[...] A new publication from the S3K Synagogue Studies Institute Synagogue 3000 is proud to introduce the S3K Synagogue Studies Institute with its first publication, an S3K Report authored by Steven M. Cohen examining synagogue membership in the United States. [...]
I have read the methodological note on page 6, but as I review the snapshot created by each denomination, I want to make sure that I am viewing one of synagogue members and not those who self-identify with a denomination but have not formally joined it. What I’m trying to understand is how Steven’s claim on p.2 of the report (second paragraph from bottom, “With all of the talk…) is substantiated by data based on synagogue members and differences in individual practice and attitudes, for a few reasons:
1. We would expect differences among movements that expend efforts explaining how they are different from each and put resources into sustaining those differences. But, post-denominational phenomena are happening outside of movements.
2. If the data set that Steven used is primarily from NJPS, problematic in its own right, it is already 7-8 years old (since it was first collected). Therefore, some of the findings from then are likely to have changed, given some new developments within the movements (which I can explain later, chief among which are the publication of Miskhan Tefillah by the Reform Movement and the impending approval of some form of acceptance of homosexuality by at least a part of the Conservative Movement, which will drive further denominational alignment at the elite level).
3. The original NJPS 2000-2001 show more similarity in congregational practice than Steven indicates in this report. This is not to minimize the differences, which he carefully documents. I just think that when you look at other indicators (Pesach seder observance, lighting chanukkah candles, etc.–I don’t have the study in front of me), there are some clear similarities emerging in practice. I don’t know if they will affect very sharp differences in the value of day school education, Jewish friendships, age distribution of movements, membership cycles and intermarriage–rather significant differences that are well-documented!
4. Finally, in all research, each researcher brings a perspective to bear on his/her construction of studies and interpretation of findings and it is important to make readers aware of that perspective and its underlying values. A researcher’s values, in subtle or sometimes no-so-subtle ways, informs the research process at every juncture. Just such a perspective and values appear to be built into Steven’s framework of “scoring” levels of involvement. That is one way to measure denominational differences.
5. For clarification purposes, I am not making a claim in either direction in this posting about the value of denominational Judaism. In fact, I believe that the creation of a homogenized, insipid post-denominational community would not be a fruitful effort and would dilute the vitality of Jewish religious/spiritual expression currently available (Steven’s study offers ample support for this argument) and would also conflict with an objective reading of Jewish history. I, as many of us, have our frustrations with the ability of denominational Judaism to engage more Jews and the many individual and family configurations in which they appear today. But, it is one thing to make a claim about the value of post-denominationalism and another to express the hope that the spiritual, social and intellectual capital represented by the denominations will be better utilized in the future. In that regard, the denominations are being greatly challenged, responding with different degrees of success and it is that issue that I will address later.
This report will stimulate much discussion within and across movements and among those who care about synagogues and their ability to shape Jewish values, attitudes and behaviors. And, as a comparative report, it makes a significant contribution to the discussion about the role of denominations. I’m working on a paper that will look at this issue from a complementary perspective, using different data. I look forward to joining this enriching dialogue.
Your kind and careful comments study (”Members and Motives”) form the basis of a very useful dialogue that I’d like to pursue. Your remarks allow me to clarify some points, for which I am grateful.
1. Regarding your comment that “post-denominational phenomena are happening outside of movements.” Yes, post-denominational phenomena are indeed happening outside the movements, which is why I’m actively pursuing the idea of surveying “members” of the independent minyan movement (thank you — Elie Kaunfer — may this happen speedily and in our days). That said, the post-denominational hypothesis is not only about what’s happening outside the movements. Rather, it DOES make claims about the people in our major-movement synagogues. It suggests that the Reform/Conservative boundary is blurring (no one has the same comment vis a vis the Orthodox, although some noble Orthodox leaders are trying to bring Orthodoxy back into real conversation with the rest of us — may their efforts be crowned with success). My paper said, in effect, it just ain’t so. Denominational differences are deep and, so far, enduring. Conservative and Reform Jews, as groups, in the aggregate, with many individual exceptions, derive from very different backgrounds and they practice Judaism with different emphases and styles. Failure to appreciate these differences sufficiently leads not only to bad analysis, but bad practice as well. (Yes, I think we generally fail to appreciate the differences, and all the excitement over independent minyanim — which I share enthusiastically — has led too many of us to proclaim the death — or dying — of denominations.)
Moreover, the vast majority of Jews who are serious about Judaism-as-religion are (still) in synagogues, and JCCs (almost 80% of JCC members are also synagogue members). There’s plenty of room for disaffection in congregations, whether propelled by post-denominationalism or other issues (skimpy kiddushes or long sermons). But the synagogue-affiliated population (at least for those past the age when they give birth to their first 7-year-old child) is still one where we should witness the significant turn to post- denominationalism, if the prematurely triumphalist claims of certain post-denominationalists are true.
My point is that post- or trans-denominationalism is an important cultural phenomenon, but it is not (yet?) a significant phenomenon in demographic terms. I would have made the same point about the havurah, feminist, and dovish-Zionist movements in the early 1970s. Small numbers of the right people does not mean small significance or small potential. But great significance does not mean large numbers.
In fact, and I thank Barbara Kirsheblatt-Gimblett for this insight, we may be witnessing the Jewish long-tail phenomenon (see Chris Anderson). But long-tail — lots of little niches — does not mean the end of the head, or the disappearance of “hits” (the major denominations). It does mean, or may mean, the reduction in the size of the hits. We may never have another I Love Lucy (in terms of numbers of viewers), but we still get Jon Stewart (thank God!) — a hit, albeit one with fewer viewers. The “indy minyans” may not replace denominations, but they may co-exist in a symbiotic relationship with them, drawing strength, and provoking healthy response and competitive adaptation (if the denominations act wisely — an open question, to be sure, but I have already seen the signs of responsiveness in several shuls).
2. Regarding you comments on the NJPS, I can say that after considerable controversy, the world has come around to accept the balanced view of the NJPS that I (and many others) advanced in 2001: It’s a deeply flawed study (worse than most realize), but surprisingly useful (and widely used, even by the star students of the prime critics). No one has (again, yet?) uncovered results in local or other studies that run severely counter to any of the main findings of the NJPS, save one: total Jewish population size (I think we have more Jews in the US than 5.2 million). Methodological rigor protects against faulty results. But sometimes, you can be healthy even if you fail to follow healthy habits. The NJPS may have squeaked through substantively unscathed, albeit methodologically unprotected.
If you’re right about change taking place in just the last 5 years (recognizing that the NJPS interviewing concluded in 2001), then we should see these changes in the more recent local population studies. No one has hit the airwaves with news of the convergence of Conservatism and Reform. Of course, anything is possible. But, I strongly suspect that my central argument (regarding the persistence of Reform / Conservative differentiation) still holds.
3. You write, “The original NJPS 2000-2001 show more similarity in
congregational practice than Steven indicates in this report,” and then refer to other indicators (Pesach seder observance, lighting chanukkah candles, etc….)”. I respond, everyone who wants to paint the Jewish world as undifferentiated inevitably relies on soft indicators, the kinds of things that almost all Jews do and feel. Here they are: Passover Seder, Hanukah candle-lighting, feeling proud to be Jewish, having a Jewish friend, wanting to make the world a better place, sensitivity to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, feeling culturally, if not religiously, Jewish, and turning to Jewish mourning customs upon the loss of a parent. I’m sure there are more such indicators. That said, one cannot argue that all Jews are the same (or that, in this case, the Conservative and Reform movements are very similar) unless one uses indicators that characterize some Jews and not others. To differentiate Jews, use indicators that can differentiate.
4. You remark about the role of “researcher’s values” and how they “inform the research process at every juncture.” I’m ready to admit (and, even, proudly proclaim — as do most others in the small circles of social scientists in my field) that my research is informed by passionate commitments; and I also have acquired a set of insights along the way that influence the way I see the world. And my work subtly, or not so subtly, interacts with my view of the (mis) understanding of my audience. However, all that is a long way from “bias,” or at least some readings of “bias.” Actually, I’m exceedingly impressed by the unbiased nature of my colleagues’ work. We’re all putting out results that seem to undercut our own positions on Jewish life. I feel differently about non-scientific advocates who put FORWARD certain interpretations in op-ed pieces that bear no scientific merit nor bother to consult with the researchers who are
responsible for the findings (enough said — for now).
In the end, I appreciate that we totally agree on the value of these discussions, and I do look forward to your own analyses.
Just last week I heard an Upper West Side rabbi say, in effect, that the meaning of Judaism lies in the ongoing conversation about what is the meaning of Judaism. Nice to have you, me, and the rest of this community participating actively in that club.
Yes, post-denominational phenomena are indeed happening outside the movements […] (Yes, I think we generally fail to appreciate the differences, and all the excitement over independent minyanim - which I share enthusiastically - has led too many of us to proclaim the death - or dying - of denominations.)
Here\’s a question for consideration: what you have captured in clear focus is a snapshot of the differences. However, and no surprise here, the to use an old analogy, the film is still rolling. What the end of this version of the movie will look like is an open question. My personal hope is that it will not be a homogenized, insipid, monolithic form of Judaism but will be true to Jewish history and reflect the great diversity that has always existed historically.
Moreover, the vast majority of Jews who are serious about Judaism-as-religion are (still) in synagogues. There\’s plenty of room for disaffection in congregations, whether propelled by post-denominationalism or other issues (skimpy kiddushes or long sermons). But the synagogue-affiliated population (at least for those past the age when they give birth to their first 7-year-old child) is still one where we should witness the significant turn to post-denominationalism, if the prematurely triumphalist claims of certain post-denominationalists are true.
I am writing on this topic now, and to throw out a tantalizing hint of my analysis, I think that we\’re approaching a minhag america, and I\’m not referring to liturgy (a la Wise) but certain practices, values and attitudes.
My point is that post- or trans-denominationalism is an important cultural phenomenon, but it is not (yet?) a significant phenomenon in demographic terms. I would have made the same point about the havurah, feminist, and dovish-Zionist movements in the early 1970s. Small numbers of the right people does not mean small significance or small potential. But great significance does not mean large numbers.
Point well taken, and I would add the Reconstructionist Movement illustrates that small numbers can generate big ideas.
[L]ong-tail - lots of little niches - does not mean the end of the head, or the disappearance of \”hits\” (the major denominations). It does mean, or may mean, the reduction in the size of the hits. […] The \”indy minyans\” may not replace denominations, but they may co-exist in a symbiotic relationship with them, drawing strength, and provoking healthy response and competitive adaptation (if the denominations act wisely - an open question, to be sure, but I have already seen the signs of responsiveness in several shuls).
On target!
If you\’re right about change taking place in just the last 5 years (recognizing that the NJPS interviewing concluded in 2001), then we should see these changes in the more recent local population studies. […] I strongly suspect that my central argument (regarding the persistence of Reform / Conservative differentiation) still holds.
I can\’t comment here yet as this is a part of my analysis.
[E]veryone who wants to paint the Jewish world as undifferentiated inevitably relies on soft indicators, the kinds of things that almost all Jews do and feel. […] To differentiate Jews, use indicators that can differentiate.
I think there is room for legitimate, objective, passionate discussion around the issue of indicators and how researchers construe scales of \”meaning.\”
I am so happy to be part of this! Here\’s what I think - at least today, among friends.
To start with, given the sociological tenor of what has been said thus far, I begin with a personal caveat: Misquoting Amos, I can say that I am neither a sociologist nor the son of a sociologist; but I am something of a historian, at least of liturgy and worship, so I offer some historical, not sociological, perspectives on post-denominationalism.
1. We should not expect Jewish anti-denominational currents in America prior to the rise of modern Jewish denominationalism here (usually traced to the 19th century). We ought to expect some parallels, however, in the same way that we can find pre-modern parallels to other modernisms, adjusted, of course, to account for their era and environment. The professionalized rabbinate too, for example, is a modernist nineteenth-century novelty, but we can see some similarities with rabbis from earlier eras. Negatively considered, one might cite rabbinic turf and ego concerns; to be positive, one can cite rabbinic loyalty to text, as read through glasses tinted with what once was universally called Torah sheb\’al peh, a cousin, at least of its modernist successor, the hermeneutically-derived term \”exegesis.\”
2. So even before modernity, there were sociologically significant clusters of rabbinically led communities with their own observable practices and styles. We ought, therefore, to be looking for breakaway groups from those. It is not clear, however, how we would know their full force, since until very recently, history was written and passed along by its winners. Ongoing chronicles of the breakaways required a social infrastructure that these dissidents were likely to get only after they became social movements in their own right, in which case, they are likely to have falsified their earlier situation when they had fought \”movementism\” as a matter of principle. The best example is Karaism, which was claimed only in retrospect to be a single social entity. I think it was Al Qirqisani in 937 who first implied the existence of a group going back to a putative eighth-century founder, Anan ben David; Al Qumisi, an older contemporary, was still blasting away at Anan, whose legacy must already have been powerful enough to attract the blasts, but who shortly thereafter (with Al Qirqisani) became the ex-post-facto titular founder of a movement.
My point is that had Anan and the other post-rabbinites not congealed into a recognizable movement, we would not know the extent of their influence and appeal. It is no accident that only with Saadiah do we find the anti-Karaite debate as central to liturgical argument (date his siddur at 920 or so). Saadiah\’s gaonate parallels the changeover from Al Qumisi to Al Qirqisani. By contrast, Amram wrote his siddur in 860 (or so), before Karaism became a movement. Amram virtually ignores it (I say virtually, because he or his predecessor Natronai at least knew enough to institute a blessing over Shabbat candles). But the ban on candle lighting, common to the proto-Karaite ideologues was well known. It took another 50 years or so for rabbinites to zero in on all the many differences that Karaism as a movement now threatened the Rabbinites with.
Nonetheless, from the general social trend for some separatists to eventuate into a movement, we may suspect, at least, that others did not. We know, for instance, how Uriel d\’Acosta was hounded in 17th-century Protestant Amsterdam; we do not know the extent to which he and others like him held anti-rabbinite meetings in small cell-like structures that nowadays might be called independent minyanim.
3. We can also learn from Christian examples, about which we know a whole lot more. Christianity was pretty much always rife with alternatives. We know most about independents who later become known as movements - the Reformation, being the best example. What we now see as monoliths (like Lutheranism - never mind the messy array of Calvinists) was once a set of loosely defined antagonists to Rome and to a social structure that benefited from Roman religious suzerainty.
4. I conclude therefore, that history tends in one of two directions: dissidents eventually join even their opponents-in-dissent as movements, or we lose track of them. If the former, they develop the necessary infrastructure to remain as movements, and to attract other dissidents like themselves. (Mary Douglas posits a natural movement in that direction, easily plotted on her grid/group axes.) Those dissidents who hold onto old differences at the expense of merging into such a movement, remain as what Douglas calls \”sects\” and become footnotes to history, even though some ideologues who found them get co-opted by the movements they oppose. In that case, their ideas may become more lasting than their followers (as a distinctive social group) turn out to be.
In my own reading, Reconstructionism barely avoided such total co-opting of its founder. Conservative Jews in revolt against Finkelstein\’s movement to the right very largely assimilated Kaplan\’s ideas as their raison-d\’etre; Reform Jews who liked peoplehood, championed a new Jewish state, and suspected traditional theism did likewise.
5. So where, in this spectrum, should we put anti-denominationalists?
6. To begin with, note, I say \”anti-denominationists,\” not \”post-denominationalists.\” The latter term prejudges the case, since it assumes that there is already a \”post.\” What Steven shows is just how wrong, at least so far, that is. He correctly situates the denominational differences in social characteristics of diverse population sectors. My own book projects the eventual need for observable denominational differences in ideology/ theology — a projection that (on retrospect) I am less certain about. I do agree (with myself) on predicting the demise of national programming as sufficient glue to retain congregational units under a single movement banner, but I now think I did not sufficiently take into account style, the more inchoate way in which denominational differences matter. I should have known better, if only from the liturgical line cited ubiquitously by Catholics, lex orandi lex credendi, \”The way we pray becomes what we believe,\” or, as I prefer to say, \”How we pray becomes who we say we are.\” Ideas are secondary accretions that justify already existent differences in style.
Ideas are not, on that account, just epiphenomena, however. They are the terms in which differences of style are debated, and once the debate is joined, they have their own consequences, not just ideological, but practical as well. So with Steven (I think) I believe denominations are not on the way out. They are just accommodating to a post-programmatical era, in which their prior justification (providing congregational things to do) has been taken over by the internet. If they develop compelling ideas with which to debate the probity of their style (attitudes toward intermarriage, liturgical creativity, approach to halachah, English in the liturgy, stands on social issues, and such), they will retain a denominational address on the spectrum of American Jewry.
7. The same can be said about the anti-denominationalists: they too will need ideational stands, in order to avoid marginalization and being forgotten as history marches forward. A parallel is the Chavurah \”movement,\” which never did become a true movement, partly because of the rugged independence of its members, which inherently prevented movement formation. It was saved by being co-opted into Reconstructionism (which might be seen itself as being saved by being co-opted the other way around). So far, however, I see less uniqueness to the anti-denominationalists than I saw in the chavurah loyalists, among whom I counted (and still count) myself. Despite the rhetoric that pairs our anti-denominationalists with emergent Christians, I am not certain yet a) that the pairing is accurate, and b) that even the Christian emergents will emerge from history in their current guise as more than a footnote. I expect they too will denominationalize or disappear. Even their appreciators like to say they are mostly \”anti,\” rather than \”pro\” something definitive. Saying they are post-denominational, or post-theological, because they are post-modern, is not, I think, enough. A clearly enunciated ideological/ theological accent on praxis (following the life of Jesus in the Gospels) rather than theological systematics might do. That is how British Wesleyism (later Methodism) and Polish Hasidism managed for a while. But eventually (like Methodists and Hasidim), the Christian emergents will need a justifying ideology, I think.
All the more so is that true of Jewish anti-denominationalists. Christian emergents have both the struggling mainline churches and the megachurches as foils. Our movements too may be struggling, but not all of them equally; and only relatively speaking; and we have no baby-boomer mega-phenomenon for post-boomers to rail against.
8. As you may have gathered from my own remarks, I am reacting to what I see as our own bias entering this conversation. I think Steven and I are in perfect alignment when we see the ongoing significance of denominations, and the (so-far) unproved staying power of the anti-denominationalists. We also (I think) agree on the potential of these \”antis\” nonetheless changing the Jewish religious landscape as the Chavurah movement did.
But he and I must also admit that we applaud the chavurah movement, feminists, and (as Steven calls it) the dovish Zionists (of which he was, I think, a prominent voice - I, incidentally, tried to be when I first became a rabbi, and was warned off by some powerful rabbis in the movement who threatened my tenure possibilities - another story for another time. I shouldn\’t have listened, but I did, and I am sorry for that.) My point here is that Hayim, Steven and I are all critical of status quos; we tend to like \”antis\” of a broadly liberal ilk (we would not so favor hawkishness, exclusionists, and the like). I certainly agree, with Steven, that in our scholarly dialogue, we are largely successful in transcending our biases. But I do wonder if they creep in, at least in nomenclature, as we too quickly label anti-denominationalists \”post\” when there is still no \”post\” even dimly visible on the horizon.
If anything, I think the future of the \”antis\” is as a movement in their own right - a movement that may cut across the visible fault lines of the sectors Steven elucidates in his S3K piece. So far, I am not yet convinced even of that, however. Going back to Amos, I now become vaguely prophetic, rather than scientific/historical - a mistake, potentially; but if I had to guess, I would say that the \”antis\” will coalesce into a small but significant movement that is largely Orthodox - an easy route for all the reasons that small Orthodox minyanim (needing to pay few or no professionals, for instance) find it relatively easy to flourish. They will appeal to some independent strands within Conservatism, which is struggling against liberal social currents, and losing ground institutionally. I do not yet see the natural constituency of Reform (as Steven outlines it) going that route in large numbers. I think, instead, that Reform institutions, which have managed to build the new big tent (as Jonathan Sarna puts it) will continue to make room even for the \”antis,\” as long as their style remains vaguely in accord with the broad limits that Reform has managed to stake out in America.
And as for the anti-movement \”post\”-denominationalists eventually becoming a denomination, well - it will either become one (like the Reconstructionists and the chavurah movement that joined them) or it will in retrospect amount to an interesting, though possibly influential, blip on a larger horizon of American religion in the 21st century.
I’m curious about the Reconstructionist movement’s members being both less integrated with the Jewish world (higher rates of intermarriage, less inclined toward a purely Jewish peer group, less likely to send their kids to day school) but also having higher average levels of Jewish observance than Reform Jews (more frequent synagogue attendance, more likely to light Shabbat candles, more likely to rate religion as “very important”).
I’m not sure if it is simply a function of sample size, but is it possible that this highlights two axes of ideological and cultural division between movements that are often seen as one: one axis that measures social integration with the Jewish world and another that measures ritual observance, or is it likely that over time these two measures will eventually come into alignment because they are in some ways co-dependent in the American context?
This is a great discussion. After reading the report, which I found to be enlightening on many levels, my initial concern is not with the study’s findings but with the way in which it has been reported in the JTA.
And while I realize that researchers cannot necessarily be responsible for how their work is being interpreted I find that in this case the headline of -
“Study: Ethnic identification on the wane, spirituality rising among Jews” - to be mis-leading as to the true content of the report and also contrary to the finding of my recently completed doctoral research.
Admittedly my study focused a) on adolescents and b) on Jewish teenagers who are involved in other youth activities (youth group, summer camp and day school). It did not look specifically at synagogue involvement.
But at least two of my findings standing out in contrast to the way in whcih this study was reported:
a) Teenagers rarely, if ever use the word spirtual in defining themselves.
b) The ways in which these teenagers did describe their belonging to the Jewish people was far more in line with the ways in which other ethnic groups (especially black, asian and hispanic teenagers in America) describe their belonging to their repsective ethnic groups.
And finally a word on methodology. A major critique of Jewish research must be the lack of truly independent research that has been conducted on the Jewish population. Not only does this raise the questions of who is sponsoring the studies, and what is it that they hope to find out (and why) but also has an additional concern when researching younger people.
Generally speaking many of these studies ask questions considered to be important to the generation asking the questions and the institutions sponsoring the studies. When do we have the opportunity to hear the authentic voice of our subjects?
I look forward to being able to share my research and seeing how it fits in to these broader discussions.
rabbis, especially those serving large numbers of intermarried families or the Jewish children of the intermarried, will find greater demand and greater receptivity to spiritual language and concerns in the years to come. Download PDFDiscuss the S3K Report— Rabbi Menachem Creditor — http://www.netivotshalom.org — http://www.shefanetwork.org — menachemcreditor.org To join Rabbi Creditor’s email list, send a blank email to thetisch-subscribe.
November 7th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
November 21st, 2006 at 5:20 am
I have read the methodological note on page 6, but as I review the snapshot created by each denomination, I want to make sure that I am viewing one of synagogue members and not those who self-identify with a denomination but have not formally joined it. What I’m trying to understand is how Steven’s claim on p.2 of the report (second paragraph from bottom, “With all of the talk…) is substantiated by data based on synagogue members and differences in individual practice and attitudes, for a few reasons:
1. We would expect differences among movements that expend efforts explaining how they are different from each and put resources into sustaining those differences. But, post-denominational phenomena are happening outside of movements.
2. If the data set that Steven used is primarily from NJPS, problematic in its own right, it is already 7-8 years old (since it was first collected). Therefore, some of the findings from then are likely to have changed, given some new developments within the movements (which I can explain later, chief among which are the publication of Miskhan Tefillah by the Reform Movement and the impending approval of some form of acceptance of homosexuality by at least a part of the Conservative Movement, which will drive further denominational alignment at the elite level).
3. The original NJPS 2000-2001 show more similarity in congregational practice than Steven indicates in this report. This is not to minimize the differences, which he carefully documents. I just think that when you look at other indicators (Pesach seder observance, lighting chanukkah candles, etc.–I don’t have the study in front of me), there are some clear similarities emerging in practice. I don’t know if they will affect very sharp differences in the value of day school education, Jewish friendships, age distribution of movements, membership cycles and intermarriage–rather significant differences that are well-documented!
4. Finally, in all research, each researcher brings a perspective to bear on his/her construction of studies and interpretation of findings and it is important to make readers aware of that perspective and its underlying values. A researcher’s values, in subtle or sometimes no-so-subtle ways, informs the research process at every juncture. Just such a perspective and values appear to be built into Steven’s framework of “scoring” levels of involvement. That is one way to measure denominational differences.
5. For clarification purposes, I am not making a claim in either direction in this posting about the value of denominational Judaism. In fact, I believe that the creation of a homogenized, insipid post-denominational community would not be a fruitful effort and would dilute the vitality of Jewish religious/spiritual expression currently available (Steven’s study offers ample support for this argument) and would also conflict with an objective reading of Jewish history. I, as many of us, have our frustrations with the ability of denominational Judaism to engage more Jews and the many individual and family configurations in which they appear today. But, it is one thing to make a claim about the value of post-denominationalism and another to express the hope that the spiritual, social and intellectual capital represented by the denominations will be better utilized in the future. In that regard, the denominations are being greatly challenged, responding with different degrees of success and it is that issue that I will address later.
This report will stimulate much discussion within and across movements and among those who care about synagogues and their ability to shape Jewish values, attitudes and behaviors. And, as a comparative report, it makes a significant contribution to the discussion about the role of denominations. I’m working on a paper that will look at this issue from a complementary perspective, using different data. I look forward to joining this enriching dialogue.
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Your kind and careful comments study (”Members and Motives”) form the basis of a very useful dialogue that I’d like to pursue. Your remarks allow me to clarify some points, for which I am grateful.
1. Regarding your comment that “post-denominational phenomena are happening outside of movements.” Yes, post-denominational phenomena are indeed happening outside the movements, which is why I’m actively pursuing the idea of surveying “members” of the independent minyan movement (thank you — Elie Kaunfer — may this happen speedily and in our days). That said, the post-denominational hypothesis is not only about what’s happening outside the movements. Rather, it DOES make claims about the people in our major-movement synagogues. It suggests that the Reform/Conservative boundary is blurring (no one has the same comment vis a vis the Orthodox, although some noble Orthodox leaders are trying to bring Orthodoxy back into real conversation with the rest of us — may their efforts be crowned with success). My paper said, in effect, it just ain’t so. Denominational differences are deep and, so far, enduring. Conservative and Reform Jews, as groups, in the aggregate, with many individual exceptions, derive from very different backgrounds and they practice Judaism with different emphases and styles. Failure to appreciate these differences sufficiently leads not only to bad analysis, but bad practice as well. (Yes, I think we generally fail to appreciate the differences, and all the excitement over independent minyanim — which I share enthusiastically — has led too many of us to proclaim the death — or dying — of denominations.)
Moreover, the vast majority of Jews who are serious about Judaism-as-religion are (still) in synagogues, and JCCs (almost 80% of JCC members are also synagogue members). There’s plenty of room for disaffection in congregations, whether propelled by post-denominationalism or other issues (skimpy kiddushes or long sermons). But the synagogue-affiliated population (at least for those past the age when they give birth to their first 7-year-old child) is still one where we should witness the significant turn to post- denominationalism, if the prematurely triumphalist claims of certain post-denominationalists are true.
My point is that post- or trans-denominationalism is an important cultural phenomenon, but it is not (yet?) a significant phenomenon in demographic terms. I would have made the same point about the havurah, feminist, and dovish-Zionist movements in the early 1970s. Small numbers of the right people does not mean small significance or small potential. But great significance does not mean large numbers.
In fact, and I thank Barbara Kirsheblatt-Gimblett for this insight, we may be witnessing the Jewish long-tail phenomenon (see Chris Anderson). But long-tail — lots of little niches — does not mean the end of the head, or the disappearance of “hits” (the major denominations). It does mean, or may mean, the reduction in the size of the hits. We may never have another I Love Lucy (in terms of numbers of viewers), but we still get Jon Stewart (thank God!) — a hit, albeit one with fewer viewers. The “indy minyans” may not replace denominations, but they may co-exist in a symbiotic relationship with them, drawing strength, and provoking healthy response and competitive adaptation (if the denominations act wisely — an open question, to be sure, but I have already seen the signs of responsiveness in several shuls).
2. Regarding you comments on the NJPS, I can say that after considerable controversy, the world has come around to accept the balanced view of the NJPS that I (and many others) advanced in 2001: It’s a deeply flawed study (worse than most realize), but surprisingly useful (and widely used, even by the star students of the prime critics). No one has (again, yet?) uncovered results in local or other studies that run severely counter to any of the main findings of the NJPS, save one: total Jewish population size (I think we have more Jews in the US than 5.2 million). Methodological rigor protects against faulty results. But sometimes, you can be healthy even if you fail to follow healthy habits. The NJPS may have squeaked through substantively unscathed, albeit methodologically unprotected.
If you’re right about change taking place in just the last 5 years (recognizing that the NJPS interviewing concluded in 2001), then we should see these changes in the more recent local population studies. No one has hit the airwaves with news of the convergence of Conservatism and Reform. Of course, anything is possible. But, I strongly suspect that my central argument (regarding the persistence of Reform / Conservative differentiation) still holds.
3. You write, “The original NJPS 2000-2001 show more similarity in
congregational practice than Steven indicates in this report,” and then refer to other indicators (Pesach seder observance, lighting chanukkah candles, etc….)”. I respond, everyone who wants to paint the Jewish world as undifferentiated inevitably relies on soft indicators, the kinds of things that almost all Jews do and feel. Here they are: Passover Seder, Hanukah candle-lighting, feeling proud to be Jewish, having a Jewish friend, wanting to make the world a better place, sensitivity to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, feeling culturally, if not religiously, Jewish, and turning to Jewish mourning customs upon the loss of a parent. I’m sure there are more such indicators. That said, one cannot argue that all Jews are the same (or that, in this case, the Conservative and Reform movements are very similar) unless one uses indicators that characterize some Jews and not others. To differentiate Jews, use indicators that can differentiate.
4. You remark about the role of “researcher’s values” and how they “inform the research process at every juncture.” I’m ready to admit (and, even, proudly proclaim — as do most others in the small circles of social scientists in my field) that my research is informed by passionate commitments; and I also have acquired a set of insights along the way that influence the way I see the world. And my work subtly, or not so subtly, interacts with my view of the (mis) understanding of my audience. However, all that is a long way from “bias,” or at least some readings of “bias.” Actually, I’m exceedingly impressed by the unbiased nature of my colleagues’ work. We’re all putting out results that seem to undercut our own positions on Jewish life. I feel differently about non-scientific advocates who put FORWARD certain interpretations in op-ed pieces that bear no scientific merit nor bother to consult with the researchers who are
responsible for the findings (enough said — for now).
In the end, I appreciate that we totally agree on the value of these discussions, and I do look forward to your own analyses.
Just last week I heard an Upper West Side rabbi say, in effect, that the meaning of Judaism lies in the ongoing conversation about what is the meaning of Judaism. Nice to have you, me, and the rest of this community participating actively in that club.
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:18 pm
[...] Check out the developing conversation about Steven M. Cohen’s S3K Report (scroll down to the comments section) and join in the fun! [...]
December 2nd, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Here\’s a question for consideration: what you have captured in clear focus is a snapshot of the differences. However, and no surprise here, the to use an old analogy, the film is still rolling. What the end of this version of the movie will look like is an open question. My personal hope is that it will not be a homogenized, insipid, monolithic form of Judaism but will be true to Jewish history and reflect the great diversity that has always existed historically.
I am writing on this topic now, and to throw out a tantalizing hint of my analysis, I think that we\’re approaching a minhag america, and I\’m not referring to liturgy (a la Wise) but certain practices, values and attitudes.
Point well taken, and I would add the Reconstructionist Movement illustrates that small numbers can generate big ideas.
On target!
I can\’t comment here yet as this is a part of my analysis.
I think there is room for legitimate, objective, passionate discussion around the issue of indicators and how researchers construe scales of \”meaning.\”
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:57 pm
I am so happy to be part of this! Here\’s what I think - at least today, among friends.
To start with, given the sociological tenor of what has been said thus far, I begin with a personal caveat: Misquoting Amos, I can say that I am neither a sociologist nor the son of a sociologist; but I am something of a historian, at least of liturgy and worship, so I offer some historical, not sociological, perspectives on post-denominationalism.
1. We should not expect Jewish anti-denominational currents in America prior to the rise of modern Jewish denominationalism here (usually traced to the 19th century). We ought to expect some parallels, however, in the same way that we can find pre-modern parallels to other modernisms, adjusted, of course, to account for their era and environment. The professionalized rabbinate too, for example, is a modernist nineteenth-century novelty, but we can see some similarities with rabbis from earlier eras. Negatively considered, one might cite rabbinic turf and ego concerns; to be positive, one can cite rabbinic loyalty to text, as read through glasses tinted with what once was universally called Torah sheb\’al peh, a cousin, at least of its modernist successor, the hermeneutically-derived term \”exegesis.\”
2. So even before modernity, there were sociologically significant clusters of rabbinically led communities with their own observable practices and styles. We ought, therefore, to be looking for breakaway groups from those. It is not clear, however, how we would know their full force, since until very recently, history was written and passed along by its winners. Ongoing chronicles of the breakaways required a social infrastructure that these dissidents were likely to get only after they became social movements in their own right, in which case, they are likely to have falsified their earlier situation when they had fought \”movementism\” as a matter of principle. The best example is Karaism, which was claimed only in retrospect to be a single social entity. I think it was Al Qirqisani in 937 who first implied the existence of a group going back to a putative eighth-century founder, Anan ben David; Al Qumisi, an older contemporary, was still blasting away at Anan, whose legacy must already have been powerful enough to attract the blasts, but who shortly thereafter (with Al Qirqisani) became the ex-post-facto titular founder of a movement.
My point is that had Anan and the other post-rabbinites not congealed into a recognizable movement, we would not know the extent of their influence and appeal. It is no accident that only with Saadiah do we find the anti-Karaite debate as central to liturgical argument (date his siddur at 920 or so). Saadiah\’s gaonate parallels the changeover from Al Qumisi to Al Qirqisani. By contrast, Amram wrote his siddur in 860 (or so), before Karaism became a movement. Amram virtually ignores it (I say virtually, because he or his predecessor Natronai at least knew enough to institute a blessing over Shabbat candles). But the ban on candle lighting, common to the proto-Karaite ideologues was well known. It took another 50 years or so for rabbinites to zero in on all the many differences that Karaism as a movement now threatened the Rabbinites with.
Nonetheless, from the general social trend for some separatists to eventuate into a movement, we may suspect, at least, that others did not. We know, for instance, how Uriel d\’Acosta was hounded in 17th-century Protestant Amsterdam; we do not know the extent to which he and others like him held anti-rabbinite meetings in small cell-like structures that nowadays might be called independent minyanim.
3. We can also learn from Christian examples, about which we know a whole lot more. Christianity was pretty much always rife with alternatives. We know most about independents who later become known as movements - the Reformation, being the best example. What we now see as monoliths (like Lutheranism - never mind the messy array of Calvinists) was once a set of loosely defined antagonists to Rome and to a social structure that benefited from Roman religious suzerainty.
4. I conclude therefore, that history tends in one of two directions: dissidents eventually join even their opponents-in-dissent as movements, or we lose track of them. If the former, they develop the necessary infrastructure to remain as movements, and to attract other dissidents like themselves. (Mary Douglas posits a natural movement in that direction, easily plotted on her grid/group axes.) Those dissidents who hold onto old differences at the expense of merging into such a movement, remain as what Douglas calls \”sects\” and become footnotes to history, even though some ideologues who found them get co-opted by the movements they oppose. In that case, their ideas may become more lasting than their followers (as a distinctive social group) turn out to be.
In my own reading, Reconstructionism barely avoided such total co-opting of its founder. Conservative Jews in revolt against Finkelstein\’s movement to the right very largely assimilated Kaplan\’s ideas as their raison-d\’etre; Reform Jews who liked peoplehood, championed a new Jewish state, and suspected traditional theism did likewise.
5. So where, in this spectrum, should we put anti-denominationalists?
6. To begin with, note, I say \”anti-denominationists,\” not \”post-denominationalists.\” The latter term prejudges the case, since it assumes that there is already a \”post.\” What Steven shows is just how wrong, at least so far, that is. He correctly situates the denominational differences in social characteristics of diverse population sectors. My own book projects the eventual need for observable denominational differences in ideology/ theology — a projection that (on retrospect) I am less certain about. I do agree (with myself) on predicting the demise of national programming as sufficient glue to retain congregational units under a single movement banner, but I now think I did not sufficiently take into account style, the more inchoate way in which denominational differences matter. I should have known better, if only from the liturgical line cited ubiquitously by Catholics, lex orandi lex credendi, \”The way we pray becomes what we believe,\” or, as I prefer to say, \”How we pray becomes who we say we are.\” Ideas are secondary accretions that justify already existent differences in style.
Ideas are not, on that account, just epiphenomena, however. They are the terms in which differences of style are debated, and once the debate is joined, they have their own consequences, not just ideological, but practical as well. So with Steven (I think) I believe denominations are not on the way out. They are just accommodating to a post-programmatical era, in which their prior justification (providing congregational things to do) has been taken over by the internet. If they develop compelling ideas with which to debate the probity of their style (attitudes toward intermarriage, liturgical creativity, approach to halachah, English in the liturgy, stands on social issues, and such), they will retain a denominational address on the spectrum of American Jewry.
7. The same can be said about the anti-denominationalists: they too will need ideational stands, in order to avoid marginalization and being forgotten as history marches forward. A parallel is the Chavurah \”movement,\” which never did become a true movement, partly because of the rugged independence of its members, which inherently prevented movement formation. It was saved by being co-opted into Reconstructionism (which might be seen itself as being saved by being co-opted the other way around). So far, however, I see less uniqueness to the anti-denominationalists than I saw in the chavurah loyalists, among whom I counted (and still count) myself. Despite the rhetoric that pairs our anti-denominationalists with emergent Christians, I am not certain yet a) that the pairing is accurate, and b) that even the Christian emergents will emerge from history in their current guise as more than a footnote. I expect they too will denominationalize or disappear. Even their appreciators like to say they are mostly \”anti,\” rather than \”pro\” something definitive. Saying they are post-denominational, or post-theological, because they are post-modern, is not, I think, enough. A clearly enunciated ideological/ theological accent on praxis (following the life of Jesus in the Gospels) rather than theological systematics might do. That is how British Wesleyism (later Methodism) and Polish Hasidism managed for a while. But eventually (like Methodists and Hasidim), the Christian emergents will need a justifying ideology, I think.
All the more so is that true of Jewish anti-denominationalists. Christian emergents have both the struggling mainline churches and the megachurches as foils. Our movements too may be struggling, but not all of them equally; and only relatively speaking; and we have no baby-boomer mega-phenomenon for post-boomers to rail against.
8. As you may have gathered from my own remarks, I am reacting to what I see as our own bias entering this conversation. I think Steven and I are in perfect alignment when we see the ongoing significance of denominations, and the (so-far) unproved staying power of the anti-denominationalists. We also (I think) agree on the potential of these \”antis\” nonetheless changing the Jewish religious landscape as the Chavurah movement did.
But he and I must also admit that we applaud the chavurah movement, feminists, and (as Steven calls it) the dovish Zionists (of which he was, I think, a prominent voice - I, incidentally, tried to be when I first became a rabbi, and was warned off by some powerful rabbis in the movement who threatened my tenure possibilities - another story for another time. I shouldn\’t have listened, but I did, and I am sorry for that.) My point here is that Hayim, Steven and I are all critical of status quos; we tend to like \”antis\” of a broadly liberal ilk (we would not so favor hawkishness, exclusionists, and the like). I certainly agree, with Steven, that in our scholarly dialogue, we are largely successful in transcending our biases. But I do wonder if they creep in, at least in nomenclature, as we too quickly label anti-denominationalists \”post\” when there is still no \”post\” even dimly visible on the horizon.
If anything, I think the future of the \”antis\” is as a movement in their own right - a movement that may cut across the visible fault lines of the sectors Steven elucidates in his S3K piece. So far, I am not yet convinced even of that, however. Going back to Amos, I now become vaguely prophetic, rather than scientific/historical - a mistake, potentially; but if I had to guess, I would say that the \”antis\” will coalesce into a small but significant movement that is largely Orthodox - an easy route for all the reasons that small Orthodox minyanim (needing to pay few or no professionals, for instance) find it relatively easy to flourish. They will appeal to some independent strands within Conservatism, which is struggling against liberal social currents, and losing ground institutionally. I do not yet see the natural constituency of Reform (as Steven outlines it) going that route in large numbers. I think, instead, that Reform institutions, which have managed to build the new big tent (as Jonathan Sarna puts it) will continue to make room even for the \”antis,\” as long as their style remains vaguely in accord with the broad limits that Reform has managed to stake out in America.
And as for the anti-movement \”post\”-denominationalists eventually becoming a denomination, well - it will either become one (like the Reconstructionists and the chavurah movement that joined them) or it will in retrospect amount to an interesting, though possibly influential, blip on a larger horizon of American religion in the 21st century.
December 29th, 2006 at 5:16 am
January 17th, 2007 at 7:43 am
I’m curious about the Reconstructionist movement’s members being both less integrated with the Jewish world (higher rates of intermarriage, less inclined toward a purely Jewish peer group, less likely to send their kids to day school) but also having higher average levels of Jewish observance than Reform Jews (more frequent synagogue attendance, more likely to light Shabbat candles, more likely to rate religion as “very important”).
I’m not sure if it is simply a function of sample size, but is it possible that this highlights two axes of ideological and cultural division between movements that are often seen as one: one axis that measures social integration with the Jewish world and another that measures ritual observance, or is it likely that over time these two measures will eventually come into alignment because they are in some ways co-dependent in the American context?
April 1st, 2009 at 8:05 am
This is a great discussion. After reading the report, which I found to be enlightening on many levels, my initial concern is not with the study’s findings but with the way in which it has been reported in the JTA.
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/31/1004139/ethnic-identification-on-the-wane-spirituality-rising-among-jews-study-finds
And while I realize that researchers cannot necessarily be responsible for how their work is being interpreted I find that in this case the headline of -
“Study: Ethnic identification on the wane, spirituality rising among Jews” - to be mis-leading as to the true content of the report and also contrary to the finding of my recently completed doctoral research.
Admittedly my study focused a) on adolescents and b) on Jewish teenagers who are involved in other youth activities (youth group, summer camp and day school). It did not look specifically at synagogue involvement.
But at least two of my findings standing out in contrast to the way in whcih this study was reported:
a) Teenagers rarely, if ever use the word spirtual in defining themselves.
b) The ways in which these teenagers did describe their belonging to the Jewish people was far more in line with the ways in which other ethnic groups (especially black, asian and hispanic teenagers in America) describe their belonging to their repsective ethnic groups.
And finally a word on methodology. A major critique of Jewish research must be the lack of truly independent research that has been conducted on the Jewish population. Not only does this raise the questions of who is sponsoring the studies, and what is it that they hope to find out (and why) but also has an additional concern when researching younger people.
Generally speaking many of these studies ask questions considered to be important to the generation asking the questions and the institutions sponsoring the studies. When do we have the opportunity to hear the authentic voice of our subjects?
I look forward to being able to share my research and seeing how it fits in to these broader discussions.
David
David Bryfman
bryfmand
April 1st, 2009 at 9:46 pm