by Jay Michaelson
In the old days, by which I mean the twentieth century, we consumed media curated by experts. On LPs and Cassettes, record producers and company execs picked and ordered songs that they thought we ought to hear, and paid radio DJs to play them. On the five channels of television, industry experts picked which sitcoms we’d watch at what times, and even added laugh tracks so we’d know when to smile.
For better or for worse, and I think for better, this mode of media consumption is being rapidly washed away. In place of vinyl records, we create iPod playlists with the artists we find interesting. In place of TV, we TiVo, and watch programs selected from 500 channels when and where we want. This is how we live now – at least, those of us privileged enough to afford such technology.
To praise, as JFNA chair Kathy Manning does, “the ability of our leaders to determine the greatest needs of the Jewish world” is as anachronistic as the 8-track tape. What Jewish world? What leaders? What needs? Are we really to suppose that top-down planning will accurately identify, prioritize, and address a unified set of needs that somehow applies to the secular Russian diaspora, Haredim in Ariel, and communities at risk in the developing world? No doubt, such plans will be carefully drafted by well-meaning and well-informed Jewish insiders. But they will face a daunting task selling such a product to generations used to deciding for themselves what causes to support and what priorities to set.
I applaud the sincere efforts of those who will be doing this work. I have done some of it myself, in past federation-related think-tanks that bear an uncanny resemblance to the Global Planning Table. Yet it is so out of step with contemporary sensibilities among non-professional-Jews that it seems not just like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but steering the ship more closely toward the iceberg.
First, the Federation model is based on the notion that a self-appointed group of curators are better at allocating Jewish philanthropic dollars than philanthropists themselves. But is this true? Some of the most successful Jewish programs of recent years are actually due not to these committees but to rebellious mega-donors – Steinhardts, Schustermans, Bronfmans, et al – who chose to work outside the system. Birthright Israel is one example. Moishe House is another. Can you think of a Federation program with the same kind of impact?
Moreover, because Federations are constrained by finding consensus-oriented, mainstream solutions, they leave out the margins, where most exciting work happens. Why is it that Federations have been so behind the curve in reaching out to LGBT Jews and multi-faith families? Well, because someone might get offended. Nor is this just a left-wing complaint: on the Right and Far Right, a few individual donors have had a far more powerful impact on Israeli politics than the federations’ mainstream. The mushy middle is just too mushy.
Everyone knows that Jews don’t agree about anything: “two Jews, three opinions.” But even the notion that we should agree is misleading. Open source development, crowdsourced social media, and the decentralized successes of the Tea Party and Occupy movements should by now have taught us that the best path to innovation is not Soviet-style central planning, but the anarchic chaos of the free market, in which lots of ideas are experimented with, and only the strong survive. This is precisely what is happening anyway in the Jewish philanthropic world, for the temperamental reasons noted above. But rather than embrace the change, the Federation movement is convening yet another central planning process, flying in the face of history.
And for whom are they doing this? Is there really a “Jewish world”? I don’t think so. There are multiple Jewish worlds, often operating at cross-purposes. Occasionally we come together – and indeed, Federations are great at doing the inoffensive, important, and often unsexy work of social services and community support. But often we do not come together, and that is okay too. Some Jews support settlements in the West Bank. Others support the Palestinian declaration of statehood. Some Jews think spirituality is the center of Judaism. Others think spirituality is nonsense. No Global Planning Table is going to find a middle ground between these positions, because it doesn’t exist. Better to let a thousand flowers bloom.
Federations continue to fill vital roles, and do important work. They are able to capture the attention of those American Jews motivated enough to give to Jewish causes, but not motivated enough to direct where their money goes. At the other end of the spectrum, for those high-capacity individuals able to take leadership roles in Federation campaigns, they offer the possibility of significant resources to get big things done, and a network of similarly high-capacity people to do it with. This is all good, and, as I have said, much good does come from it.
But the myth that federations represent “the” Jewish community is as mythic as the notion that such a community exists in the first place. What does exist are numerous self-selected and often temporary communities working toward various ends and with different values motivating them. Ironically, the subset of American Jews interested in Federations is itself one such Jewish subculture, and, for the moment, one of the richest. But not more than that.
Jay Michaelson is the author, most recently, of “God vs. Gay? The Religious Case for Equality” (Beacon); Associate Editor of Religion Dispatches magazine, Contributing Editor to the Forward, and Founder and Editor in Chief of Zeek: A Jewish Journal of Thought and Culture. In 2009, Jay was included on the “Forward 50″ list of the fifty most influential Jewish leaders in America.
Send to Kindle
Your analogy between consumption of media and philanthropy is kind of cute but intellectually vapid. in media consumption, you are the end-user. in philanthropy, you are the giver and you need a system to get your money somewhere. an anarchic media consumption system might work. an anarchic philanthropic system doesn’t serve anyone’s interest, least of all the people who need help.
your analogy of the federation system to soviet style central planning is just downright offensive. federations help people, the soviet union terrorized and subjugated them. why don’t you ask the millions of fsu jews the federations helped resettle in israel and the u.s. if they think the federations resemble the tyranny of their former country.
and, apparently you’ve been living in the dark re: birthright. fedrations were and continue to be major contributors to birthright. you should really get your facts straight before you write.
Shalom Jay,
Bravo and thank you! Finally someone unequivocally willing to state the obvious truth that the emperor has no clothes; that there is no Jewish community in any meaningful sense of the word community.
Re “A 20th Century Solution to 21st Century Problems” here’s a post by Seth Godin that is a concise
affirmation to what you wrote above http://bit.ly/opVevP
Biv’racha,
Jordan
Federations are major contributors to Birthright is correct. But most, were brought screaming and kicking to the table following the beginnings of success. And the federations are still providing far less than the 1/3 they have “committed” to.
The mega-philanthropists, Birthrights own fundraising, and the Israeli Government are the major drivers of Birthright’s growth.
Well said Jay. We need Jewish leaders and and orgs to be brave enough to say “we don’t know what’s best for everyone, and that’s OK.” Top down planning can never be nimble enough to meet the diverse and ever changing needs of the marketplace. A program like PresenTense’s Community Entrepreneur Partnership (CEP) does not attempt to come up the ideas to solve all the problems of the Jewish people. Rather it empowers social entrepreneurs to turn their own grassroots inspiration into impact. Of course, Federation and other large orgs have a vital role hosting the PresenTense program in their local community. This year alone over 140 PresenTense fellows will launch new community ventures in 11 cities across the globe.
How easy it is to question the efficacy of Federatiions while praising the accomplishments of the mega donor! After all, one seeks to be accountable to all while the other is answerable only to their own appetites and priorities. One by obligation and necessity services Jews in their most private moments of trial and despair, the other cherry picks their issues and basks in the sunlight of hope and youth. Yet Federations remain the shver arbiters, heavy lifters, of community, often creating and protecting the institutional platforms necessary for the successes of others and building impactful collaborations across ideological lines.
I think the media analogy is an accurate one. It is true that media is now more diversified without major barriers to entry. But, this transition has had unforeseen negative consequences.
1) Today, musicians cannot make a living at creating music. The days where a rock star could benefit financially from the fruits of their creativity are over. Most consumption of music is done for free. The survival of the fittest environment that exists, means that most will not survive. How many performers can fill a stadium today?
2)With so many choices, a shared cultural context has disappeared. Reality is no longer shared with those that we come in contact with. Each person has their own corner of experience. You can’t assume that people have seen last night’s episode of the Love Boat. Today there are Youtub Videos. Millions of choices
3) The disintegration of a shared social context is further compounded by the algorithms of search engines. The more you click on certain things the more they appear in your searches. A person that watches and clicks on Fox News, will never be presented with the ideas of MSNBC. In all areas of life we are creating isolated and fragmented groups.
4) This disintegration of socially constructed norms is highlighted in patterns of Jewish philanthropic funding. While Jay highlights the few successes in foundation funding. Let’s take a look at the failures. The amount of money that has been wasted on niche projects, vanity projects, and projects with lifespans measured in months is enormous.
At the end of the day, is there a community that needs to survive, or, are we merely a collection of individuals.
Maybe the federations came kicking and screaming to the funding of birthright because 1) they are already stretched too thin providing for people who are truly in need in their own communities and overseas 2) recognize the program for what it is : sexy but shallow, a freebie for overprivileged kids whose families don’t have to show any investment in Jewish life before. When are we going to start focusing on the families who are already committed to jewish life instead of creating a generation of kids who who think they only have (birth)rights from the jewish community and no obligations to the jewish community.
In my opinion they came kicking and screaming because it was not their initiative. Nothing more, nothing less.
Exactly – it wasn’t their initiative and they resent having to fund it because they have others things they would rather be doing with their resources, like helping people who are poor and hungry, not indulging the Next Narcissistic Generation in their all rights/no responsibility worldview.
And to Bob Hyfler – amen, brotha! your comment was right on!
You’re discussing funding priorities, and that’s fair. What I choose to support may not sit with you and vice versa.
I’m saying something different: that all too many federations, and especially JFNA, want ownership. And if they don’t have it they won’t support it.
nah, it”s not about funding priorities.it’s way bigger than that. it’s about a moral vision of community. do we have a communtarian or individualistic vision? do we (and the megaphils) support the most vulnerable and those who have already demonstrated their committment to bulding community, or do we/they indulge people without requiring anything in return? and yes, i mean requiring – community isn’t a free ride my friend. you don’t just get, get, get. you gotta give some too (and I don’t mean giving money). birthright is all about getting and not a shred about giving.
as for feds and jfna and ownership – how do you account for the national funding alliance and bikkurim? that’s funding without ownership. so is funding for jafi and jdc. sure, there’s accountablility required, but all funders require accountability.