By Steven Windmueller, Ph.D.
In an age, where communal consensus has given way to a significant political divide and where Jews are redefining their social policy priorities, how might the Jewish public affairs sector respond? At a time of generational transitions, organizational disruption, and political upheaval, in what ways can the Jewish community relations field reinvent itself? Questions concerning the future of our community’s public policy sector are being introduced here as the Jewish Council for Public Affairs Conference is set to begin its National Conference this weekend in New York.
By way of background, we are reminded how rapidly and significantly our society in general is under going change, placing additional and specific pressure on the Jewish advocacy movement. These are but a few of the evolving dominant social transitions taking place in 21st century America:
- Within twenty years, Islam will replace Judaism as America’s third major religious community.
- Millennials represent the largest generation cohort in American history, reshaping the cultural fabric of this society and the institutional behaviors of our community.
- By the year 2043, this nation will cease to be a dominant “white” society as it evolves into a multi-racial and multi-ethnic culture.
- America is aging, by 2030, 20% of this nation’s population will be 65 and over.
- Social media has replaced print journalism as the primary news source for many Americans.
- Americans today are expressing the lowest confidence levels in public institutions and governmental leaders in U.S. history.
If these trends are seen as both significant and transformative, more narrowly, new Jewish American generations are redefining their connections to Jewish life and our society:
- Expressing a deep passion and commitment to the social justice agenda
- Demonstrating pride in being Jewish
- Distancing their connections with the State of Israel
- Desiring to build holistic lives where personal values are reflected in communal practice
- Removing one-self from formal religious denominationalism (“religious nones”) and from other expressions of institutional obligation
- Experimenting with different types of social engagement and alternative forms of “community.”
Today, the behaviors and priorities of Millennials and Generation Z remind us of how our society is changing[1]. They are seeking a shared conversation in connection with the great political issues of our times. These are generations employing social media and other forms of political expression to carry forward their messages and ideas. More directly, Millennials and their counterparts are prepared to push back against the politics of hate and the seeds of anti-Semitism and racism, as they are expressly committed to social justice. Indeed, as they seek to produce social change, this generational cohort is launching new initiatives designed to advance their specific interests. In moving their ideas forward, frequently they elect to operate outside of established forms of established communal expression.
As a result of these and other demographic realities, a “new American Jew” is evolving[2]. The “sovereign self” is replacing the traditional focus on the “collective.” In this context “individualized choice” is minimizing institutional affiliation. The idea of “community” has given way to a privatized American Judaism[3].
As our communal sector seeks to build consensus and to manage the ‘great Jewish divide[4],’ the community relations enterprise is challenged to reinvent itself[5]. Correspondingly, as legacy institutions seek to address issues of mission, fund development, and communal priorities, the public policy arena must likewise redefine its future role and function within this changing organizational culture. Adding to this social construct, we are witness to the changing political character of American Jewry, a community that finds itself bereft of a shared agenda and in some measure profoundly disconnected from the core legacy institutions that at one time defined the Jewish marketplace and held their allegiances[6].
The rich hundred-year history and contributions of the Jewish community relations enterprise ought not to be minimized. In such distinctive areas as promoting intergroup relations, advancing interfaith understanding, advocating for Israel and global Jewish concerns, fighting racism and anti-Semitism, and promoting the public policy interests of American Jewry, the organizations that comprise this movement, both local and national, have left their imprint on this society and within our community.
Federations and their community relations agencies are caught between the external pressures to speak out and act on the public policy issues of priority to many Jewish Americans and the push back of others who oppose such initiatives. The Jewish community will indeed need to acknowledge these political realities by seeding alternative expressions of social action.
In response to both the generic social revolution now underway and the more specific Jewish communal transitions, the ten-part plan, introduced below, is designed to create a conversation focusing on the community relations field and its pathway forward. For the first time since 1951, when Professor Robert MacIver was commissioned to undertake a study of the Jewish community relations field, it may be appropriate to re-examine the operational principles that today drive this discipline.
The ideas introduced here, along with those that I and others have shared in earlier postings, focus on revisiting core assumptions and rethinking traditional modalities of communal practice. This proposal calls for the creation of a new methodology of how one engages new generations of Jewish activists, while being responsive to the changing American political environment. These recommendations emphasize not merely operational changes but address a basic cultural realignment:
- Seeding new forms of community organizing initiatives that parley the goals and priorities of younger Jewish activists by promoting alternative forms of political action. A culture of experimentation is required in order to test different forms of Jewish political organizing. Letting “many flowers bloom” ought to be the basis for this new organizing paradigm, where new models of community advocacy are introduced and supported. In reality, this multi-pronged approach to public policy is well underway, as groups operating in the Jewish marketplace already reflect this growing diversity of opinion and practice.
- Deconstructing a 20th century “silo” and “competitive” institutional system in favor of a 21st century culture of promoting a collaborative, integrative communal framework. A shared engagement model will permit a seamless interconnect or synergy among partner organizations, involving both legacy and boutique community models, permitting new participants a gateway of choices with reference to their political orientation and policy preferences.
- Sponsoring leadership development programs for new generations of public policy wonks and community organizers. Reseeding this field with knowledgeable and engaged professionals and lay leaders must be seen as core to building the next iteration of this field.
- Developing a public policy map identifying this growing Jewish political sector with its many expressions and perspectives reflecting the diversity of the American political landscape.
- Creating a public policy think tank designed to examine the issues and strategies critical to the community’s long-term interests. The community will need to invest critical resources in managing its pro-Israel agenda, fighting old and new forms of anti-Semitism, and identifying potential threats to the Jewish community, as well as new opportunities for communal involvement.
- Defining the “new realities” of the American social landscape, by creating a national Jewish consultation on the changing demographic, cultural and social factors that will impact and shape Jewish political action priorities.
- Promoting the introduction of Jewish “town halls” across the country where public policy issues can be vetted and where thoughtful, civil discourse can take place, without the necessity of requiring policy statements or joint action. JCRC’s policy and advocacy functions should be limited to those compelling issues of Jewish security, and where collective national action is required. In this context we will be creating “communities of conversation” designed to frame the essential issues of these times.
- Formulating an intergroup relations strategy for working with America’s growing diverse ethnic, racial, and religious communities. The focus on building new connections and renewing old partnerships represents a critical piece to 21st century social activism. American Jewish advocacy, as in the past, must identify and nurture these crucial relationships.
- Engaging financial resources and expertise beyond the existing federation-based model, by reaching out to private donors, family philanthropic funds, and community foundations in helping to design and implement these structural and policy initiatives. The creation of a multi-dimensional, integrated advocacy system ought to interest the philanthropic community as it seeks to identify ways to employ its resources to reach and serve younger Jewish constituents.
- Mastering social media, as this is a generation that defines itself around its distinctive communications style and skills. Building “brand” becomes an essential feature of 21st century organizations or communal systems.
This new format reframes the relationships with an array of key stakeholders, including federations, the traditional national “defense” agencies, and the multiple social justice and policy organizations that now dot the Jewish landscape.
- Assisting Jewish activists in finding their particular niche and institutional expression represents the first organizing principle.
- Shifting the focus of mainstream convener organizations, such as JCRC’s, to perform roles as essential information and educational centers.
- Shaping a new operating culture of fluidity and access whereby individuals can easily move between and among differing ideological and organizational expressions to find their respective voices.
- Promoting new models of communal practice and advocacy.
It speaks less to nurturing the idea of building Jewish policy and consensus making arrangements and more to the notion that JCRC’s must be seen as entry points for community education and connection, as we remind ourselves that Jews reflect today the diversity of America itself. In its changing roles, JCRC’s will function as a community resource, funder, organizer, and manager of the public affairs agenda.
Indeed, this proposal will leave many proponents of the JCRC system unhappy as it moves much of the policy functions and advocacy roles to other constituencies. In previous writings here and elsewhere, I have focused on specific areas of communal performance, Jewish political behavior, and particular social trends that are contributing to the redefinition of Jewish life, requiring organizations to re-think key assumptions and best practices[7-see below]. Such is the case today for the field of Jewish community relations.
The Jewish advocacy community stands at a critical juncture. As such, it will be essential to chart a different structural direction for the community relations field.
[1] https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/the-millennial-revolution-career-community-and-culture-introducing-the-new-american-jew/
[2] https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/the-jewish-marketplace-introducing-the-new-american-jew/
[3] https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/the-emerging-jewish-civic-culture/
[4] https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/the-great-jewish-divide-jews-have-stopped-talking-to-their-fellow-jews-what-it-means-for-america-israel-and-our-jewish-community/
[5] https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/a-re-examination-of-the-jewish-community-relations-enterprise-its-changing-players-principles-and-practices/
[6] https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/jeffersonian-jews-vs-jacksonian-jews-revisiting-jewish-political-behavior-in-the-21st-century/
[7] https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/responding-to-anti-semitism-revisiting-old-assumptions-understanding-the-new-threats/
https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/in-an-age-of-change-retooling-the-jewish-community-relations-field/
https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/unsettled-in-america-the-changing-political-roles-of-american-jews/
https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/the-jewish-marketplace-introducing-the-new-american-jew/
https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/a-re-examination-of-the-jewish-community-relations-enterprise-its-changing-players-principles-and-practices/
https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/why-now-why-here-understanding-the-rise-of-anti-semitism-in-america/
Steven Windmueller, Ph.D. is the Rabbi Alfred Gottschalk Emeritus Professor of Jewish Communal Studies at the Jack H. Skirball Campus, HUC-JIR, Los Angeles. From 1985-1995, Steven served as the CRC Director in Los Angeles. His writings can be found on his website, www.thewindreport.com.
While this is a thoughtful and well-researched piece, the outcome Prof. Windmueller suggests–limiting JCRCs to a role as community concierge and removing themselves from policy and advocacy–will result in the end of JCRCs, period. JCRCs will lose all relevance, especially with millennials, if they disengage with policy and advocacy work in a 21st century reality wherein politics is identity. Plus, donors have no interest in funding community concierges. Now perhaps the JCRC role itself ought to be eliminated; perhaps it is a square peg in the round hole of 21st century American Jewish life. But that is not a suggestion Prof. Windmueller offered directly. And, as someone who used to be a JCRC director, I still see a vital role for JCRCs to play.
The key question Prof. Windmueller does not resolve here is how best to reconcile the desire of most American Jews, especially young ones, for their local Jewish communities/JCRC/s Federations to speak out in favor of progressive ideas (including criticizing Israel when necessary) with the increasingly conservative/Republican ideology of Jewish funders. Pushing JCRCs to the sidelines does not answer this fundamental question; it merely obfuscates it further.
Josh, if JCRC’s can become stand alone organizations, separated from the pressures that they now face from the mainstream communal system, they may have the capacity to achieve the outcomes and goals you are proposing. Short of that scenario, my proposal would seem to be the only viable structural and political framework. Thanks for your thoughtful comments!
What is religion number two, I am assuming number one is Christianity?
Actually, Judith, religious sociologists divide “Christianity” into segmented listings: “Catholic” and “Protestant”, creating one and two! Judaism is therefore the “third”.
But far more to the point, the fastest growing part of the story on American
religion involves the “Religious Nones” who today account for a growing share of the religious (non-religious) marketplace.
Thanks for the direct response.
The Nones, I know. I live in the Pacific Northwest where they are concentration in the US and they are continuing to grow.
I know that it is someone else’s numbers but it fascinates me why they split these out.
I think I don’t understand Christian politics. Not that I want to, ours is headache enough for me.
Shalom Dr. Steve,
You wrote: “The idea of “community” has given way to a privatized American Judaism.”
Yes, we live in an era characterized as follow be the author of Judges 21:25 where “….every person did that which was right in her/his own eyes.”
But “Privatized Judaism”???? My goodness how trivial NANO (North American non Orthodox) Judaism has become?!?!? Perhaps “privatized Jewishness?” would/could save the day here. You are saying that we live in a time where NANO Judaism can be anything a Jew says it is. And if it can mean anything, it means nothing: NANO Judaism has become trivialized to meaninglessness.
You continued: “A culture of experimentation is required in order to test different forms of Jewish political organizing.”
What other than Jews doing it, what specifically makes the political organizing
Jewish? You later continued:
“…groups operating in the Jewish marketplace already reflect this growing diversity of opinion and practice.”
Other than Jews participating, what specifically makes a marketplace Jewish?
You continued:
“Developing a public policy map identifying this growing Jewish political sector…”
Other than participants who happen to be Jews, what specifically makes the referenced political sector Jewish? You continued:
“Creating a public policy think tank designed to examine the issues and strategies critical to the community’s long-term interests.”
What community? There is no Jewish community in any meaningful non trivial sense of these words. How about North American Jewry? You continued:
“…creating a national Jewish consultation on the changing demographic, cultural and social factors that will impact and shape Jewish political action priorities.”
Once again Dr Steve you need to clearly define the adjective Jewish as you use it above. You continued:
“Building “brand” becomes an essential feature of 21st century organizations or communal systems.”
I the absence of a clear, crisp, credible and compelling NANO definition of the adjective “Jewish” there’s nothing to brand.
Biv’racha,
Jordan
Jordan, as a knitter, I expect all the pages in my knitting books to be filled with knitting related things. This is eJewish Philanthropy, therefore we are discussing Judaism, so what is Jewish is not parsed out to the finest detail. Most of us read these as a break between tasks and we are not looking for a treatise, just some information to give us something to think about.
If you feel that orthodoxy is the only true path, I am glad you have that option, but for the majority of us, the NANOs as you seem to delight in calling us, it is not for us.
May the days of the omerim treat you well.
Shalom Judith,
Thanks for engaging with my response. You wrote: “This is eJewish Philanthropy, therefore we are discussing Judaism, so what is Jewish is not parsed out to the finest detail.”
It’s not parsed in any manner in here. By asking for a North American non Orthodox (NANO) definition/clarification of the adjective “Jewish,” I am talking about Judaism, specifically NANO Judaism from which no definition is/was forthcoming. The absence of a clear NANO definition for the adjective “Jewish” is a void which leaves this fair minded reader of Dr. Steve’s post with the question “what is there to talk/think about?” You continued:
“If you feel that orthodoxy is the only true path, I am glad you have that option,”
I feel no such thing and yes it’s an option but one that I don’t choose. I’m unable to embrace the overarching unifier of Orthodoxy: the conviction that “God said.” So Orthodoxy can’t/work for me. On the other hand, the Orthodox have absolutely no problem defining the adjective “Jewish.” You continued:
“….but for the majority of us, the NANOs as you seem to delight in calling us, it is not for us.”
For the record the NANOs include me as well. NANO (all caps so as not to be confused with the suffix “nano”) is but an abbreviation. No implied delight, disrespect, nor condescension is intended toward anyone’s personal expression of their Jewishness whatsoever. You continued:
“May the days of the omerim treat you well.”
The days of counting the Omer have thus far been wonderful, as all of my sheaves thus far, are in order. Re a NANO definition of the adjective “Jewish, so far all I’ve heard in here is that anything a Jew says or does confers Jewish status on what’s been said or done. As we’re approximately halfway through the counting of the Omer, please help me out in time for Shavu’ot with your NANO definition of the adjective “Jewish,” that goes beyond the trivial and meaningless one I just gave.
Biv’racha,
Jordan Goodman
Wheeling, Illinois
Eashtov@aol.com