Football's coming home, it's coming home it's coming. Three Lions on the shirt. God save the queen. I have rarely heard English patriotism expressed without either mild sarcasm or under the influence of football-induced intoxication. We are masters of irony here in Britain and take great pride in our Rowan Atkinson-esque ability to crush idealistic foreigners with our ready wit and cynicism. It's a national sport. I remember in Yeshiva, I took great pleasure in comparing the barbaric simplicity of baseball to the noble grace of Test cricket without giving the slightest indication that I may not have been entirely serious. The relevance of this might become clearer later.
Going back to my comfort zone between the 11th and 13th Centuries in Spain I encountered a fascinating concept called 'symbiosis' in a recent seminar. I have done a few posts on areas such as poetry and how Jews were influenced by Islamic culture and philosophy in many areas of their lives in medieval Spain. But this concept needs clarifying. I learned last year when studying about the Viking raids into the Irish sea in the 9th Century (riveting stuff incidentally, great icebreaker on a date) that there are two different ways you can view cultural integration - as assimilation or as acculturation. Assimilation implies that there is a dominant culture whose influence is so pervasive that the 'conquered' culture basically disappears. Evidence of this could be a disappearance of original religion or customs in favour of the host culture's. However, the other way of looking at it is acculturation whereby the two groups synthesize into a hybrid culture which includes elements of both. Now this is a particularly interesting paradigm as it seems that we often think of influences into Jewish life as being a threat of the former. A challenge to an original way of life which is threatened by a host culture.
Yet what is particularly striking about Jewish life in Islamic Spain is the manner in which Islamic ideas and customs were used to enhance the Jewish religious experience. This is what I heard described as 'symbiosis'. It is sort of like combining two elements without compromising either. Being a Spanish Jew was a mixture of things, without a feeling of dilution or compromise. It is also interesting to compare the ease with which the Jews of Andalusia appeared to integrate philosophy and Islamic culture with the attitude in Provence which was far more defensive, and how this conflict was brought to a climax in the various controversies over Maimonides after population relocation.
So could this be considered a Modern Orthodox paradigm? Well certainly it seems to share a lot in common with what leaders of MO communities today would like to aspire to. It developed the idea which found its fullest expression in the writings of the Rambam that God was to be found in all realms of human experience and wisdom and that, more radically, without that breadth of scope the religious personality was lacking. But was this how the community was created? Was this what sustained it? The more I look into it, the less likely it seems that ideas were the crucial element here. With the mind-set came a strong sense of Spanish pride and history, something that can also be seen in the Rambam's appendage of himself as 'The Sefardi' as well as a strong sense of loyalty to the Andalusian rabbinic tradition in his responses to Samuel ben Eli.
As I mentioned when I visited Toledo, poems were written in praise of host towns and cities, and integration with Islamic culture, it seems, was part of being 'Spanish' rather than a concerted attempt to establish a philosophical principle. It is also clear that whilst philosophy was admired, it was treated with a degree of suspicion by many religious leaders, and this can be seen most strikingly in the many debates concerning the Rambam, particularly the Rabad.
I have recently becoming quite taken with the concept of 'Tradition'. For quite a few years, many educators around me have liked to contrast this concept epitomised by the comic figure of Teviah the milkman in Fiddler on the roof with authentic, Torah Judaism which was thought through and not based on thoughtless rote practice. But in recent years I have grown to increasingly admire old communities that I have come across whose dedication comes solely from such traditions. This is particularly evident in the Sefardi communities. I have sensed something far more deeply felt than countless other communities which appear far more conventionally 'Frum'. And it is something very simple. Time and shared experiences and practices develop a very powerful religious identity of which ideas are just one part. You can't divorce the ideas developed in medieval Spain under Islamic rule from its cultural context when thinking about it as a community.
This is one of the legacies of the holocaust in terms of dislocation. Europe disappeared so it was re-imagined. Ideas and concepts which existed more in books than in lived experience have been extrapolated and used as the bedrock of communal existence. So we rebuild from the rubble. But ideas alone are lost without concrete symbols. The Jewish strongholds have remained the defining characteristics of the community. The shul and its sanctity, the houses of learning, the figure of the rabbi, the Sefer Torah. Marriage, Brit Milah, Kashrut, adherence to Halakha. Even the burial plots. I was quite moved by the remnants of the gravestones that I found in Girona and the timeless message of comfort of finding peace in Gan Eden. Jews have always lived together and died together and this creates an indescribably powerful bond. It also helped me understand why some of Maimonides' ideas were so fiercely resisted. The world of the intellect had little place in the storm-tossed reality of daily turmoil and suffering.
My title is a bit of a misnomer. I am a strong believer that the ideas espoused by Modern Orthodox thinkers are among the most profound in Jewish thought. In terms of mindset and ideals, the opportunities it presents are enormous. It's not that I think that MO cannot exist as an idea it's just that it has never stood alone as a communal identity. The ideas, it appears to me, have always relied on strong existing structures in order to flourish. It was these structures rather than the ideas that created the unity. You might say that they are religious communities, for whom modernity was a possible element. For example, a strong adherence to Halakhah. I think of certain communities such as the Gush or YU. I can't really see that they are united by anything other than a strict loyalty to halakha, and they don't need to be. But as long as contemporary self-defined MO communities insist in discussing what unifying ideology it believes in, it can confusingly never define what its communities stand for. (Stay tuned, however, for my riveting roller coaster of any argument that many of the ideals espoused by MO leaders are far more than ideological choices). Actions talk, words don't.
A particularly interesting example of this is what I witnessed in Yeshiva when spending time with Americans. I noticed that they had a far stronger identification with their host country than Anglos ever did. Thanksgiving and Fourth of July were treated by some with real respect and reverence. There was a pride in national sports such as Baseball and Basketball which struck me as rather sweet. Looking at the facebook posts from several YU people from yeshiva, I can see that for many, the University experience is not simply one which is grudgingly accepted as a necessity but is a thriving and vibrant culture involving societies and movements. There is an energy which is very much lacking here. But it is distinctly American. From the video clips promoting individuals for president for whatever society many religious Jews embrace the college experience and buy into everything American. This is the strength. But the ideological aspect is greatly aided by the general openness of American culture. Being open-minded, proudly religious and free thinking all fits in very well with the American prototype. It also encourages wealth and 'bourgeois' comforts. It is an interesting translation of religious life into a contemporary society but I wouldn't see it as a stand-alone paradigm which is transferable.
Contrast this to the chareidi communal identity, which for all its problems is very strong indeed as a communal structure. I am not going to go into every shade of grey here but as an outline there are concrete symbols, there are clear lines of authority which cannot be crossed, there is a particular way to dress, there are clear off-limits, there is a way to walk a way to talk, and a clear value system, yeshivas to go to etc. This alone does not make a thriving community but it gives it a very strong skeleton.
In my experience, the strongest example of ideology and mind-set being promoted in a communal setting has always been on camp with my youth group. There, the ideas that are theories for most of the year become actualised in a very intimate setting, and are included as part of the activities. Ideas such as Religious Zionism or Torah u Madda are given concrete existence. But in the real world it doesn't work this way. I have read many blogs recently talking about an imminent split in the MO community, either to the right or the left and many rabbis debating the correct solution to this problem. Good lord, I'm thinking. It's like communism all over again. I thought we'd learned that you can't make people better with a system alone. I suppose this has not been too constructive but it's a work in progress. Next post will discuss the importance of a central figure who is important not so much for what they stand for but for creating a pride and self-confidence in those who follow them.
