The Next Big Jewish Idea: Jew It Yourself
Value Before Branding
There wasn’t precisely an uproar in the blogosphere, but a couple of notable Jewish bloggers have taken a hatchet to Gary Rosenblatt’s piece in last week’s Jewish Week, “In Search Of The Next Big Jewish Idea.” In it, Rosenblatt reports on the theories some Jewish community leaders advanced at a recent Coalition for the Advancement of Jewish Education (CAJE) symposium held in honor of outgoing director Eliot Spack.
Daniel Septimus of MyJewishLearning.com and Rabbi Eliyahu Stern of Beliefnet’s Virtual Talmud shared similar gripes, both, for example, regarding Rabbi Elliot Dorf’s recommendation of promoting “procreation at an earlier age” as an indicator of our leadership’s mistaken priorities. Stern quips, “Should we give an extra $100 U.S. Savings Bond to every bar-mitzvah boy who chooses a bride at his bar-mitzvah celebration?” Septimus, in turn, calls for Jewish leaders to pull their heads out of the gutter, stating, “Maybe if we stop thinking about procreative sex for just a minute and exercise our brains and prophetic vision, we might actually have an idea or two.”
The snark marches onward as both Septimus and Stern derail Dr. Bethamie Horowitz’s suggestion that “rather than ask ‘why be Jewish?’ the question should be ‘why not be Jewish?'” Septimus asks “Why not be a nudist?”
Stern, however, goes a bit deeper, calling attention to the elephant we keep tripping over every time this subject arises, yet one which we continually fail to confront:
Today there is no longer one story–such as God’s decree, Zionism, or refusing to give Hitler a posthumous victory–that provides a persuasive rationale for being Jewish. Instead of working toward developing a new cadre of intellectual and moral leadership, instead of trying to explain to young people why investing in Judaism is worthwhile, the Jewish community continues to promote programs and short-term gimmicks to bring more Jews into the fold.
This criticism has been repeatedly leveled at Jewish institutions by Douglas Rushkoff. In his most recent book, Get Back in the Box: Innovation from the Inside Out, Rushkoff advises companies to return to their “core competencies” and focus on the things they’re good at. Improving your product, he argues, will ultimately do more for your sales than simply sticking a new logo on an existing, inferior product.
In chapter one of Get Back in the Box, Rushkoff writes:
Institutions tend to react to the destabilizing force of cultural change with panic and an impulsive need to make sudden, rash moves to one extreme or the other. Whether by being “reinvented” by an outside consultant or by putting up so many defensive barricades that all attention shifts to the periphery, these organizations end up losing sight of their core purpose and vision. In response to unfamiliar demographic patterns, a venerable institution like Judaism hires market researchers/pollsters to figure out how to make itself more appealing to the “MTV generation.” Instead of figuring out what Judaism might actually have to offer kids living in a world dominated by MTV, the experts advise aping the styles, language, and ethos of the music station.
(Septimus has also made this connection to Rushkoff’s theories, citing him in today’s offering on this subject.)
This sentiment was echoed by Rabbi Andy Bachman at the New Generations event at the UJC General Assembly last month, as recounted by the Jerusalem Post:
Looking over the schedule of events at this year’s GA meeting, Bachman balked at a session on “Israel the Brand,” which addressed the ways in which Israel is being presented in the media.
“How are you going to brand your way out of a war?” Bachman said. “It’s so absurd. There’s no branding that can cover over a terrible situation.”
Bachman was taking a cue from comments made by myself and others at a New Israel Fund panel he moderated the week prior to the GA (also referenced in the aforementioned JPost piece). Indeed, this is the shtick I’ve been pushing for years, whether it’s been criticizing policies laid out in studies like “Israel in the Age of Eminem” that promote hollow Jewish nationalism, or assailing the mistaken belief that “hip” Jewish culture can somehow serve as a “one-size fits all” solution to disaffiliation.
In brief, I believe that rather than attempting to foster a Judaism or, rather, Judaisms, which are relevant to, appealing to, and ideologically and/or morally consistent with the views of today’s youth, establishment institutions have instead focused on repackaging and rebranding a decidedly dead and alienating “edition” of Judaism, in the process squandering valuable resources that could be invested in more productive initiatives.
Understanding The “Market”
In her presentation before the National Foundation for Jewish Culture this September, researcher Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett did a remarkable job of applying the logic of “The Long Tail” to the Jewish community. In short, “The Long Tail” posits the theory that niche markets, as opposed to general markets, account for the bulk of consumer activity. In Jewish terms, this means that individual Jewish constructs, or individual expressions of Jewish identity and culture, have appeal to individual segments of the Jewish population, and these specialized segments combined constitute the greater, unaffiliated portion of the Jewish community. Thus again, as Stern says, “Today there is no longer one story–such as God’s decree, Zionism, or refusing to give Hitler a posthumous victory–that provides a persuasive rationale for being Jewish.” Rather, different elements of Judaism appeal to individual Jews and Jewish communities for different personal reasons. Some are drawn to social action, others Jewish art (music, literature, humor), others yet Zionism, and others yet still, Talmud Torah. There is no single “cure-all,” no “one size fits all” Judaism that works for everyone, nor, with a culture as vast and rich as Judaism, need there be one.
This has resulted in what former Executive Vice President of the Samuel Bronfman Foundation Richard Marker describes as “Self-directed, non-affiliational, and non-denominational Jewish identification.” As Marker told Jewschool in August 2005:
Individuals have a moving-target range of influences and associations – no longer can it be said that one is exclusively identified as a ‘Reform’ or ‘Conservative’ or ‘Orthodox’ or ‘Reconstructionist’ or ‘secular’ or…; and on the whole, those institutional identities do not describe the ideological beliefs of their affiliates. With some very real but statistically minimal exceptions, when those affiliations do exist they are coincidental, social, or convenient. Moreover, identifies are fluid – American Jews – function within a number of overlapping spheres. Some of these may be Jewish, others may be professional, some may be geographic, and others may be social. At any given moment, the balance of which governs one ’s self- understanding and connections may lead to one’s identity looking and being quite different. And over time, these may look very different, even within the same family and same individual. Thus by definition, institutional identification simply doesn’t describe enough American Jews to be meaningful.
Our own statistics have proven this to be the case. As Jewish population researcher Steven M. Cohen told the JTA in September 2005 (while in the midst of preparing a study that would eventually become the centerpiece of the NFJC conference at which Kirshenblatt-Gimblett offered her “Long Tail” analysis), “There’s indirect evidence that young Jews care about being Jewish, but they are expressing it in ways that are not institutional.”
“There’s this myth of the ‘great unaffiliated masses,'” said Cohen’s co-researcher Ari Kelman. “These people are not rejecting synagogue; some just haven’t found one where they feel comfortable.”
Thus we have indisputably entered an age marked by very individualized conceptions of, and relationships to, Judaism. This individuation, however, is considered by many Jewish leaders to be problematic at best, and threatening at worst.
The Problem of Peoplehood
“‘Jewish peoplehood’ is now the buzzword in the Jewish world,” Shlmo Ravid, director of Beit Hatfutzot’s International School for Jewish Peoplehood Studies, told Haaretz at their inauguration last week. “I discovered that non-Orthodox Jewry in the United States has succeeded in transforming Judaism into an enjoyable experience. Judaism is fun,” said Ravid. “But this approach, which has made the individual’s spirituality central, has very much weakened the collective and Jewish solidarity.”
And therein lies the threat: That we will become so isolated in our own expressions of Jewish identity and connection, that we will no longer be connected to one another.
However, the alleviation of this threat — the key to balancing Jewish individualism (the paradigm we are already in) with peoplehood (the element now missing from the equation) is lurking right beneath our noses.
Interestingly, Septimus and Stern overlooked the most valuable contribution to Rosenblatt’s editorial — the missing piece of the puzzle. This was the mention of “[Michael] Steinhardt’s idea to articulate and disseminate a Common Judaism, a distillation of core Jewish values that speak to the widest possible audience of Jews today.”
While there is a treasure trove of elements shared between all Jews from which we draw upon to forge our individual and communal Jewish identities, there is, nonetheless, no singularly identifiable connection between us as a people. Therefore, in order to overcome our differences and constitute a people, we must agree upon some common values that essentially bind us together.
Steinhardt articulates this concept in his 2003 essay “The State of the Diaspora,” and goes on to delineate what he believes those values to be. This includes “the pre-eminence of Jewish peoplehood as a unifying ideal; the centrality of the State of Israel to the Jewish soul; the imperative of Jewish education to maintain and reinforce Jewish life; tzedaka as the life spring of our community; and a keen respect for meritocracy.”
While I wholeheartedly agree with Steinhardt’s conclusions about forming a “Common Judaism” — that which I’ve been referring to as “Folk Judaism” for some time now — I disagree greatly with his selection of values. And that’s okay, because determining these values should be a communal venture.
For my two cents, I think that Steinhardt’s choices are even too specific (the centrality of Israel, for example, itself being way too contentious of an issue), and am much more inclined to agree with the thesis put forth by Ellis Rivkin, Professor Emeritus of Jewish History at HUC-JIR Cincinnati, in his book The Unity Principle: The Shaping of Jewish History. Rivkin demonstrates that, indeed, not only is there not one singular expression of Jewish identity or culture, but historically there has, in fact, never been one. Rather, that which has bound us together as a people — whether we view the world through a secular lens or even an ultra-Orthodox one — is a shared commitment to a spiritual conception of oneness and unity, in whatever form that manifests itself, be it Chabad or the ACLU.
This is a public discussion that is long overdue and one we should most certainly be invested in. Once this question is resolved, we will hopefully resolve the dangers posed to Jewish communitarianism by Jewish individualism, and find a means by which to promote our consensual values to the myriad corners of the Jewish community.
However, that still leaves the problem of affiliation and that dreaded word “continuity.”
Where Do We Go From Here
“The answer [to assimilation and intermarriage] is not numbers, but quality,” JTS chancellor-elect Arnold Eisen told The Jerusalem Post the week before last. I believe Eisen is correct, but the remainder of the analysis he offers in his interview completely misses the mark, as he proposes “top-down solutions” that are simply untenable in our current “anarchic” paradigm.
Rather than promoting any singular form of Jewish identity or expression — be it by supporting a specific denomination or specialized small-scale organizations — Jewish institutions should invest in initiatives that give support to the widest array of individual communities possible. In that respect, rather than funding specific communities or initiatives, Jewish organizations should be spotting trends in various communities and developing resources that can be shared by individuals, communities and initiatives with overlapping interests.
For example, rather than providing funding to any single independent minyan, an entity could be established which provides support for independent minyanim in general. Instead of giving grants to individual organizations to continually develop similar websites, Federations should invest in developing freely-available software that serves the needs of all their beneficiary agencies. This is already in practice, in some respects, with Jewish educational curriculum that is developed by an independent entity and then distributed to Jewish camps, day schools, and youth groups.
Likewise, we have seen an experimental smattering of this sort of “infrastructure for independents” in initiatives such as Bikkurim and the Joshua Venture. These efforts, however, do not go far enough. To be frank, we neither want nor need gatekeepers and bureaucratic selection processes. They impede progress and stifle passion. Rather, we need service organizations that do not discriminate and allow the forces of natural selection to unfold, for to be a meritocratic people, the merit of our initiatives must be determined by the whole of the community and not by gatekeepers with narrow agendas. We don’t need grants tied to inhibitions, so much as we need tools and resources that empower us to do whatever it is we do in our unique expressions of Jewish culture and identity.
You cannot force individuals to create vibrant Jewish communities to your liking. However, you can facilitate the circumstances in which vibrant communities have the potential to manifest in their own way. Such grassroots communities are, more often than not, the source of the quality Jewish experiences Eisen speaks of. They are the key to Jewish affiliation.
As such, only when individuals and communities are given resources, time and space to grow in accordance with their needs (rather than in accordance with grantor’s objectives) will we have vibrant, joyous, endearing and inspiring Jewish individuals and communities that can gain the respect and adoration of the disaffiliated, and draw them closer to Judaism and the Jewish people.
Help us to create the Judaism we want to be a part of, and you will accomplish your goal of reengaging the Jewish people.
The preceding text is essentially the underlying premise of Jew It Yourself, the online software solution for Jewish education and community organizing that I am presently developing. The first component of Jew It Yourself, Shul Shopper, will launch in February 2007. For more information, please contact me.
This is a wonderful idea! Your only problem is that is already going on. “Independent” thinkers and originations- be them miyanim or havarot or whaterver- have been around and failing for two or three generations. People who are able to participate in such Jewish expression live in places like NYC, DC, Jrls, LA, SF or Boston. You don’t hear about the strong independent Jewish orgs in Oklahoma or Texas. You don’t hear about the unbelievable vegan potluck that is taking place in the Montana Jewish community. You don’t hear this because major Jewish originations are supporting the life of these Jews. As much as it pains me to say it Chabad houses are doing the work. The Reform Movment is reaching out. The Conservative Movement is reaching out. There is no havarah movement working to help these smaller, exposed and vulnerable Jewish communities.
This model will only work in places with major Jewish community structure for people to reject. In order to rebel and maintain a comfortable Jewish existence there must be a strong community in which to do so.
This idea of blanket reject seems to miss the idea of the “peoplehood.” We have a responsibility to help out every Jew last I checked. This idea to supporting all the littlest independent groups is called a synagogue movement. It has been in existence for generations in the US. The Union of American Hebrew Congregations started doing this in the 1800s. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism started doing this in the 1800s. There is nothing new about supporting independent groups of Jews doing things.
Mr. Mobius- Do you believe that simply by providing no strings attached funding to an organization that it will flourish? There is no such thing as no strings attached. Bureaucracy and bull from the top down is inherent in any system where major funders, such as the ones you quote, are involved. They need to know their money is being used well. Do you really think a blank check will be written to you because you have some good ideas and have a neat website?
Sir, nothing you say here is new. But what you have the opportunity to do is revolutionary. You can help force the institutions to listen to the needs of our generation. But by pushing them all to the side you and many people who tend to listen to you will only hear the message of rejection. There is a system in place in desperate need of repair. It needs fresh minds and will listen. But if you only want to destroy and start over, all you will get is a different system with the same problems.
Thank you for allowing such a long response and I look forward to a heated but respectful debate.
“Independent†thinkers and originations- be them miyanim or havarot or whaterver- have been around and failing for two or three generations.
Failing? Au contraire.
People who are able to participate in such Jewish expression live in places like NYC, DC, Jrls, LA, SF or Boston. You don’t hear about the strong independent Jewish orgs in Oklahoma or Texas.
I am sick of this myth. Strong Jewish communities can exist anywhere so long as those communities have the tools to connect and grow. If all a person ever knows from is a top-down Judaism, they will never know that they have other options. You cannot decry a lack of interest in alternatives when you never provide any alternatives.
There is no havarah movement working to help these smaller, exposed and vulnerable Jewish communities.
Actually, there is. It’s just completely underfunded because denominationalists like you keep insisting that autonomous Jewish communities cannot and do not exist beyond NYC. It’s a dangerous slander that continually impedes the progress of initiatives like ours.
This model will only work in places with major Jewish community structure for people to reject. In order to rebel and maintain a comfortable Jewish existence there must be a strong community in which to do so.
That’s the most interesting thing you’ve said thus far. But I disagree. One Jew alone on an island will build two shuls: The one he goes to and the one he doesn’t.
This idea to supporting all the littlest independent groups is called a synagogue movement.
We’re talking cultural projects, youth initiatives, educational programs, community centers, minyanim — and this is what you call a synagogue movement? You couldn’t be more off the mark.
There is nothing new about supporting independent groups of Jews doing things.
Yet there are only a handful of independent groups currently receiving support and they all had to lie about their objectives in order to get funding.
Do you believe that simply by providing no strings attached funding to an organization that it will flourish? […] Do you really think a blank check will be written to you because you have some good ideas and have a neat website?
Show me where I asked for no strings attached funding. I asked for investment in infrastructure. I asked for investment in communally shared tools and services that give all independent initiatives an equal leg up.
I did not ask for direct funding. I said don’t fund us individually — fund the things that we need in our to conduct our own affairs.
You can help force the institutions to listen to the needs of our generation. But by pushing them all to the side you and many people who tend to listen to you will only hear the message of rejection. There is a system in place in desperate need of repair. It needs fresh minds and will listen. But if you only want to destroy and start over, all you will get is a different system with the same problems.
Holmes, let me put it to you like this: I have spoken at a half-dozen conferences for different major North American Jewish institutions in the last two years and delivered this message to hundreds upon hundreds of Jewish professionals. I have never encountered more than a couple of people at each presentation who have disagreed with my thesis, and I have had great success in converting even those who disagree. At a recent talk at the UJA Federation of NY, one big wig said to me, “It’s totally fine by us if we cease to exist so long as what we do is reiterated in another form.” More often than not, I’m handed dozens of business cards and am promised the sky. Ultimately, these institutions fail to act and continue to stave off whatever change might come — not because they’re threatened, but because they’re so choked with bureaucracy and misprioritization that they never get around to doing what they already know they ought to do.
So, I’m sorry, but I completely disagree with you.
“It’s totally fine by us if we cease to exist so long as what we do is reiterated in another form.†More often than not, I’m handed dozens of business cards and am promised the sky.
That is my major point. If you destroy and create a new infrasturctur, you too will be “choke with buraucracy and misprioritization.”
I know you disagree with me, sir but that is the point here. I believe you can create major change with in a system or even completely start over, but I do not believe by creating a support structure for “independent” Jewish groups you will do anything differently. I am not saying you were asking for funding, you were asking for funding for support structure. My main question really will be where will the money come from and how will you keep the “choke with buraucracy and misprioritization” out of this new system?
Additionally why can’t the synagogue movements represent cultural and social orgs? I believe they do. Each movement has a youth social and religious group. Each movement has mens and womens orgs. I fail to see what you will be doing differently.
Also please prove to me, that there viable Jewish idependents outside of the major cities with strong Jewish communities. I really have no expereince in them.
Thank you for the respectful response.
From Anarchy In The Age Of Dinosaurs
By The Curious George Brigade
The beauty of small-scale infrastructure is that it is participatory. Not only does it provide a needed service […] but it is directly responsible to the community it serves and also allows people to learn skills from each other. It draws on the needs of the community and the already present local resources and skills. This is the underlying advantage of decentralized infrastructure: it brings together mutual aid and the do-it-yourself ethic in a way that empowers both the participants and the benefactors, blurring the line between producer and consumer. Instead of being a mere service, decentralized infrastructure actually empowers those it serves while being able to immediately respond to the changing needs of the community.
[…]
Most mass structures are a result of habit, inertia, and the lack of creative critique. Desire for mass is accepted as common sense in the same way it is “common sense†that groups must have leaders, or that they must make decisions by voting. Even anarchists have been tricked into accept the necessity of superstructures and large organizations for the sake of efficiency, mass, and unity. These superstructures have become a badge of legitimacy and they are often the only conduits by which outsiders, whether the media, the police, or the traditional Left, can understand us. The result is an alphabet soup of mega-groups that largely exist to propagate themselves and sadly do little else. Unfortunately, we haven’t just been tricked into accepting superstructures as the overriding venue of our work: Many of us have gone along willingly because the promise of mass is a seductive one.
[…]
The price of the arrogant dream of mass is appallingly high and the promised returns never come. Superstructures such as federations, centralized networks, and mass organizations demand energy and resources to survive. They are not perpetual-motion machines that produce more energy than is poured into them. In a community of limited resources and energy like ours, a superstructure can consume most of these available resources, rendering the entire group ineffective. Mainstream non-profits have recently illustrated this tendency. Large organizations like the Salvation Army commonly spend 2/3 of their monies (and even larger amounts of their labor) on simply maintaining their existence: Officers, outreach, meetings, and public appearance. At best, only 1/3 of their output actually goes to their stated goals. The same trend is replicated in our political organizations.
[…]
Not only are superstructures wasteful, but they also require that we mortgage our ideals and affinities. By definition, coalitions seek to create and enforce agendas. These are not merely agendas for a particular meeting but larger priorities for what type of work is important. Within non-anarchist groups, this prioritization often leads to an organizational hierarchy to ensure that all members of the group promote the overall agenda.
Infrastructure is not a Superstructure in what way? What is it that is revolutionary that you are trying to create?
Can Judaism, an idea and philosophy based on community structure and organization, exist in an anarchistic vacuum? Anarchy has never worked for anything or anyone sir. I feel as if this point may be contested but I challenge you to present one example.
Not only are superstructures wasteful, but they also require that we mortgage our ideals and affinities. Do you think the money is going to fall out of the sky with out a “mortgage†or requirements for you and an other such “independent†thinkers to do certain things at certain times? That sir is naïve and clearly you are not a novice thinker.
I still ask you to tell me what it is that you are doing differently? With all due respect, Mr. Mobius I feel your energy to create a very eloquent dismissal of the organized Jewish community is just an anarchistic platitude. If you can explain what it is that is so different, I am willing to stop challenging you on something you have clearly thought out and planed to great length.
Rabbi DOrff tried out the procreation idea at Limmud last year, and the 30-something women in the audience came away appalled. It suggested that the single Jewish women who have been frustrated in the dating market — many of whom attended Limmud — just
haven’t been trying hard enough. Someone in the audience asked if, in an era of extended adolescence, marriages among those just out of college likely to last? More Jeiwsh kids, more divorced families? Is that a tradeoff we can live with?
And if you are going to present a “big idea,” link it to something programmatic — instead of relying on mere moral suasion. It would sound less hectoring if perhaps he would also talk about affordable quality day care, generous maternity leaves, financial inentives for procreation. If you can’t build a material solution to a hypothetical problem, you’re just jawing.
Rabbi Jan Katzew’s talk of affordability as Judaism’s “single greatest problem†is a red herring. The only aspect of Jewish life that breaks the bank is day school education. Everything else — kosher food, synagogue memberships, camp tuitions — are a drop in the bucket. If you can afford a gym membership you can join a synagogue. Jewish camps are competitively priced with secular camps. Now if you put day school education as a requirement for living a Jewish life, then yes, affordability is a big issue. I’d urge a Reform leader like Katzew to imagine not only creative new funding streams for day schools, but also ways to create quality, affordable Jewish educational experiences outsidd the context of day schools.
Sir- My last comment was lost in the internet ether. I asked more or less for you to answer three questions:
1. What is different from the status quo that you are proposing?
2. How is an infrastructure not a “Superstructureâ€?
3. How are you going to not “mortgage” your values when you ask for funding for your project?
Mr. Mobius, it seems that you are simply presenting an anarchistic projection for the Jewish community. I believe whole-heartedly, that while anarchy sounds promising, it has never worked and cannot work in a Jewish context. The Jewish community is an idea and philosophy based on communal organization and structure. In a global age, where we – you and me- sit across the globe but can speak about ideas and philosophy we NEED to have structure that is larger than community-wide. And while it would be nice to believe that the internet and anarchistic networks of blogs and message boards could fill this need, they cannot.
Sir, you have created a wonderfully eloquent and well though out anarchistic platitude. If you can answer my questions I will leave you alone to carry out this program.
“the online software solution for Jewish education and community organizing that I am presently developing.”
such a nice preamble for an online software solution? some things just can’t be solved with a website.
I’d urge a Reform leader like Katzew to imagine not only creative new funding streams for day schools, but also ways to create quality, affordable Jewish educational experiences outsidd the context of day schools.
Hear, hear!
There’s one other significant affordability concern: the areas with the most active non-Orthodox Jewish communities are the most expensive places to live. We need to build active Jewish communities in more affordable locations.
BZ- that holds true for MO communities as well
Yeah, I should have said non-haredi.
okay, i’ve been saying this for years with 100% sincerity. let’s all up and move to montana. who’s with me?
Sarah: I might be moving to Montana soon. Gonna raise me a crop of dental floss. Raisin it up, waxin it down. Put it in a little white box that i can sell uptown. By myself I wouldn’t need no boss, just me and my lonely dental floss.
POLJ wrote: “The Jewish community is an idea and philosophy based on communal organization and structure. In a global age, where we – you and me- sit across the globe but can speak about ideas and philosophy we NEED to have structure that is larger than community-wide. And while it would be nice to believe that the internet and anarchistic networks of blogs and message boards could fill this need, they cannot.”
That’s a really salient point. Yes, there is much community in writing a blog and having passionate, albeit disembodied discussions in the comments section. Social netwoorking sites like facebook are spawning large and small groups uniting both the largest groups and tiniest subsections of the Jewish community. For instance, I belong to a Sephardic Jew Group. then a Moroccan Jew group, and then a group oof people called Abitbol. As the group becomes more and more specific it becomes smaller.
These innovations are neat and all but without a bricks and mortar presence, we can’t daven in a minyan, we can’t meet prospective mates, we can’t bury people etc. etc. Our strength is not in creating divisions, but in finding commonalities. POLJ made some good points – I don’t feel they’ve been adequately addressed.
1. What is different from the status quo that you are proposing?
Direct democratic control of the Jewish future as opposed to subservience to the “informed policies” of a vanguard of bureaucratic elites.
2. How is an infrastructure not a “Superstructure�
Superstructure — super, superior. Ie., control from above.
Infrastructure — infra, below, beneath. Ie., control from below. Think: Grassroots. Organic.
3. How are you going to not “mortgage†your values when you ask for funding for your project?
This is the ongoing dance that is my miserable life. If you’d like to see my grant rejection letter collection, I’m happy to share it.
I believe whole-heartedly, that while anarchy sounds promising, it has never worked and cannot work in a Jewish context.
That depends on what you define a Jewish context as. There have been various successful anarchist movements over the years. And before you ask “but where are they now,” anarchism in itself implies inherent temporality. Unlike institutions which outlast their purposes and subsist solely to self-perpetuate, anarchist “institutions” last only so long as they meet their purpose. New anarchic institutions are constantly formed to address arising needs.
The Jewish community is an idea and philosophy based on communal organization and structure. In a global age, where we – you and me- sit across the globe but can speak about ideas and philosophy we NEED to have structure that is larger than community-wide.
And while it would be nice to believe that the internet and anarchistic networks of blogs and message boards could fill this need, they cannot.
You’re conflating very separate issues here:
1. The need to connect and build unity between dispersed Jewish communities.
2. The need for “real world” spaces and services.
3. The necessity of a non-democratic “Jewish establishment” to determine what is in the best interests of the Jewish community.
I address the first point in my original post by engaging Steinhardt’s idea of a “Common Judaism.” This is something that our current establishment already concedes that it does not provide.
As per the second point, I would never contend that virtual communities will, should, or ought to replace real world communities, real world spaces, nor real world organizations. I did not make nor even imply that statement in my original post. I believe you are reading your own prejudice into the text.
The entire point in creating online infrastructure is to provide valuable tools and resources to real world people and organizations. I am talking about tools that help people get a finger on their local Jewish community, that connect the real world people living in real world communities. Tools that enable them to get more involved in their communities, by making Judaism and Jewish participation easy and accessible. I’m advocating a simple solution to lowering the barrier for entry.
And yet it as if I am promoting science fiction.
All I’m sayin is, Johannes Gutenberg died for your sins.
For the final point, I never spoke about the eradication of the Jewish establishment. I spoke about the eradication of gatekeepers. Selection processes. Holier than thou decision making about who has the potential to help create the Jewish future. By saying “it’s our money and we can choose what we do with it,” you are stifling the creativity and passion of the most motivated members of the community that are merely lacking the encouragement and support necessary to foster vibrant Jewish life in every conceivable corner of our existence. Commit funds to a universally accessible infrastructure and stop playing favorites.
ck thanks for the support.
Mobius thanks for responding.
I still think we have two divergent ideas. I do not believe that your system will be any different from the status quo. Your system does not seem to be any different; people with similar ideas will be served by your infrastructure.
A few honest question for you that will help me understand a little bit better.
1. If Jewschool stopped getting hits, would you close it?
2. Who would make the decisions for your new system?
3. If the entire Jewish community will take part in your system, how can we trust that democracy will be upheld and will this be at all efficient?
Thanks for taking the time,
POLJ
POLJ,
As a project team member for JewItYourself, it’s important that I chime in here. Mobius is not doing this project in a vacuum. He has the backing of a number of major and minor Jewish organizations, synagogues in towns big and small, members of sucessful independent Jewish minyanim, and even funders who are not tied to federation. I’m not going to get specific here — you’ll hear about it when it launches — but trust me, there are many people out there who want to make this website happen. Not just upper-middle class 20-30 something white Jews in Jewish neighborhoods in big cities – people of all ages and in many countries.
Once the project launches, we hope that each individual or group of individuals will use the software in the way that suits them best; we do no plan to oversee an ‘efficient’ network of Jewish communities that are copies of one another. Some people will use the site mainly for reading articles, others networking when they move to a new city, others to build a profile for their new social action org, etc. Most Jews I know who live far away from a major metropolis are mainly craving a way to a. meet Jews and b. continue or start a Jewish education. Surprise! They’re not looking for a syangogue to pay dues to, especially one that is so stuck in their ways it would take many years to see any changes suggested by newcomers. Why shouldn’t this person have permission to create a living room minyan? I think when more synagogues recognize that intimate gatherings promote a more dedicated Jew, we’ll all be better off. But, like Mobius, I see a lot of top down structures that aren’t encouraging much nor asking much of the average Jew.
A great example of an org that is making this happen for people everywhere is the National Havurah Institute”. This is an annual summer program exactly for people who run or would like to run independent minyanim, many of which have no rabbi, no building, and certainly no annual fund. And yes, many of them are not in major cities.
I appreciate POLJ’s interest in JIY, but, as someone who works for a synagogue (which actually has a great deal of lay involement), I still want to see JIY happen — and I forsee it making a huge splash.
Shamir-
Thanks for you ideas. But really who are you to say a “person has permission to create a living room minyan?” I am not advocating for or agianst the JIY. I am simply stating that it isn’t anything differnt than what is already working in the community. You site the NHI.
This is another example of a group of “upper-middle class 20-30 something white Jews in Jewish neighborhoods in big cities” saying that they are the next big thing. No one has shown me anything to prove this otherwise.
Thanks.
(This is a long post. If you’d prefer not to post it, I’ll happy post it on my own blog with a permalink to your article. Just let me know.)
It’s taken me a while to post a response so I hope these thoughts remain timely.
Though raised in NYC, and now living in the DC area, I spent ten years in Fargo, North Dakota, 8 years in Elkhart, Indiana, and a few years in other places like New Orleans, Clearwater, Florida, and Nashville, Tennessee.
Though I am now enjoying and utilizing the more expansive Jewish resources of the DC area, my experience has taught me that Judaism can and does flourish in places like Fargo. In many ways, it takes more committment to be part of a small-town Jewish community. It takes a little more effort to live Jewishly in places like Fargo as opposed to places like NYC.
It is, however, also true, that in a small community, you either afffiliate with whatever Jewish community there is, or you simply have no Jewish life. So the myth of Judaism requiring large communuties to thrive is largely myth–yet at the same time, there does need to be some kind of community – not necessarily synagogue-based, although this is the model used is most small communities.
While living in the Dakotas, I worked with others to use the then finally being discovered internet (which I had been using since the time it was ARPANet, but that’s a story for another time) as a tool to connect even smaller and more far-flung Jewish communities like Missoula, Montana, and Rapid City, South Dakota. We had ourselves a little Jewish network of the Plains and were able to share information and resources this way.
Having come so much further than it was in the 80s and 90s, I imagine that were I still in Fargo, the internet would be providing rich content and support to help keep the Jewish community thrive. I am sure it is doing so for those I left behind in the Northern Plains.
As a Jewish educator, though now in the over 50 crowd, and employed in the synagogue world, I nevertheless remain convinced that this model is a dinosaur, and I am continually exploring alternative settings for supplemental Jewish education that can serve the type of Jewish community that I have observed developing over the past decades.
I’ve been an active CAJE member, and have even chaired a CAJE conference. I do think that the organization was doing the best it could to be true to its origin as grassroots and outside the establishment. However, it has become the establishment, and, as a result, I believe it is veering in directions that, while they may satisfy the vision of an aging membership that is seeking more in depth learning and higher standards, is not at all the direction that it needs to go to serve the next few generations of Jews. It is too invested in the status quo. There are a few others in the CAJE community who are willing to say such things openly (and by that I include both what is happening to CAJE, and my belief that we are entering a post-synagogue age) and I believe a goodly number who believe so but are scared of telling the Emperor he is naked.
Not just the leadership, but the rank and file in the Jewish world is a bit out of touch. They don’t realize how married they are to the status quo of synagogue-centered Judaism, and the current institutional system.
And for those that are in touch, they often make the mistakes cited in your post, of trying to make Judaism like pop culture. Now, I am a firm believer in the co-option of popular culture in service to Judaism. I used SpongeBob as a prop and a hook for years-but I used it as a way in to young minds – not as the end product – and sought to use it to teach my understanding of Jewish “core values.” Sure, there’s a little shtick involved, but the product wasn’t entertainment-it was Jewish learning. Crabby Patties weren’t just a funny kosher joke-they were a path to serious learning about kashrut. And it worked. (I’m moving on to a new mascot, but have yet to find a cultural icon that crossed as many age barriers as SpongeBob. I am open to suggestions!)
I remember the session at CAJE last August when the “Throw the Jews Down the Well” clip from Da Ali G show was shown and all but two small segments of the audience of Jewish educators were in total shock. (The small segment not shocked were the groups of college-age kids that were there, plus the two or three in the over 50 crowd like myself who, as students of popular culture, keep up with such things. Sadly, even after it was revealed to them that it was an outrageous piece of cultural satire by a cutting edge comedian and social critic, most still considered it unusable in their shcool-ever. Now I, too, have a few mixed feelings about the Borat phenomenon, but I remain generally approving–I’ll have to save this for a future post on my own blog.)
Yes, we need some bricks and mortar – places to assemble, to socialize, etc. but there are other ways of making this happen. The “anarchistic” web can and will likely prove to be a component of this, despite reservations that even I have about it. Yes, being at a real Pesah Seder with real people is different (and better) than particpating in a virtual one, even when the technology has advanced far beyond where it is now. But I participated in a virtual online seder in the years when the entire process was text-based and run in a DOS window. And it wasn’t entirely empty and meaningless. You could feel the others as if some aspect of their souls was being transmitted through the ether along with the text. (As I once said to a critic of email communication “if e-mail is so impersonal, how come it is so capable of upsetting another person based just on words that I type?”)
JIY is indeed part of the future-and I, too, hope to see it make a big splash, and thrive. It will take lots of nuturing, and have to fight lots of entrenched interests – and it will still requires some form of “common core Judaism” for the post-synagogue age to truly happen. G”d-willing, it will come to pass. Keep up the good fight.
Migdalor Guy