Having previously read a couple of essays from the first issue of the Sources journal, I was excited to have come across newly-released essays a few weeks ago from Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman and Dr. Christine Hayes in the second issue of the Sources journal, I was curious to read them...and I did.
Dr. Hayes on Rabban Gamliel's and Rabbi Joshua's Conflicts
Having appreciated Dr. Hayes work (and having heard her give a phenomenal response at the 2016 AJS Conference), I was very curious to read her "Shaming, Disagreement & Purposeful Difference: A Talmudic Teaching". While I was, at first, curious why she would have published an essay in this journal, I appreciated her focus on Talmudic incidents between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua/Joshua. She does a phenomenal job in this essay, in which she says she is "interested in slowing down the action in order to identify the inflection points, the moments when a different choice might have led to a different outcome or to the same outcome but without the psychic trauma."
She notes that a lot has been written on various themes involved in these incidents, although she focuses on the "analysis of the anatomy of conflict" in these stories, such as "the rush to narrate the actions and intentions of the other in a negative light", "the recourse to shaming and humiliation", and "the instrumentalization of one party by another to further a personal or political agenda."
I have been bothered by Rabban Gamliel's actions and Dr. Hayes does a wonderful job fleshing out the various problematics involved in his actions. I highly recommend her analysis of these stories!
However, then she seeks to contemporize the lessons she has fleshed out, which is interesting, as she goes into vague territory:
When shaming is adopted as a strategic move to hasten some desired result, it fuels the cynical belief that truth is not enough. At a time when purveyors of falsehood threaten democracies everywhere, trusting that truth is enough—indeed, insisting on it—is urgent. Finally, when the public square is policed by shame, it is quickly abandoned by all but the shameless. A society governed by those incapable of feeling shame is a society no one wants to inhabit.
While it's unclear what she is driving at, she then turns her ire on social media:
Resisting the urge to shame and humiliate may also mean disengaging from the technologies that encourage these habits. To realize the purpose of difference—asserted with such confidence by Mendelssohn—means cultivating practices of interaction that are currently disincentivized by modern technologies of communication. Any technology that “rewards” reflex responses to disembodied and faceless others entrenches the habits that fuel destructive conflict. Replace the amygdala-inflaming outrage machine known euphemistically as “social” media with the slower rhythms and deliberative exchanges of actual social encounters. Trade in the solipsistic performances of the inaptly named “Face”book for encounters with actual faces.
It seems clear to me that Dr. Hayes not only does not use social media, but even worse, demonstrates that she does not even understand it. It comes across that she is seeking to demonize social media just by reading headlines about it. It lacks a deep and serious engagement with it. Moreover, despite what Dr. Hayes argues, Facebook does offer "slower rhythms and deliberative exchanges" of ideas-exchanging.
Another problem with what she wrote, especially "When shaming is adopted as a strategic move to hasten some desired result, it fuels the cynical belief that truth is not enough" is that sometimes, it offers an opportunity to expose bad behaviors in society. What immediately comes to mind is that of Eric Garner's killing. Sure, she writes, "You would not want to be denied an opportunity to give an account of yourself, to learn, to apologize, to change, to grow; and you would not want to be instrumentalized", so we should want those police officers to change and to grow, but social media can be a helpful way of changing these bad things in society. Shedding light on such immoral behavior is a good thing, even if Dr. Hayes seems to want to not allow that from this essay.
In sum, I like what she wrote about Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Joshua, but she should stick to what she knows, Talmud, and stay away from discussing social media, which she does not.
Rabb Dr. Hartman on Liberal Zionism in North America
While I have heard Rabbi Dr. Hartman before, I had not really known much about him, so I was curious to see what he had written in his "Liberal Zionism and the Troubled Committed: A Shifting North American Discourse".
He starts out by identifying that he is a “troubled committed Zionist”, which he describes as being "both unconditionally committed to Israel’s survival and deeply honored to be part of a generation of Jews who are building the homeland of the Jewish people." He continues:
I view Israel as one of the most exciting projects in Jewish history: to build our own country in accordance with the highest Jewish and liberal democratic values. To be a committed Zionist is to be invested in shaping the outcome of this project.
...
To be a Jew is to be troubled, to view one’s life, and one’s society, through an aspirational lens, always striving to be more. I’m troubled because this project is an ongoing process that requires constant revision. I’m troubled by the enduring gap between ideals and reality.
Today, I am troubled because something very wrong is going on in our country, because our commitment to human rights and equality, to treating all people as created in the image of God, is inconsistently applied in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. I’m troubled because Israel, however committed to peace, is no longer resolute in pursuing it. I’m troubled because our power has afforded us the ability to maintain the current political status quo while desensitizing us to the moral abuses it conceals and legitimizes. I’m troubled because we can—and must—do better, but many of us are no longer trying.
I found all of this to be fascinating. And he writes that
As the majority of Israelis became the “untroubled committed,” most North American Jews remained “troubled committed” (even “hyper-troubled,” but as the Pew surveys demonstrated, still committed, nonetheless). At the same time, a segment of liberal Jews became “troubled un-committed."
...
Until recently, the “troubled uncommitted” were relatively marginal. The real fear in the American Zionist community, up to a few years ago, was to combat the growth in the “untroubled uncommitted”—those who simply had become disenfranchised and disinterested in Israel. The newfound fear, however, is the drift of the “troubled committed” toward the growing camp of the “troubled uncommitted.”
He goes through many fascinating aspects, including different arguments (which I highly recommend reading), ultimately coming to suggestions:
Liberal Jews in North America will not embrace Zionism unless it is a liberal Zionism, and will not embrace Israel unless Israel embraces liberal values. That does not mean that Israel needs to mirror American liberal values, or that it needs to embody the best of these values. Given our distinct geo-political realities, there will always be differences in both ideology and policy between Israelis and North Americans. In addition, as most liberal Americans and Jews have come to experience, America itself does not always embody these values; for that matter, no country on earth fully does. Liberal Jews must believe, however, that there exists a core affinity between Zionism, Israel, and basic liberal aspirations.
He then articulates six suggestions for this. I highly recommend this piece!
Looking Forward to Further Reading
Having read these two essays a few weeks ago, I am excited to continuing to read further essays in this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment