For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.
Hal Lewis, in the Forward, evaluates some recent outreach efforts to the 20s-30s cohort:
Three purported solutions to the problem of affiliation have gained particular popularity of late. First, refashion religious institutions to provide multiple entry points for those whose affinities do not extend to matters purely liturgical. Second, emphasize the universal in Judaism while downplaying the tribal. And finally, invest heavily in Jewish cultural programming at neutral — that is, non-Jewish — venues.
…
These approaches to engaging young Jews call to mind the H.L. Mencken quip, “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.” The idea that by adopting any one or all of these stratagems, young unengaged Jews will be enticed to join Jewish organizations or otherwise formally affiliate with the community is naive and offensive, and ignores both current realities and historic patterns.
Lewis does a pretty good job of explaining why the current approaches are narrow-sighted. He doesn’t really offer any easy answers, because, according to him, there aren’t any.
Jewish groups wishing to engage young Jews must begin by understanding that painting all 20- and 30-year-olds with the same brush is hardly effective. There are important differences between committed young Jews who have serious issues with the state of institutional Jewish life and those of their peers who are so thoroughly dissociated from all things Jewish that they couldn’t care less.
To confuse dissatisfaction with disinterest, or to conflate a desire for creativity and experimentation with a preference for “Jewish-lite,” is to miss this point. Outreach efforts that fail to embrace these distinctions will fall short of desired expectation.
Further, no outreach strategy will succeed if it ignores the perspicacity that has become this generation’s signature. Twenty-first-century Jews are far more sophisticated and nuanced than is suggested by those who think engagement can be secured by programmatic modifications alone. Thoughtful young Jews are quite capable of distinguishing between Jewish groups that proudly perform acts of kindness and righteousness as a sacred Jewish imperative, and those desperate to cultivate new markets that capitalize on the zeitgeist by universalizing classical Jewish precepts.
Conceptualizing Jewish culture as a means to an end not only misjudges the audience, it also does a gross disservice to the artists and performers. The depiction of Jewish music, art, literature, dance or film as more acceptable to an unengaged population because such expressions pose few demands and lack rigor offends boundlessly.
Sounds about right to me (you should read the rest of the article) – although I’m thrilled with all the culture funding – being that I’m of the “committed young Jews who have serious issues with the state of institutional Jewish life” group. Do we think the institutional world is ever going to get a handle of the post-college/pre-children stage of life? Do we care?
Full story.
On the contrary, the evidence suggests that they are, in fact, people with moderate-to-high levels of Jewish engagement — Jews from backgrounds of personal observance, day-school training, Jewish camping, synagogue youth groups, Jewish campus activity or an Israel experience.
It should be noted that even those of us with “moderate-to-high levels of Jewish engagement” are hanging on by the skin of our teeth. The signs of “engagement” that he mentions are all in the past, but to the extent that we have any “Jewish engagement” during this life stage, we’ve mostly created it ourselves, and it hasn’t been through affiliation with established Jewish institutions. Therefore, I think that if the institutions decide that they want to reach out to us, then they’re not just preaching to the choir; we are indeed a valid target for outreach.
However, I agree with the author’s main premise — the institutions are going about this outreach entirely the wrong way, and chief among their errors are “painting all 20- and 30-year-olds with the same brush” and thinking that our alienation from the institutions will be solved by programming alone.
The professor hints at an important factor in Jewish outreach that has been missed by the liberal movements, a reason for Orthodxy’s success in outreach that has been overlooked: “theological exploration.” Why are liberal Jewish leaders so afraid to approach the “G” word (that’s God, by the way)? What liberal movements don’t address is exactly what many modern people (of all ages) are looking for: a connection to God. Dynamic spiritual seekers who could be contributing to liberal Jewish communities are becoming Orthodox, converting to other faiths, or calling themselves “spiritual but not religious” because the liberal Jewish world rarely addresses their deep spiritual yearnings. When The New York Times prints an article about the sharp rise in spiritual pursuits among college students (“Matters of Faith Find a New Prominence on Campus,” May 2), the leaders of the liberal Jewish world need to think again before they resort to marketing strategies. Encouraging observance works when people feel that their actions connect them to something larger than themselves. Jews can go anywhere for yoga and tai chi; what they need is a community that will nourish their souls.
“The depiction of Jewish music, art, literature, dance or film as more acceptable to an unengaged population because such expressions pose few demands and lack rigor offends boundlessly.”
Who is depicting Jewish culture as such? Hal Lewis himself. This depiction is essential to the straw man argument that drives his entire “analysis.”