by Matthew Ackerman
It is (or should be) a truism of media and academic culture that what deserves the least attention often gets the most of it. In “Good to Great,” the obsessively researched management book, Jim Collins aimed to find companies who had demonstrated consistently superior performance relative to their peers for at least 15 years. He came up with a list of 11 companies, every one of which – companies like Walgreens and Kimberly-Clark, a paper company – was decidedly un-sexy. Even more telling, they were all led by extraordinarily effective leaders who had received far less media attention than their less successful peers.
So, too, of course with much of the Jewish world, a significant segment of which has been obsessed in the last decade with identifying and understanding younger Jews. From the American side this obsession grew out of Jewish population studies conducted in 1990 and 2000-2001, which revealed for many Jewish leaders what they should have known long before: that many young American Jews were alienated from Jewish life, which meant they were increasingly marrying non-Jews, which meant the Jewish population was stagnating or even shrinking. Of late Israelis have become no less concerned in this regard, as they see their country’s international standing sinking ever lower and point the finger, at least in part, on young American Jews less committed to Israel’s security.
This led to the commissioning of many studies on young American Jews as the established community sought to understand what had gone wrong. A revealing interview about this work with Steven Cohen, a professor at Hebrew Union College in New York who has written many of the most important studies of this kind, was published recently by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
These Jews, Cohen says, are “alienated,” don’t feel comfortable around “upper-middle-class, in-married, middle-aged, family people,” and dislike distinctions being drawn between the Jewish and the non-Jewish. Israel is, at best, a place to support if it meets standards of “tolerance,”“human rights,” and “women’s rights” that it is supposedly lacking in. For these Jews, to even define oneself as “pro-Israel” is to buy into the “sometimes immoral policies of the Israeli government.” (Then again, any label is supposedly anathema for this set.) Jay Michaelson, a bellwether of this kind of thinking, recently went so far as to propose that support for Israel is in direct conflict with American Jewish identity.
The crucial question, though, is who exactly Steven Cohen is talking about. In his interview with the JCPA, several times Cohen obliquely noted that his comments were limited to the “non-Orthodox.” He was more explicit in this regard in a 2006 study he wrote on intermarriage, limiting his work and conclusions only to non-Orthodox Jews. So one important thing we know about these Jews is that they are not Orthodox.
The other important thing about the young Jews Cohen focuses on is that they hail from a strong web of Jewish connections. They are fluent in traditional religious practice and familiar with Gemara and other mainstays of Jewish tradition. Despite their aversion to supporting Israel, many have nevertheless spent significant time there and know Hebrew. And they all have lots of friends with similar backgrounds. (None of these traits are odd for people with an Orthodox background. And pushed as far to the “left” as it will reasonably go, the Orthodox label comfortably contains within it many people as conversant in the secular world as the religious.)
The last important thing about them, which again can easily be seen in Cohen’s casual references in the JCPA interview to the havruta movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s and “social justice,” is that they define themselves as a protest against the mainstream, which is both bereft of meaning and corrupt.
So in effect we are looking at a cohort of American Jews under 40 who define themselves against the Jewish mainstream and do not call themselves Orthodox (no labels, remember) yet have the experiences and knowledge of their peers who do. An unusual and small group that Cohen considers an “elite.” And they can be forgiven to a certain extent for thinking of themselves in similar terms, as they have been showered with fellowships, awards, and other euphemisms for money by a Jewish establishment desperate for their attention.
Left entirely unasked is whether or not any of it is worth it. Even the most successful of their generously supported endeavors, places like Yeshivat Hadar, cater almost entirely to the small group of people like themselves who are well-versed in Jewish life but yet cannot bring themselves to rub shoulders with all those annoying middle-aged people and their children. Or commit themselves to substantive support for Israel, the largest collection of Jews in the world and the first independent Jewish polity in 2,000 years (located in the same place as the polities that preceded it, with even the same capital city) that finds itself under increasing assault from an international campaign determined to cast it as fundamentally illegitimate.
If this is an elite, it is a strange one. It shares little in common with the Jews it will supposedly lead who, in any case, it refuses to take responsibility for leading. It explicitly defines itself in opposition to the center of the Jewish community (which nevertheless goes on shoveling it money). And it sees avoidance of the most frightening and important issues affecting the Jewish people as a matter of high principle.
When the story, in some distant future, of our Jewish current is written, one thing we can be near certain of is that these types of leaders will not feature largely within it. For now, it is long past time to look elsewhere for the kind of leadership American Jews need.
Matthew Ackerman is an analyst with The David Project.
Top
Matthew,
It should go without saying that while Prof. Cohen’s studies have found certain trends among young Jewish leaders, there’s still much diversity in everything from religious observance to views on Israel.
So to some extent your imagined non-Orthodox, engaged, young leader is a bit of a straw man.
But leaving that aside, I’d like to take issue with one remark specifically. You write:
“If this is an elite, it is a strange one. It shares little in common with the Jews it will supposedly lead who, in any case, it refuses to take responsibility for leading.”
Nowhere in your article do you point to specific indications that the younger generation of Jewish leaders “refuses to take responsibility for leading.”
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
The very first bullet in the Cohen interview you link to says: “Many engaged Jews under the age of forty emphasize, more than their elders and predecessors, Jewish purpose. They have created new minyanim, expanded social justice activities, engaged in various cultural endeavors, undertaken Judaic learning singly and in groups, and established a powerful and significant presence on the Internet and other new media.”
How could this be true if they’re refusing to take responsibility for leading?
Additionally, on Israel and Jewish particularism, I’d actually think that young Jewish leaders share much in common with their generational peers. Do you really believe that the unengaged younger American Jews feel closer to Israel than the engaged? That it’s the young leaders who have gone astray?
Daniel Septimus
MyJewishLearning.com
Daniel,
Your response to my post raises more questions about your own position than mine.
The idea that the activities you quote Cohen on appeal to unengaged Jews is a fiction that I suppose works very well when raising funds but not one I can personally abide. In truth, they are efforts focused mostly on the individual and the small circle of people in America who have been raised in rich Jewish environments but cannot bring themselves to identify with the established institutions of the Jewish community. This is not leadership, certainly not responsibility, and nothing that, for the most part, has much of a chance at reaching the large majority of young American Jews almost entirely ignorant of even the basics of anything Jewish.
It’s strange that you use the language of “feelings” when discussing this set’s position on Israel, when a quick Google search reveals that earlier this year you argued well against a Jewish “emotional identity.” I am sure that you are not now suggesting that “feeling” that one is engaged with Israel trumps actual ways one thinks and actions one takes that demonstrate a meaningful connection. We are in the midst of an unprecedented, ongoing, and strengthening assault on the Jewish state’s basic moral legitimacy. At a bare minimum, leadership regarding Israel requires being part of the effort to combat that scourge in the many many different ways one could do that. It is deeply troubling that the silence of many (most?) self-styled young American Jewish leaders of this kind on this topic is not considered shameful.
One of the few things about their Jewishness that unengaged young American Jews hold onto is their certainty that one’s actions for and thoughts about Israel is an important determinant of their standing as a Jew. On this, yes, it is likely that their supposed Jewish betters could learn much from them.
Matthew,
Somehow a lot of antagonism and anger has crept in here. If that was somehow inspired by my comment I apologize. I admit, I am not usually one to comment on blog posts but I was a little taken aback (and offended) by your initial post. Again apologies if I somehow ratcheted up the heat.
For now, I will assume we can continue civilly. My thoughts:
1) I never said that the activities discussed by Cohen appeal to unengaged Jews. Cohen’s study is specifically about ENGAGED Jewish leaders. I was quoting it as such.
2) Many of these new initiatives are, indeed, focused on the individual. But (1)Judaism values personal spiritual development; (2) Not all of these initiatives are focused on the individual. There are many social justice and environmental groups that are outwardly directed. Many focus on community building. My wife and I just had our first child, and for three weeks we had meals made for us by our independent-minyan community, Altshul. People may join Altshul to come daven and expand their own personal spiritual frontiers, but many (if not most) join to be part of something bigger than themselves–a community that prays together, celebrates together, mourns together, and takes care of each other.
3) Do the established Jewish institutions bear no responsibility for alienating educated, passionate young Jews? This is not about people who “cannot bring themselves to identify with the established institution” — this is about people stepping in and filling a void that the established Jewish community helped create.
4) To follow up on that: How can filling a void and providing meaningful Jewish experiences NOT be considered leadership? You say that Hadar is for people who “cannot bring themselves to rub shoulders with all those annoying middle-aged people and their children.” But before Hadar there was never a full-time egalitarian yeshiva in America. It’s founding had nothing to do with wanting to avoid other Jews and everything to do with creating a new venue for Torah learning that did not exist before. The folks at Hadar feel responsible for the future of Jewish learning in America, they saw a need, and they created it. Why is that not leadership? Why is that not a sense of responsibility?
5) You’re 100% correct. Most of these new initiative have no “chance at reaching the large majority of young American Jews almost entirely ignorant of even the basics of anything Jewish.” But so what? Neither do the initiatives of the established Jewish organizations. At least these new initiatives are creating new opportunities for the development of Jewish life.
6) Yes, I argued against emotional identity and no I am not arguing that feelings trump actions. I was responding to your point that young Jewish leaders are out of step with their less engaged peers. And here I would once again challenge you. You write: “One of the few things about their Jewishness that unengaged young American Jews hold onto is their certainty that one’s actions for and thoughts about Israel is an important determinant of their standing as a Jew.” Where do you get this from? Don’t most studies show continued alienation from Israel among young American Jews. Don’t we indeed see an increasing comfort with identifying Jewishly, while not identifying with Israel. This may be a problem, but it seems to be the trend, no? You seem to think this is more true among the engaged than the unengaged. What are you basing this on?
Daniel
Apologies accepted.
I’m not sure I understand the points you are making here. To me, leadership means, at a minimum, a concern for the well-being of a large group of people other than oneself combined with the feeling that you can direct those people toward a better path. So one is not, and should not be considered, a Jewish leader if his concerns are only for a very narrow slice of the Jewish world. The feeling must hope to extend to the entire Jewish people, even if circumstances dictate that one only works with a small group. So if you are accepting that the work of this “elite” is directed only to a small portion of the Jewish people without regard for the well-being of the vast majority, that is enough to say that these aren’t true leaders.
More to the point of my original post, so much attention has been lavished on this crowd, and so many funding dollars have been made available to it, because people hope it will lead. I am arguing that this is a misguided endeavor, precisely for the reason you grant: their endeavors won’t do this trick. And they won’t do it because they do not even want to appeal to the Jewish mainstream.
There is plenty of legitimate criticism that can be leveled at established Jewish institutions. But they have always, and continue today, to try to appeal to and be the voice for as many Jews as possible. It must also be granted that they have had stunning successes in this regard and that previous generations of American Jews have, at a minimum, bequeathed an extraordinary institutional infrastructure to our most fortunate of all Jewish generations. Serious leadership would ask how we can reform this endowment, not seek to discard it and begin anew.
My point is simply that the established Jewish community should not fund the efforts of people of the sort Cohen talked about, and should not look to them to lead the younger American Jewish generation. If Altshul and IKAR and JDub and whatever else and their leaders can fund themselves, great. I wish them every success. But people concerned about more than a small fringe of the American Jewish community should turn their attention, and direct their funding dollars, elsewhere.
As to the Israel business, I am aware of the studies that purport to show the growing disenchantment with Israel of younger Jews. I declare myself unconvinced, largely but not entirely because I spend a great deal of my time with the unengaged young Jews everyone is so concerned about. And it seems to me that however else they feel, as I wrote earlier, they do not doubt that one’s actions and thoughts about Israel are very important to one’s standing as a Jew.
But even if they truly do think that being a Jew today has little or nothing to do with Israel, that only begs the question of how true leadership would respond. In the desert Moshe was constantly besieged by a people who ignored God’s direction and pleaded to return to Egypt. Would it have been good leadership for him to say that his only choice was to take them back where they wanted to go?
I am certainly NOT accepting that “that the work of this ‘elite’ is directed only to a small portion of the Jewish people without regard for the well-being of the vast majority.”
I am accepting that we can all do only so much and leadership is exhibited by taking responsibility for furthering the social and spiritual well-being of whoever you happen to have the capacity to help. No one can possibly work on behalf of the entire Jewish community and no one can judge whether someone “feels” concern for the entire Jewish community.
If someone takes a leadership role in their local, independent, egalitarian minyan, helping connect constituents to opportunities for Torah, Avodah, and Gemilut Hasadim, are they not a leader because their work doesn’t address the needs of poor Hasidim in Kiryas Joel?
And if you don’t believe this person is a leader than our disagreement is about semantics, not substance. We simply have different definitions for the word.
When you speak of established Jewish institutions stunning successes, which institutions are you referring to? Certainly not the synagogues, most of which are only able to corral their constituents on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Who then? The Federation system?
I agree these institutions have played a critical role in American Jewry.
But I’m guessing that if you spoke with UJC or local federation leaders, few would tell you that their problems derive from the fact that new Jewish initiatives are stealing their money. From what I gather the fundraising issues faced by the Federation system are derive from the rank and file amongst the Baby Boomers, not the big-time givers and not the older donors.
Bottom line: You seem to be saying that if people only care about themselves and not broader concerns, they should not be funded by the broader community. I don’t disagree. You believe that some or all new Jewish initiatives are completely turned inward. From my involvement with many of these initiatives, I KNOW that this is not true in most cases.
Which isn’t to say that I believe that every “sexy” new initiative deserves funding. I certainly don’t. But writing off the “young Jewish American leaders” — if such a thing actually exists — doesn’t seem like a viable (or wise) option given that, relative to its generational peers, the knowledge and passion for Jewish life seems to be heavily concentrated in this group.
You wrote, “You’re 100% correct. Most of these new initiative have no ‘chance at reaching the large majority of young American Jews almost entirely ignorant of even the basics of anything Jewish.’ But so what?”
That ‘so what’ is what I am arguing against.
You are far too quick to write off the achievements of past generations. There is an extensive network of shuls, however dereft of meaning many of them are, throughout the country. The Federation and JCC national infrastructure are likewise large and impressive. Every denomination owns suitable and sometimes beautiful buildings designed to educate and train younger generations. And our principle advocacy organizations – AJC, ADL, and AIPAC – also enjoy the benefits of resources invested over generations. Personally, in our age of near limitless choice, I can’t understand why anyone would want to be Jewish if it was not to a large extent about connecting one’s present to their forebears’ past. And you do that by engaging with the institutions they created with respect and humility.
I don’t think this is a disagreement about semantics, but about something much larger: what does it mean to stake out a position of young Jewish leadership in America in 2010? As I wrote earlier, circumstances may of course dictate that you can only work with a small group of people. But if your concerns are not for the larger collective, then you are navel-gazing, even if you have a group of friends gazing at their own navels along with you.
For example, Chabad shlichim often (usually?) work with a small group of people in basically cloistered communities around the country. But Chabad is driven by a vision for the entire Jewish people. The Labor Zionists of the Second Aliyah numbered no more than a few thousand, but they, too, were animated by their own, very different vision for the whole Jewish people. Whether their aims and means were right or wrong, this is leadership.
From what I hear, many of the efforts we are talking about in fact do make these claims for themselves. JDub’s mission is “to create community among young Jews, their friends, and significant others by promoting proud, authentic Jewish voices in popular culture.” Sounds like its leaders are at least telling the world that they are about something much bigger than running some concerts and promoting some Jewish musicians.
I want to ask – because I don’t see that question being asked – if that is really true. Are the leaders described by Cohen really building something that can speak to the unengaged Jewish masses, or are they building things that speak only to themselves? If the latter is the case, I hope they enjoy themselves greatly, and I will look for the next JDub find to add to my music collection, but no one should be looking to these people to carry the mantel of Jewish leadership in the future.
And I simply disagree that “relative to its generational peers, the knowledge and passion for Jewish life seems to be heavily concentrated in this group.” You only can make such a claim if you write off the Orthodox, which is at least a strange thing to do, and I am not convinced that there aren’t many other people interested in working within the Jewish establishment who have just as much knowledge and passion as their better-known peers. Could it not be that we hear more about these people not because they are actually better at what they do, but because our culture has a predilection for the new, different, and flashy? If you are saying that this group is better at getting articles written about it and winning prizes, that is of course very much true. But I am interested – and I think the Jewish world is truly interested – in outcomes and a moral vision.
It has been a pleasure fleshing out these ideas with you. Gamar hasima tova.
Matt
Gentleman, fascinating discussion. Worth noting, as one of those “annoying middle-aged” folks that spent a decent amount of time last year studying with Yeshiva Hadar, I can attest that both the leadership and young students there seemed more than willing to “rub shoulders” with me and a few other seekers-from-the-suburbs. I’d also not under estimate the influence of the Jewish innovation groups and initiatives on out-lying havurot, informal education or even formal congregations: from G-dcast to Rabbi Kaufner’s “Empowered Judaism”, these innovators and initiatives cast an influence well beyond their young demographic or downtown/UWS location.