A few days ago I set out to explore a bit of the Old City with a couple classmates. They advise that one dress modestly when visiting those areas so as not to "disturb the peace" or draw undue attention to oneself. This is, of course, especially important for women.
So, for various reasons, I was wearing a kipah (skullcap), which I otherwise would only wear during organized prayer. In addition, I had a blue and white ribbon tied to my backpack, representing a political position that can be described as something like "Pro-Disengagement and Pro-Israel." In Jerusalem, orange ribbons are more common; they represent opposition to the Disengagement from Gaza. As far as Israelis are concerned, there seems to be a general correlation between whether you're religious/secular and whether you sport an orange/blue&white ribbon.
Back to a few days ago: While I was on my way to meet my friends and walk to the Old City, a secular Israeli man in his early 40s said to me (in Hebrew, of course): "That's very nice -- the kipah with the blue and white." What he meant, of course, was that he was happy to see someone wearing the telltale sign of a religious Jew (a kipah) and simultaneously supporting the more "liberal" political position in favor of disengaging from Gaza.
That moment really captured what is going on here religiously and politically. The Reform Movement is a giant in North America, where we take it for granted that it represents the largest segment of American Jewry. In Israel, most view liberal religion as at best an oddity and at worst a joke. You're either secular or Orthodox. And even many secular Israelis have little respect for the Reform Movement; surely there's a note of irony when non-observant Jews criticize Reform Judaism for not being real Judaism. They don't want religion, but if you're going to be religious, the only legitimate option is orthodoxy.
So there's this very weird tension within which the middle gets squeezed. The Israeli Reform Movement (including HUC-Israel) is doing great work here, building the movement and ordaining more Israeli Reform rabbis than ever. But there's still much more to be done, even just in changing the Israeli mind about what it means to be a religious Jew.
I think there's a similar problem in America too, and it was probably obvious to anyone who wasn't living in a cave during the 2004 presidential campaign. There seems to be a tacit popular orthodoxy in both our countries that only fundamentalists (or conservatives) are serious religionists. This is yet another reason I'm pursuing this line of work -- to subvert that dangerous and mistaken notion. That's what the Israeli man on the street was reacting to -- the shattering of his stereotypes about what it means to be religious. That may be reason enough for me to start wearing a kipah regularly...
If I may sum up all too soon, and at the risk of oversimplifying... In truth, the truly religious individual should be not merely liberal, but radical. If your allegiance is to God above any earthly ruler, if your commitment is to your fellow human before any monied interest, if you value morality and truth over expediency and good press -- then you may not be the best politician, to be sure, but you will be eager to challenge your government radically and act to effect political change. Go read the Prophets (Jeremiah and Micah are two of my favorites) and you'll get an acute sense of what a committed religious liberal might look like.
"The church is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state." ~Martin Luther King, Jr.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
So I agree with the vast majority of this post (as you know!). But to pick a nit:
Wearing a kippah is a little different than placing your "commitment to your fellow human before any monied interest" or valuing "morality and truth over expediency and good press."
It seems to me that wearing a kippah (like most ritual observances) is to a certain extent an inherently conservative gesture. It's something you do as heir to a tradition. So there is a certain natural affinity between branches of Judaism (or other religions) that place heavy emphasis on ritual observance and a certain conservative (in the Burkean sense) mindset.
Somewhat relatedly, do you think it would be a little wierd if you were to actually "start wearing a kipah regularly" in order to dress up as a kind of person that you are not (i.e. a Jew who is simultaneously politically liberal and religiously conservative in their ritual observance)--even if it is a kind of person you wish people saw and thought about more often?
Of course, none of this says anything about what a religiously conservative Jew ought or ought not to think about disengagement based on Jewish teachings...
As one of David's "middle-of-the-road-smart" friends, let me be the first to say that if I see "skull cap" written anywhere on this blog again, I will personally fly over there and toss his computer out of a window. That is as profound as I can be. :)
[But in seriousness, there is something to be said for being conscious of how you are perceived when trying to make a statement within your choice of life work. It is true that he never wore a kippah before, but his life has taken on new meaning as a Rabbinical student, and if one of the important/radical/world-view-altering statements he chooses to make involves advertising both religiousness and liberalism, wearing a kippah is not at all a form of "dress up."
At the risk of comparing myself in any small way to the great S-agal, let me draw from my personal life as medical student. When I started medical school, I had no problem with McDonald's...stay with me. I even still eat there now and again. However, will I walk in to the McDonald's right in front of the hospital, as children I have just treated in clinic walk by and say hello? No. Even if I still occasionally eat unhealthy food, when I am in the small quasi-walled city that is the hospital grounds, I take on a different persona, and a responsibility to a particular message. I don’t think that I am pretending to be anything I am not, but when I am wearing a white coat, my actions must reflect more than my personal whims or prior preferences. In fact, as I have made some changes along these lines, I have examined what is truly important to me as someone who has taken healthcare on as a career choice – some of these changes have even become part of who I am in this new context, rather than something I’m “trying out right now.”
As I see it, if David chooses to wear a kippah in the setting of his life in Jerusalem, he is in a sense advertising something relatively new to his image and thinking, but he is advertising something honest to his personal philosophy. Maybe this is more of a trying on of a new outfit, as opposed to a costume du jour. The interesting part will be what happens when he is no longer a rabbinical student, or when I have patients outside of a 5 block radius.]
I should also add that the specific context of Jerusalem/Israel is quite different for a Rabbi or Rabbinical student than the religious environment of the United States/Diaspora. I just wanted to point that out lest someone take my comment to imply that David should now continue to kippah-it-up when he gets back here. Clearly, the meaning of a kippah means something very different in each place.
I would like to second adam f.'s comment about "professional responsibilities" from a different perspective. As a teacher, I too act differently in some ways than I do non-professionally. I agree that one has certain responsibilities--often differing ones--in different capacities. I, too, have internalized a great number of these originally assumed behaviors and attitudes, as some of you at least probably know ;-).
I find that my students often have trouble realizing that people (in this case, me) are complex individuals and so there are some behaviors that I won't tolerate while they're students that aren't that big a deal to me when they graduate. Some of them see this distinction as hypocrisy; others, as splitting hairs. To me, though, there's a valid distinction between the responsibilities I have toward my students and those I have simply to my fellow human beings--which, apart from considerations of friendship that may have developed over the years, are the only responsibilities I have to graduates of my school.
I have also found an analogous situation in being a parent, in which role I have chosen to make signficant behavioral changes in order to be able to tell my children certain things without being a hypocrite.
I would like to join the fray with a nit of my own. Your relationship to the kippah aside, do we all accept that the man was reacting to your "shattering" his stereotypes?
As a counter-interpretation of the narrative I suggest that he instead reacted to your affirming his prior views in a refreshing way - and yes I already admitted to nitpicking but bear with me.
The difference is that your description places greater significance on the mere application of paraphernalia than is appropriate. Wearing a kippah is, to the observant Jew, a sign of constant obedience to God and, like many other external obligations in Judaism, a way of marking the observant as apart from society.
In this interaction the kippah is relegated to the status of political t-shirt, it serves as an refreshing juxtaposition in a clearly political message. Or it is worn for mere respect of the place you were in, neither of which seem very compelling on the face. Circumstance aside, the fact that you are not a regular wearer of the kippah is significant here and I think this also speaks to the debate about authenticity.
At a feminist march against the war in Iraq I saw a woman carrying a sign declaring proudly: "Another lesbian Jewish single mother for peace." I read this as cute self-aware irony, lesbian Jewish single mothers are both a dime a dozen in their "community" and statistically insignificant in the larger population.
The liberal religionist risks a similar quandary. Roman Collar wearing liberal ministers are often hard pressed to appear authentic in their dress because it is a costume used for political playacting.
Rabbi Heschel, however, would never be found in this dilemma of authenticity and his case is instructive. A largely secular public and religionists alike can be inspired by someone who presents themselves as what is understood to be strictly religious and at once liberal because the public loves an oddity with integrity.
Heschel and King were effective because they were unexpected and authentic.
To get back to the example at hand, I would simply note that the interaction was effective in its smallness but that it is overly optimistic to apply it as an example in this larger debate because the rules for such refreshing but small encounters are different.
If pressed you would have been unable to present the truly unique face of an observant Jew correctly, as Mike might say, interpreting the connection between the ethic of Judaism and its current application in public policy. This, perhaps, is a source of the Reform movement's trouble in a political world of nothing but Judaism.
In retrospect, I didn't really pick the nit fully, I just kind of scratched around it so if there is anything to add or disagree with please do so.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the extent to which y'all picked the nit of my wearing a kipah as a political statement. Sam is wise to raise questions about the authenticity of such a behavioral choice. But I would also challenge the implication that my choice to wear one would be somehow strictly utiltarian. Making this kind of political statement is one of the ways I connect to the Jewish tradition. In fact, it's that very separation between "religious values" and "political statements" (a distinction which you make) that I'm trying to call into question.
If you say the following:
Wearing a kipah is an authentic expression of Judaism only when it's done out of adherence to halakhah --
then you've already bought into the "tacit popular orthodoxy" about serious religionists. Put another way, why is it an inauthentic expression of Judaism for me to wear a kipah as a way of connecting my Jewish and political values?
And I'll leave you with a question -- What made Martin Luther King, Jr. an "authentic religious liberal"?
The "meaning of the wearing of the kippah" discussion seems to me to make extremely clear the more general point whose details people seem to be arguing: interpretation is hugely subjective.
I was first tempted to agree with Michael that any ritual observance is inherently a "conservative gesture." As the counterpoints have developed, though, I realize that what seems to most to be a conservative statement can in fact be shatteringly radical, depending on the intent of the gesture-maker and the context in which the gesture is made.
Such ambiguity is, among other things, the source of schisms, wars, and successful subversions...
PS. And yes, I do realize that "conservative" and "radical" do not have to be mutually exclusive, so I should have phrased the thought more carefully. Sorry.
A question to David that would help me think about this:
When you say you would "wear a kipah as a way of connecting my Jewish and political values?", what do you mean exactly? How would the kippah do this for you?
I ask this knowing that you may have more pressing things to do with your time than answer it...
This conversation is sorely missing a woman's voice - given the fact that a kippah is not just a symbol of a religious Jew, but of a religious male Jew. I gather that if you were with a female rabbinical student who was wearing one, she would have received a vastly different response.
I read a fascinating article in a book called "Yentl's Revenge: The Next Wave of Jewish Feminism" by a woman who wears a kippah all the time. She wore it when she lived abroad in China and wears it all over the USA. However, the woman said that the one place she never wears her kippah around town is Israel. She wasn't doing this in deference to the Orthodox. But rather because in Israel, wearing a kippah signifies more than just a dedication to Judaism, but to a certain type of Orthodoxy that also aligns with right-wing nationalism and a hostility to the peace process and Palestinians [and to a greater extent depending on what kind of Kippah you wear]. David's encounter is a perfect example of this.
However, I seriously doubt anyone who sees a woman in a kippah would ever think that she is right-wing or a settler. Yet, the simple act of associating herself at all with these communities by wearing religious garb was enough to have her stop. I find it fascinating that eventhough her kippah is read in a totally different context, she still wanted nothing at all to do with wearing a garment that has become so associated with the settler movement. Perhaps political ideology is much deeper divide than gender?
Whoa... First, what I will say is in reference to the following:
"But rather because in Israel, wearing a kippah signifies more than just a dedication to Judaism, but to a certain type of Orthodoxy that also aligns with right-wing nationalism and a hostility to the peace process and Palestinians [and to a greater extent depending on what kind of Kippah you wear]. David's encounter is a perfect example of this."
I am not sure where to begin, but I will start by saying that I am surprised that a proud feminist would give in to such pressure placed on a symbol when her entire existence is at least partially dedicated to breaking down barriers and reclaiming all things stereotyped as non-feminine... Frankly, it is sad.
Second, I am reminded by this conversation of my feelings whenever I hear someone say that orthodox Jews are sexist, or that "hard core" Judaism represses women. Those feelings are intense frustration and anger at the ignorance of the people who say such ridiculous things.
First of all (I know I have a few firsts and seconds in here already), my personal family story is one of orthodox Jewish homes which promote women in the sciences and academia. You are probably thinking to yourself, "wow! how progressive," but I have more orthodox female professors in medical school than I have orthodox male professors, and these women are not radical or pariahs. These women also all have kippa-wearing husbands...
Second, the real krux of this issue is that many Jews tend to look at what "Jews do" as though they are an outside group, when in fact, that group is at least in part defined by each individual member. This group may be Orthodox, Reform, kippah-wearing, kosher-keeping – it doesn’t matter. The point here is that all things Jewish are any Jewish person's property to use, interpret and reclaim. When the unnamed feminist author chooses to give in and not wear her usual kippah because she doesn’t want to be associated with a particular group, she is letting her ideology down. It is strange to use the word "reclaim" as though we are talking about words like "kyke" and the n-word, but this isn't so terribly different. It is one thing to not want to be associated with a certain group when that group is a fraternity or performance group, but when you are inherently a part of that group (as Rabbis etc. are), you have the right, ability, (and responsibility in some cases) to change that image rather than remove yourself from it. I, for one, am not willing to let go of my not working on Jewish holidays. Do people think that doing so makes me part of the religious right wing? I don’t care. They can ask me about my views, and when they do, they will learn that not all people who observe the holidays wear orange ribbons. (I don’t wear a blue and white one either, but that is another story).
Jewish people come in all different shapes and sizes, and different ideologies exist within each stereotyped group. The only reason that the behaviors of some individuals are more often ascribed to that particular group is that those people who do differently either shy away from being vocal or are actually responsible for legitimizing the stereotype by removing themselves - the moderates, liberals, radicals, whatever - from the pool by changing how they represent themselves.
I am saddened by such stereotypes – even more so when those who can change them shy away from doing so. I will admit that I am in the middle of a practice test for the USMLE, and that my thinking may not be entirely clear, but I think what I am saying is that the type of radical action that David first referenced in discussing how he felt when wearing a kippah is exactly what can and should save the image of the modern observant Jew in a knit kippah, whether he be Reform, Orthodox, or from Mars. I already know that they aren’t all Arab-hating war mongers, but I have my family to look to. Maybe more people in Jerusalem will have experiences similar to mine with kippah wearing Jews – or maybe they will just see David walk by.
On a different note from the original post: David says, "but you will be eager to challenge your government radically."
Not if you live in a theocracy, you won't. At least, not automatically. And without making unjustified generalizations about "all" fundamentalists of whatever religion, certainly a fair number of the most fundamentalist of all three major western religions believe in some way or to some extent that a theocracy implementing god's will on earth is a hugely desirable goal.
Such people frighten me...
David, your comment about non-observant Jews' not wanting religion, "but if you're going to be religious, the only legitimate option is orthodoxy" reminds me of the rejoinder of Lt. Scheisskopf's wife to Yossarian: "The God I don't believe in..."
See, I told you guys that Catch-22 was a great book ;-]
You asked at one point for feedback about King and ended your post with this quote: "The church is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state." I happen to agree with that assertion.
I don't think it's as relevant to a great deal of what's going on in the eastern littoral of the mediterranean, though, as I (or you?) would wish. For one thing, King, although a minister, was not terribly influential in terms of formal political power when he made it nor was he seeking such power. And indeed, once he started publically opposing the Vietnam War, he was never likely to have had the opportunity to gain it even had he sought it--at least, not for many, many years.
And for another thing, King was a fairly moderate minister in the United States rather than a more fundamentalist one in a religiously polarized place.
I just want to clarify that my the analysis in the post that Adam F bracketed was not my own analysis - but rather that of the woman who wrote the article.
But my point in mentioning this article was to emphasize that David's wearing of a kippah with his pro-disengagement ribbons clearly defied political norms in Jerusalem. But if it had been one of his female colleagues, then it would have been a different thing entirely. At a basic level, it does make more sense to me that a woman who wears a kippah (symbol of religious liberal) would also be more inclined toward politically liberal views. But this opens up a whole other discussion about the aligment of politics and religion. For now, I'm more interested in the gendered analysis.
In Reform circles, if you are to cover your head in a traditional Jewish manner, it's with a kippah. A kippah, for better or for worse, has historically been a traditional Jewish head covering for men. My religiously traditonal female friends have different ways of covering their heads. It's interesting that as Reform Jewish men re-claim a symbol that has always been associated as male, liberal Jewish women now re-claim the male symbol as well. Women, therefore, have to deal not only with the question, "what does it mean to wear a kippah as a Jew?" but "what does it mean to wear a kippah as a woman?" In fact, now you often see kippot clearly made for women with pink and lace and such. This trend begs the question: Is a symbol that has historically been associated with men now also "re-claimed" as female because you make it pink and frilly? Isn't that also buying into traditional definitions of male and female?
I don't see a movement of progressive Jewish feminists re-claiming the practice of covering their heads after marrying. Perhaps the difference is covering your head as a woman is a symbol of marital status, while men wear kippot regardless. Thus, wearing a hat is buying into a system where women are defined by their relationship to men.
When Dena talks about "re-claiming" symbols and the extent to which their meanings are changed, my reaction is that it's too early to tell. Very few symbols keep their meaning intact for very long. Change comes by accretion if nothing else.
But change can come much faster when it is deliberately manipulated by a vocal, visible, or powerful group. Although, absent a revolution, changes in meanings of religious symbols probably come more slowly than those in other areas.
When change is overtly contested, though, it takes awhile to see which meaning ultimately prevails, with "awhile" being anywhere from a few weeks/months in pop culture to centuries or more in regard to symbols associated with certain political or religious issues.
Also, again absent a revolution, to change a system from the inside almost requires buying into it to a certain degree, doesn't it?
And btw, I fear that in these times "religious liberal" is indeed an oxymoron...
Post a Comment