Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Untitled

    Uploaded by

    outdash2
    570 views13 pages

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    570 views13 pages

    Untitled

    Uploaded by

    outdash2

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 13
    Haym Soleveitchik Clarifications and Reply An author never has the right to comptain of being misunderstood, as the first task of a writer is ta make himself understood. If 1 claim, in part, to have been misunderstood, especially by so perceptive a read- eras Dr Chavel, the fault is mine entirely. [ can, perhaps. clarify qwhat | sought lo communicate by briclly presenting the genesis of amy essay. Like most of my contemporaries and elders, [ was baffled by the spread of Bumror (stringencies in religious performance). Upon ret lection 1 realizech that many of the so called brriror were, in Fact, quite reasonable, indeed, could often make good claim to being the only correct riing in the case at hund, Frequendy, a new practice was being labeled a “gia”, aot because it was lhe more stringent of two valid views, but simply because it made stricter demands than what had been habiwually requited. More often than not, “bumra® meant simply "more than what one had been accustomed to.” A sec- end question teek then the place of the first: If these new demands were logical, occasionally even ineluctable, why bad they net beea made before? Thac our age would witness novel requirements in Sabbath observance: or éibrut is understandable. Modern technola- gy had created a cornucopia of new praduers which required reli- gious deliniion, and the growing complexity of fond icchnology had transtormed many bitherts harmless products into questionable ones, from the point of view of kasbrut. However, the wave of bamrot had encompassed, indead, had begun, with a reevaluation of religious abjects and acts chat had been practiced for many centuries. Why bad previous generations aot drawn the same obvious conclusions? What then struck me was Lhal while there were new dumvorin what was 1s? 138 The Torah U-Madda Journal admissible into the kitchen {ie,, the new products of food technok~ gy), (here were no fume! in the actual running of the kitchen. The laws of milk and meat (hasar be-beler’) as practiced ly the (raditional Jewish housewife (jidishe baleboste} still held sway. Why had “domestic religion" eluded or withstood the contemporary, reformist impulse? What had set it apart from che other realms of religions practice? Upon deliberat-on, it became clear that the transmission of “domes- tic religion" was ma by Ieaming but by rate, not by book but by kitchen apprenticeship. [It sas, in other words, mimetic, as, upon ref- lection, wus much of religious practice in the culturally sealed com- munilics of Eastern Lurape. JL was simply part of the unreflecting mechanisms of living and acting that one imbibed fromm one's sut- foundings. Migrat:on then loomed as an answer te my question. The move from Fast to West, the shift fom a closed wo a cultueally open community and from a corporate to a democratic society enlailed the Joss of a mimetic tradition, Burt if this was true, why had these damned developments nol arisen among the immigrant generation, of, at ihe least, with their children, the ones first mised in the New World? Tt had, however, arisen among the grandehildren of great grandchildren of these immigrunts. Migration was clearly 2 factor, but, alone, it could Rot account for the change. “Acculturation came to mind, and, indeed, in its original form, the essay was entitled Migration, Accul- turation and the Kew Role of Tests."! Fhe tile “Rupture ane Recon struction” came about only because University of Chicago Press, which owned che copyright to the original essay, would peru ils publication, even in an expanded form, only under 4 different tlle. “Acculturation,” abo, was a technical term, and J preferced not using it in the Ge of an article intended tor a general audience, 1 chose rather te desczibe the process al length (pp. 74-76, 78-80, $9-90), and then, le use the term repeatedly toughout the article. Not highlighting it in the tite was, apparently, a misiake, as the centrality of the process of acculturation eluded so discerning a reader as Dr. Chavel. Before con- Gnuing, however [should explain what 1 mean by that term, and a contrast of “acculturation” with “assimilation” will be useful? “Assimilation” is the conscious adoption by a group of some or all of the values of its host society. Assimilation can be toral, leading either to conversion or to complete boss of a disunctive identity, Or it can be partial, as with “modern Crthodoxy." Modern Onhodoxy con- sdiously adoprs cerlain yalues of Western civilization Chumanism, for example} und seeks to incorporate them inte both its “Weltanschau- ung” and way of life. "Acculturation," on the other hand, is an uncon. Scius process. As strongly as one may resist any integration with che Hiayin Soloveitchik 135 host soviely, nevertheless, over the course of time, significant ways of thinking, feeling are! acting receive their impress from the mold of the environment. Hud 1 been dealing exelusively with the United Srates, and I was not. T would have used the term "Americanization;” in time one does business like an Amezican, relaxes as does an Ametican, cats like an American, acquires an American sense of humor, and saon. One ean, thus, be acculturated but not assimilated, and such was my .hesis about the haredi community of today Conversely, one can strive with might and main (o be in all ways an American, ye! much water will bave to pass under the brielye before one's intonation, aspirations, sense of family, notions of relaxation, fomor, and the Hike, become identical with these of the native Thus, one can be assimilared anc nen acculturated, as when one says "Despite itail, be remained a yeshiva buchur his entire life." Or, more saliently, as with the members of the Bund or the followers of Jewish Secularism, They were radically assimilated. They rejected totally Jewish religion und embraced the ideology, if you wish, the religion, of Communism or thac of Secularism, Yer their ethnic identity was so strong (hat they insisted on their being Jewish Camunists or Jewish Secularists, despite all che paradoxes that these terms entailed Yiddish was often their primary language, and in both these groups, not suprisingly, intermarriage was almos| unheard of. ‘The unconscious transformation of acculturation is a far stower process than that of assimilation, which simply requires decision and active endeaver. How long a process? Human namre being what it is, there are no hard and fast rules, Qecusionally, it can happen within a generation, as when one says “I never woul have gucssed that he is a Frenchman." But usually it kes more time. The British have a say- ing, “lt takes three gencrations to make a gentleman.” A class-ridden lo be sure, hul.one that roughly expresses a social truth. A successful laborer (or immigranc) can rarely change his spots. Almost invariably, he will carry the characteristics of his upbringing ta his dying day, long after hc hus made his fortune. Nor will his child be from his origins. For childhood is the most impressionable time, the ouest period of socmlization. tt is then that one acquires ones basic values and most fundamental notions of comportiment, (This, agaiu, is what the English have ia mind when they speak of Shroeding ") Ancl this childhood was spent in the home af a workman, and it is the habits and ways of the working class Ubat are then imbibed. Rarely can school fully climinale the impress of chilthood, and someone born into a working class hore will reiain something of its mares for the rest of his or her life. [t is only the d generation, the first to be born outside of the working home 140 The Torah U-Madda journal that may acquire the instinctive teflexes of a genueman. “Three gen erations’ is a rule of thumb only, How lengthy an incubation period is needed for acculturation depends on how deep-roaled and cohe- sive the carlice culture was, how profoundly embedded in the per sonality the older mores ure. At times, only the fourth or even only ihe fifth generation, Unree or four homes removed frora its origins, ean Gee on the bue of ita environment.” Tiurn new to Dr, Chavel's retmarks. 1. My essay contended that the second half of the iwentieth cen tury witnessed the acculturation of che American Jewish comununily veross the board—trom the secularist and unaffiliated Jews to the religions and harecli ones. And the dramatic ise of inermarriage, on one hand, and lhe simultaneous emergence of the text culture, on the other, are both responses to thirdl/fourth generation acculluration, Tried to express this with regard to the religious community on pp. 74-76, extended it ts ihe entire Jewish community on pp. 78-80 and once again on pp, 89-90 (and further alluded to it twice on p. 86). The generation of Dy. Chavel’s parents and that of his grandparents, which he so eloquently and accurately deseribed, while partially assimilated, as were all Modetn Orthodox Jews, were still largely un- acculturated, as were the far more radically assimilated Bundisis and secular Yiddishists. ‘To be sure, there was a measure of acculiration in these groups. They hacl won for themselves a place in American suciely and, in the process, had acquired some of ils ways. But the inner, centtipetal forces of ethnicity far ourweighed the outer, ccn- infugat ones of Americanization. They had attamed a niche in, but had not achieved integration with, the larger American society they lived, as did most first and second generation immigrants, in hermeti- cally sealed, residential cnelosures called “elhnic neighborhoods” They earned their bread, as diel other neweomers and their children, in narrow oceupational niches, heavily concentealed in a few chosen trades of professions, while the broader vistas of American enterprise remained closed to them, as were the large corporations and the bet ter universitics. Their sacial spacc was no less sharply etched and constiicied. They mixed primarily with other Jews, and they num bered few goypyim aimeng theit friends. Their sacial vision (which ibey called Jaysher) and moral identity Gwhich they termed menrsch- Lichkeit) were strongly Jewish, as were thar of ihe Bund, the Vid- dishists and the followers of secular Judaism, something of which the later groups in their hevday may have been heedless, but of which they later became poignantly aware when they were confronted with their indifferent caildeen. Ds. Chavel’s parents and grandparents and their peers were first und second generation Ameticans, predomi- Haym Soloveitchik 141 nantly unacculturated, and still beating the Last Eurepcan sense of “self evident Jewishness” {p. 90). Not surprisingly, the text culture of oar time never did arise, io my mind, never coaild have arisen, among thea. it was among their Gar more acculurated children and yeandchildren (hat Lbis new mode of religiosity emerged. As the reader can sex, there is ie difference on this poimt ine- tween myself and Dr. Chavel. The source of the misunderstanding is threefold and, as author, | bear che responsibility for it. First, T diel not highlight the centrality of acculturation in the title of the essay pub- lished in Treedition, as Thad in the original amticle. Second, I used once the phrase ‘tock on an increasingly middle

    You might also like