism, officially, and be done with it? (Though I’d prefer if he or his ancestors had chosen a more English last name, instead; I’ve always liked how it was necessary, back in the day, in America, for actors from other cultures to Americanize their names, in order to gain widespread acceptance, and I’m sorry that has changed.
I have to say, I don’t at all get where you say that liberalism holds that “a man should be judged by what kind of person he is, not by his religion, which can never be criticized.”; after all, modern liberals go after Christianity all the time for what they regard as its retrograde views on various social issues. They don’t do that about Judaism, for fear of being accused anti-Semitic; they also don’t do that about Islam, for fear of violence erupting as a result. But Christians are fair game, precisely because they won’t play a “race card” like the all-too-often-cheapened “anti-Semitism” charge, nor threaten violence.
For my part, I don’t self-identify with either classical liberalism or its modern, “group-rights” liberalism descendent;
Almost all north Americans are liberals in some sense, whether or not they believe in liberalism. Both conservatism and progressivism in the USA and Canada are descended from liberalism, even if the progressivism that calls itself “liberal” has rejected most of it, and even if conservatism consistently defeats “liberalism” in the sphere of public debate. When I moved in conservative circles in America, I was shocked at how few American conservatives (both “New Right” and paleo-) were aware that Edmund Burke was a Whig.
nor to I identify with anti-Semitism in a genetic, racial sense (though I will freely admit to not liking, collectively, North American non-religious Jews who are Zionists
I don’t like them very much, either. I think my parents have gotten much better over the years, but I find most Jews in America to be insufferable. By no account would I call them “Zionists,” though. Approve of it or not, Zionism has to mean something more than just liking Israel. I prefer to call these people “pro-Israel,” which label I definitely don’t apply to myself.
and try to bully everyone into supporting their and Israel’s foreign policies by accusing their opponents as anti-Semites,
It’s a shame that “anti-semitism” got so tarnished by its most extreme expression that people can’t have a discussion calmly about what it is and to whom it describes. I don’t think people should be ashamed to be anti-semites if that’s what they are, and by extension I don’t think it should have any potency as an accusation – someone accused of being an anti-semite should be able to react the same way as someone accused of being a soccer fan.
nor do I care for the types of North American professional agitators like Abraham Foxman who see it as their duty to speak out against Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” rather than merely ignore it).
I didn’t see that movie – I read the book, though – but there are so many movies that I didn’t see because I didn’t think I’d like them, and I never gave a second thought to them because, why would I spend my time thinking about a movie I chose not to see? Foxman might be the worst of the Jewish Al Sharpton wannabes. If Tom Wolfe hasn’t written him into a novel yet, it might be time for him to get on that.
As a religious Christian, I have some sympathy for (though I have little sympathy for Zionism with) Conservative Jews, and even more for anti-Zionist Orthodox Israelis; I have less for non-religious and esp. Reform Jews (as I have little for mainline “Christians”).
I think if you knew more about the anti-Zionist Orthodox Israelis, you’d like them a lot less. They may come off as having a basically conservative lifestyle and therefore having something in common with you, but I’m guessing you don’t take welfare from the government while having ten children and refusing to work or learn a profession or be conscripted into the military, but instead sending your wife out to supplement the subsidies you get from the state.
I identify with conservatism, particularly, as a Canadian, in its British, collectivist, old Tory sense, rather than any sort of Yankee neo-con sense (which really is merely a “whoa, slow down a bit!” version of classical liberalism, since they seek to conserve America’s liberal political heritage, whether or not they realize that consciously).
I find all forms of conservatism to be milder progressivism. That’s why I call myself a reactionary now.
And I like how Benjamin Disraeli decided to be English rather than Jewish, since he clearly didn’t believe the religious beliefs of his people, so why not convert to Anglicanism, officially, and be done with it? (Though I’d prefer if he or his ancestors had chosen a more English last name, instead; I’ve always liked how it was necessary, back in the day, in America, for actors from other cultures to Americanize their names, in order to gain widespread acceptance, and I’m sorry that has changed.
Disraeli is an interesting case because he was baptized as a youth – so it’s not something he chose for himself as an adult – and was a believing Christian, but is said to have considered himself ethnically Jewish. I guess it would have been politically damaging even in those days to act ashamed of his origins, which could explain why he kept the name. I am a fan of changing names, though. I changed most of my name when I moved to Israel and I’ve encouraged other people to do it. In the old days, officers in the Israeli military above a certain rank were expected to take a Hebrew name, as well as anyone who wanted to advance past a certain point in the foreign ministry. Menachem Begin in 1977 was the first prime minister not to have changed his name, after Ben Gurion (Gruen), Sharret (Shertok), Eshkol (Shkolnik), Meir (Meyerson), Rabin (Rubitzov) and Peres (Persky).
I have to say, I don’t at all get where you say that liberalism holds that “a man should be judged by what kind of person he is, not by his religion, which can never be criticized.”; after all, modern liberals go after Christianity all the time for what they regard as its retrograde views on various social issues. They don’t do that about Judaism, for fear of being accused anti-Semitic; they also don’t do that about Islam, for fear of violence erupting as a result. But Christians are fair game, precisely because they won’t play a “race card” like the all-too-often-cheapened “anti-Semitism” charge, nor threaten violence.
The people to whom you’re referring are only liberals in the distant sense. They’re radicals and progressives of different kinds.
“Rabin (Rubitzov)”
I never got this. “Rabin” isn’t a Hebrew word – or is it?
My mistake re: Disraeli; I had mistakenly thought he had chosen to join the C of E, rather than being baptised in it.
I hadn’t been aware that those Israelis had changed their names; I think that’s great! If one is choosing to identify with one’s new nation, over one’s old one, why not change it? Interestingly, I know an Israeli-Canadian, originally born in Russia and possessing a very Russian name (and speaking Russian as a first language), who absolutely hates Russia and Russians, and identifies himself as Israeli; I don’t know why he never changed his name; I would have. (And yet for some reason he moved here, which I don’t get, because he hates it. Must be running from something.)
“The people to whom you’re referring are only liberals in the distant sense. They’re radicals and progressives of different kinds.”
Agreed, but progressivism / radicalism, “group rights” identity politics can be seen as the natural outworking of the principles of classical liberalism; with the modern focus on ‘group rights’ as simply the evolution, over time, of the ‘individual rights’ principle of classical liberalism. I believe the one naturally evolved into the other, as a way of resolving the difficulties arising from different competing ‘rights’.
Consider the issue of abortion: to a pro-lifer, the fetus is a human being just as much as someone who has been born; thus, abortion is seen by a pro-lifer to be equivalent to murder. Whereas, to a pro-choicer, the fetus is not considered to be as much human as someone who has been born, and thus, not only not deserving of the same rights and protections as someone who has been born, but instead, the rights and freedoms of the expectant mother are held to be superior to that of the unborn child developing inside her. So, which rights and freedoms one considers to be most important are a function of the view one takes of the humanity of the fetus. And so the gap between the two sides is almost, if not completely, unbridgeable, due to the two very different starting points of the two different groups of people in question (in terms of the different perspectives). Both might frame their arguments in terms of individual rights, but their different starting points lead them to view who possesses what rights very differently. The same was true in the debate over slavery; who constituted a person, who had property rights, who had rights to his/her own labour, etc. Liberalism on its own can’t answer these questions, outside of an independent moral framework whereby to evaluate the question of whose rights are to take precedence over another’s. This is the fundamental deficiency and weakness of classical liberalism; modern liberalism has in a sense answered this, by re-establishing a framework, in holding the rights of certain groups to be more important than others, usually in pitting groups considered to be historically disadvantaged against those considered to be historically privileged, and favouring the former over the latter. One may disagree, of course, with the approach of modern liberalism – I certainly do – but to their credit, they have partially resolved a paradox of liberalism, along the lines of their progressive ideology.
And that is why one can say modern liberalism evolved out of classical liberalism; it resolved certain structural weaknesses and unanswered – and unanswerable – questions left over from classical liberalism, by asserting group rights as a counterbalance to unimpeded individual rights, by giving a response to the question of whose ‘rights’ were to prevail, when one set of ‘rights’ bumped up against another.
Of course, the difficulty remains, that such standards are fluid, and will change over time; they aren’t fixed. So that’s modern liberalism’s weakness; it can’t dictate with absolute authority, based as it is on people’s ‘feelings’ about what’s right and wrong, etc.
I’m not the only one who has thought along these lines; James Kalb has put forth a persuasive argument in his book “The Tyranny of Liberalism”; I highly recommend it.
Oh, and of course, the other structural weakness of modern liberalism / progressivism / radical leftism, in addition to its unfixedness, is that it doesn’t resolve the problem of what to do when different “group rights” come into conflict, which ones are to take precedence, etc. Thus, it may solve one problem, but creates another, which it can’t resolve, again, because it lacks an absolute moral framework by which to judge between competing rights claims.
{ 1 trackback }