J.O. Maos, M. Inbar and D.F. Shmueli (eds.

), 2004: Contemporary Israeli Geography

(Special Issue of Horizons in Geography, vol. 60-61), 109-117

Anniversary Celebrations at Kibbutz Degania Aleph

as a Symbol of the Changing Status and Roles of the
Kibbutz Movement
Amos Ron and Ofra Keinan
The Jordan Valley College
e-mail: amosron2@netvision.net.il

Introduction
“In its early days, Israeli society was like the queen in Snow White, embracing the Kibbutz as
its own. It looked at the image in the mirror - the Kibbutz - and asked: 'is there anyone more pretty
than I am?' Today, fifty years later, it looks in the mirror again, and the reflected image does not
fill its heart with joy. It says: 'I don't like what the mirror reminds me of' and sends the Kibbutz,
that by now it loves to hate, into the woods” (Adar 1998, 103).
The main topic of this research is the relationship between Israeli society and the Kibbutz
Movement as reflected in the anniversary celebrations of the first Kibbutz - Degania Aleph -
which was established near the southern end of the Sea of Galilee in 1910 by a handful of
Second Aliyah1 youngsters.
Kibbutz Degania Aleph became a prototype for an agricultural communal way of life - known
as the Kibbutz. As time went by hundreds of Kibbutzim2 were established all over the country
and were organized in a number of national organizations that differed ideologically and
politically and were named the “Kibbutz Movement”. One of the key figures in Degania Aleph
was A. D. Gordon. His main contribution was in the expression of the spiritual aspects of
Kibbutz life, by emphasizing work, agricultural work and an attitude towards the flora and
fauna of the land as fundamental components in this socio-national movement. The Bet Gordon
History of Nature Museum was established in the 1940's in commemoration of A. D. Gordon.
During the War of Independence Degania Aleph was almost conquered by the Syrian forces. The
Syrian tank convoy was stopped by the people of Degania Aleph with Molotov coctails, and one
of the abandoned tanks became a well known tourist attraction (Azaryahu 1993; Ron 2001).
Towards the end of the twentieth century there were 270 Kibbutzim in Israel with a population
of approximately 125,000 people.
For many years, the Kibbutz movement was one of the major symbols of Zionism. “The
collective ideology and the glorious saga of the collective settlements focused on the aspirations
of the Israeli secular society, performed the experimental dimensions of these aspirations, and
fulfilled, within the Zionist context, the utopia of a social avant-garde which is one of the
ideological peaks of modernism” (Tamir 1998, 5).
110 Amos Ron and Ofra Keinan

The Kibbutz had double ideological roots: the romantic-agrarian ideology originating in the
late 19th and early 20th century Germany, and the radical socialism originating in Russia. In
the Land of Israel, these two ideologies were instrumental in the formation of a national
settlement ideology. The World Zionist Organization provided the financial resources, and the
Second and Third Aliyah3 youngsters provided the "hands" for the national settlement process
(Ram 1998, 104-105).
The Kibbutz movement was the flagship of the whole Zionist movement and Degania Aleph
symbolized this movement. During the course of one hundred years of Zionism, the Kibbutz
continued to play a national role, but as time went by, it lost its place as a leading factor in
Israeli society (Ram 1998, 104-105).
There are a number of possible explanations for the reduced status of the Kibbutz movement
in Israeli society:
- The vision of the new emerging Israeli society was that of a more egalitarian social system,
less exploiting and a less alienated. The Kibbutz was essentially meant to embody a socialistic
society. However, the idea to create socialist islands in the midst of a capitalistic environment
turned out to be unrealistic (Zuckerman 1998, 101-102).
- The decreasing national need of the Kibbutz for the fulfillment of the national goals of
Israel (Ram 1998, 106; Keinan 1989, 32-40).
- The decreasing status of several voluntary movements, and consequently, of the Kibbutz
Movement.
- The gradual shift from collectivism to individualism - which the Kibbutz was slow to
adopt (Aharonson 1998).
- The notable decrease in the political standing of the Kibbutz and its ideology. The process
accelerated since 1977, when the Likud, a rightist party, came to power with a totally
different ideology and social milieu (Ben David 1978).
The aim of this study is to understand the role of anniversary celebrations in the construction
of collective memory, and the changes made in this construction throughout the forty years
period this research is referring to.
Methodology and theoretical background
This study examined the reconstruction of collective memory in relation to one of the most
“sacred” sites in Zionist civil religion - the Kibbutz movement, in general, and Kibbutz Degania
Aleph in particular, by looking at three anniversary celebrations of Kibbutz Degania Aleph:
the fiftieth, seventieth and ninetieth anniversary celebrations. Each celebration was examined
at three levels: at the local, regional and national levels.
This field research is based on archive documents, including video films of the celebrations,
minutes of anniversary celebration committee meetings, letters and official documents. In
addition, local, regional and national newspaper articles were used.
Anniversary Celebrations at Kibbutz Degania Aleph 111

The theoretical background is based on a study of landscapes of commemoration, i.e. the ways
in which the past is reflected in the current landscape (Ron 2001, 4-6). Two key aspects of the
landscapes of commemoration were observed: the physical and the cultural. The physical
aspect refers to monuments, memorials, museums and burial sites; the cultural aspect includes
diverse human activities that lend unique meanings to this landscape. The physical and cultural
aspects combined are significant factors in shaping the collective memory, a subject that has
recently become an interdisciplinary topic of research. It seems that the term was initially
coined by Halbwachs in 1941 (Halbwachs 1992). Halbwachs’ research is still considered
fundamental and ground-breaking. Some of the known researchers in this field are Coser
(1992); Schwartz (1982); and Zerubavel (1994; 1995).
According to Halbwachs, each group develops a collective memory that emphasizes its unique
identity in relation to other groups, as separate from historical or autobiographical memory.
He defines history as an academic-scientific "super-organic" product, often detached from
socio-political reality. Collective memory, however, "...is an organic part of social life which
is continuously transformed in response to society's changing needs” (Zerubavel 1995, 4).
Collective memory links the past to the present, and was therefore defined by Coser as
“…reconstruction of the past in the light of the present.” (Coser 1992, 34). Memory is indeed
collective, but those who remember are individuals and not groups. The individuals, while
remembering their collective past, redefine their link to the group, and by doing so remember
themselves, and at times even re-invent their past (Hobsbaum & Ranger 1983; Lewis 1975).
Collective memory commemorates the past through events and ceremonies, and at the same
time, is strengthened by them. The link between past and present is essential in order to
understand the term ‘collective memory’. According to Coser, “...the past is a social construction
mainly, if not wholly, shaped by the concerns of the present... He [Halbwachs] argues that the
beliefs, interests, and aspirations of the present shape the various views of the past as they are
manifested respectively in every historical epoch.” (Coser 1992, 25). Similarly, the shaping
of collective memory and the shaping of space are linked. The return to Zion reconnected
Judaism to the land of Israel, and gave rise to the need for landscapes of commemoration that
contributed to the shaping of the civil religion, which developed as part of the Zionist ideology.
The term "civil religion" was already mentioned in the writings of Russo. Bellah (1967) developed
the term into a comprehensive sociological theory on the development of nationalism. He
identified elements of religion in American modern patriotism. According to Bellah, civil religion
is like traditional religion in its structure and goals: it provides legitimacy to the social order,
sanctifies the goals of the society, and unites the citizens around common values and principles.
According to Almog, "The God that is being worshipped by the followers of civil religion is
the nation, the country, the homeland." (Almog 1991, 179)
Almog saw a strong and clear link between the Zionist movement and Israeli civil religion,
maintaining that "as in a religious system, Zionism nurtured myths […], rituals […], 'baptism'
rituals […] and sacred symbols […], and that the Kibbutzim and Moshavim were like Zionist
112 Amos Ron and Ofra Keinan

"shrines", which served as a behavioral model, a focus of 'pilgrimage' and a creator of common
symbols" (Almog 1991, 180).
The various Zionist groups that make up Israeli society created symbols that nurtured the sense
of belonging and identity among its members. The pioneer was the performer of national tasks
and, in more ways than one, paved the road to national redemption. He/she was part of a social
elite, as is extensively described by Elon (1971). The pioneer movement was perceived as a
symbol of novelty and change, and as a prototype for the "New Jew" (Liebman & Don-Yehiya
1983, 31).
Israeli civil religion is expressed in the landscape through sites that underwent a process of
transformation and became part of the national iconography. Among these sites are the Um-
Jooni monument, the Kinneret cemetery, Mt. Herzl, Massada and Tel-Hay. These sites function
at times as pilgrimage sites, very much like the holy sites of traditional or conventional
religions.
By its nature, traditional religion emphasizes the heterogeneity of time and space, and therefore
creates sacred times and sacred places (Eliade 1959, 20-113). In civil religion, time and space
are also heterogeneous, which results in sacred times (Liebman & Don-Yehiya 1983) and
places (Handelman & Shamgar-Handelman 1997).
Research literature offers very few references to the role of anniversary celebrations in the
forming and shaping of collective memory. The main premise of this study is that with the
decreasing status of the Kibbutz movement in general, and of Kibbutz Degania Aleph as a
symbol of it, the anniversary celebrations are becoming more intimate and private affairs of
the community.
The present study examines anniversary celebrations as a human activity that attributes unique
significance to the landscape, as an indispensable component of the formation of the local and
the supra-local collective memory. The changes taking place in the Israeli collective memory
in one of the most central landscapes of commemoration - Kibbutz Degania Aleph - are the
subject of this study.
Findings and disscussion
The ways in which collective memory is shaped through the anniversary celebrations at Degania
Aleph are presented and analyzed in three spatial circles: the local private community circle,
the regional circle and the national circle. These circles are analyzed in a number of different
events, each of which took place twenty years apart: the fiftieth, the seventieth and the ninetieth
anniversary celebrations.
The local circle
The fiftieth anniversary was celebrated at sites that were considered by members of Kibbutz
Degania Aleph as the most sacred: the Degania cemetery, where the founders were buried, and
at the Um-Jooni monument, commemorating the location of the earliest Degania settlement.
Anniversary Celebrations at Kibbutz Degania Aleph 113

The local community organized the ceremonies and was the main performer and participant.
Outsiders were regarded mainly as guests of the local community and took no part in organizing
and performing (Ron 2001, 132).
People from the neighboring areas were more actively involved in the seventieth anniversary
celebrations. The gatherings took place at the same sites, but this time with the active participation
of distinguished guests from the region and from the Kibbutz movement. Even the greetings were
given by three people, only one of whom was a Degania Aleph member. The appropriation of the
local celebration by the regional community was commented upon by one of the members, saying:
“Degania Aleph missed out. This anniversary celebration is not hers any more. It has become part
of the election campaign of the workers’ party” (Degania Archive 085-55-01-05-06).
In order to prevent such a take-over during the ninetieth anniversary celebration, the Degania
Aleph community chose to celebrate it five months earlier, on Independence Day. By doing
so, Degania Aleph regained its separateness, but at the same time, during the anniversary of
the Kibbutz movement - celebrated in October - the current members of the Kibbutz were no
longer the hosts. Thus Degania Aleph gave up the association to time, but managed to preserve
the association to the place (Degania Archive, 10-05-55).
The regional circle
During the fiftieth anniversary the various settlements in the region and the Kibbutz movement
itself chose to celebrate as outsiders. Most of the celebrations took place in the regional
amphitheatre, located near the Kibbutz, but not in it. This selection enabled members of the
region to express their empathy with Degania Aleph's celebration, which is also the celebration
of the region and the whole Kibbutz movement, but at the same time enabled Degania Aleph
to maintain its privacy and the fact that it is an independent and separate community.
The Kibbutz movement issued a written declaration for the fiftieth anniversary celebration.
The declaration emphasized the national role and fame of the Kibbutz as a unique way of life,
and Degania Aleph as the symbol of this movement (Ron 2001, 132-133).
As mentioned above, on the seventieth anniversary the local celebrations were included in the
regional celebrations. For the ninetieth anniversary the regional celebrations were set apart
from Degania Aleph's private celebration, but with its full participation. The celebrations took
place in the area of Degania Aleph, but ignored the private "sacred" sites of Degania Aleph,
namely, the cemetery and the Um-Jooni monument.
The National circle
At Degania Aleph's fiftieth anniversary the collective atmosphere was that of a whole nation
praising the Kibbutz idea in general and Kibbutz Degania Aleph in particular. There were
celebrations all over the country, and names of streets and schools were changed to "Degania".
Even a new "Zim" ship was named Degania. Historical documents indicate clearly that these
were popular and spontaneous gestures that expressed a great deal of identity with the Kibbutz
and what it stands for.
114 Amos Ron and Ofra Keinan

Twenty years later, during the seventieth anniversary celebration, Degania Aleph was still
perceived as one of the central icons of Zionism and the new state of Israel, but during this
anniversary there were no longer spontaneous grassroot celebrations throughout the country,
but rather well planned celebrations by and for the national civil and military establishments.
The confusion and lack of understanding in relation to the new political situation - following
the 1977 victory of the rightist Likud party, with Menahem Begin as prime minister - became
evident through the decision to have two separate events. The two events symbolized the deep
crisis that was taking place at Degania Aleph, in relation to the Kibbutz movement and to the
Israeli Left (Ron 2001, 136-137).
During the seventieth anniversary celebrations the first event was performed as if time had
stopped. The participants were members and ex-members of Kibbutz Degania Aleph,
representatives of the Kibbutz movement, and especially Itzhak Navon, Israel's president and
a distinguished labor party member. His presence symbolized what was left of the national and
political icon known as Degania Aleph and the Kibbutz movement.
The second event was intended to include Degania in the new times. The political leadership
had changed and the kibbutz members had to invite the new prime minister, Menahem Begin.
This event was intended for people from outside, for those who are not “ours”. The kibbutz
members hesitated on whether to enable the prime minister to attend, and the decision to allow
him was based partly due to the fact that he was also Israel’s minister of defense.
The peak event of Degania Aleph’s seventieth anniversary was the award of the Israel Prize.
The prize was awarded to Degania Aleph as a symbol representing the whole Kibbutz movement,
thanks to its unique contribution in creating a new way of life where, as expressed by one of
the speakers during the ceremony, “people would be evaluated by their contribution and not
by their lineage. […]”, or that Degania Aleph had lead a revolution in the history of mankind,
by establishing the foundations for the birth of the "New Jew" (Ron 2001, 137).
The seventieth and the ninetieth anniversaries were both celebrated in two separate events that
took place in and near Degania Aleph, but not in the “traditional sacred sites” (the Um-Jooni
monument and the Degania cemetery), but rather in new sites that were constructed mainly
for the anniversary celebrations. The splitting of these celebrations in two events emphasized
the gaps and differences between insiders - who participated in the main celebration - and
outsiders invited only to the secondary celebration (Am-Ad 2000).
It seems that the most remarkable change was that of the celebrations’ aftermath. While the
fiftieth anniversary celebration was left like a shining star in Degania Aleph’s past, in the
seventieth anniversary there were already voices of protest regarding the snatching of the
celebrations from Degania Aleph, and during the ninetieth anniversary the feeling of alienation
was very clear.
At its fiftieth anniversary Degania Aleph, felt very confident and embraced by the nation. At
its seventieth anniversary Degania Aleph seemed to have lost confidence, although still popular
Anniversary Celebrations at Kibbutz Degania Aleph 115

enough to merit the Israel Prize; the ninetieth anniversary was defined by journalists as “both
a party and a funeral” (Delomi 2000; Weisberg 2000).
Conclusions
This study uses a settlement’s anniversary celebrations in order to demonstrate how a collective
memory is formed. In this particular case, due to the unique status of Kibbutz Degania Aleph
as a symbol of the Kibbutz movement, it was a significant factor in the shaping of the local,
regional and national collective memory.
Zionist ideology created a civil religion, whose followers participated in a metaphysical-
historical process and nurtured sacred myths and ceremonies, of which the anniversary
celebrations were considered to be the most important ones (Almog 1991, 180).
The study examines Halbwachs’ idea, according to which the past is a social construction
shaped by the orders and values of the present (Halbwachs 1992). Present beliefs and aspirations
shape the way in which we view the past, and, hence change with time. Collective memory,
that links the past with the present, is an organic part of the Israeli social texture, which has
changed dramatically in recent decades, and reforms itself according to the changing needs
of Israeli society.
While the reconstruction of the past in the fiftieth anniversary celebrations was marked by a
high degree of overlap between the three spatial circles - due to the ideological and social
overlap between the inner circle of the Degania community and the two outer circles - the
identity crisis in contemporary Israeli society had raised difficult questions regarding the
importance of the “shrines” of civil religion and the rituals attached to them. As Israeli society
gradually distances itself from the beliefs and values of the pioneer period, these ceremonies
are becoming less relevant and less important.
The crisis in ideology and values can explain the relative separation between the three social-
spatial circles referred to in this research: from a total identification, where the three circles
totally overlap - with the local circle in the center, surrounded by the regional circle and the
national circle embracing both - to a separate existence of the local community circle, with
partial contacts to the regional and the national circles.
The Kibbutz, one of the distinguished “shrines” of Israeli civil religion, has changed in the
eyes of Israeli society. Once a “Tent of Meeting” (Exodus 40: 2) and bearer of a prophetic
message regarding the role of man in this world,, it has become a “shrine” where apparently
external ceremonies do not reflect any more the inner social and ideological world they were
supposed to describe.
Notes
1. The second wave of Zionist immigration to the land of Israel, 1904-1914.
2. The plural of Kibbutz.
3. The third wave of Zionist immigration to the land of Israel, 1919-1923.
116 Amos Ron and Ofra Keinan

References
Adar, G. 1998: “The Meaning of the Kibbutz and the Ideology of the Kibbutz in the Contemporary
Israeli Society”, in: Tamir, T. (ed.), Sabbath at the Kibbutz 1922-1998, an Exhibition Catalog, The Rami
& Uri Nechushtan House, Kibbutz Ashdot Ya'acov Me'uchad, p. 103 (Hebrew).
Aharonson, A. 1998: “The Kibbutz as a Parable: the Meaning of the Kibbutz and the Ideology of the
Kibbutz in the Contemporary Israeli Society”, in: Tamir, T. (ed.), Sabbath at the Kibbutz 1922-1998,
an Exhibition Catalog, The Rami & Uri Nechushtan House, Kibbutz Ashdot Ya'acov Me'uchad, 108-
109 (Hebrew).
Almog, O. 1991: “Memorials to the Fallen Soldiers in Israel”, Megamot, 34(2), 179-210 (Hebrew).
Am-Ad, K. 2000: “Barak’s Home Port”, Ha-Kibbutz, Oct. 26, p. 4 (Hebrew).
Azaryahu, M. 1993: “From Remains to Relics: Authentic Monuments in the Israeli Landscape”, History
& Memory - Studies in Representation of the Past, 5(2), Fall/Winter, 82-103.
Bellah, R. N. 1967: “Civil Religion in America”, Daedalus, winter, 1-21.
Ben David I. 1978: "The Kibbutz from Center to Periphery: Reality, Images and Influences", Ha-Kibbutz,
6-7, 203-235 (Hebrew).
Coser, L. A. 1992: “Introduction: Maurice Halbwachs 1877-1945”, in: Halbwachs, M., On Collective
Memory, Edited, Translated, and with an Introduction by Coser, L. A., The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago and London, 1-34.
Delomi, E. 2000: “A Party and a Funeral as well”, Ha-Kibbutz, Oct. 26, p. 4 (Hebrew).
Eliade, M. 1959: The Sacred and the Profane - The Nature of Religion, Translated from the French by
W. R. Trask, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, San Diego, New York, London.
Elon, A. 1971: The Israelis: Founders and Sons, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Halbwachs, M. 1992: On Collective Memory, Edited, Translated, and with an Introduction by Coser,
L. A., The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Handelman, D. & Shamgar-Handelman L. 1997: “The Presence of Absence: The Memorialism of
National Death in Israel”, in: Ben-Ari, E. & Bilu, Y. (eds.), Grasping Land - Space and Place in
Contemporary Israeli Discourse and Experience, State University of New York Press, Albany, New
York, 85-128.
Hobsbaum, E. & Ranger, T. 1983: (eds.), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Keinan, O. 1989 “In Our Image” (Gen. 1, 26): 'HaShomer Hatzair' and the Mass Immigration, Master's
Thesis, supervised by Prof. A. Shapira Tel Aviv University.
Lewis, B. 1975: History Remembered, Recovered, Invented, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Jersey.
Liebman, C. S. & Don-Yehiya, E. 1983: Civil Religion in Israel - Traditional Judaism and Political
Culture in the Jewish State, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Anniversary Celebrations at Kibbutz Degania Aleph 117

Ram, U. 1998: “From collectivization to privatization: The Rise and Fall of the Kibbutz”, in: Tamir,
T. (ed.), Sabbath at the Kibbutz 1922-1998, an Exhibition Catalog, The Rami & Uri Nechushtan House,
Kibbutz Ashdot Ya'acov Me'uchad, 104-106 (Hebrew).
Ron, A. 2001: Representational and Symbolic Landscapes of the Early Zionist Rural Settlement in the
Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) Valley, PhD dissertation, supervised by Prof. S. Hasson, The Hebrew University
of Jerusalem.
Schwartz, B. 1982 “The Social Context of Commemoration: A Study in Collective Memory”, Social
Forces, 61(2), December, 374-402.
Tamir, T. 1998: “Sabbath at the Kibbutz or: The Kibbutz as a Parable”, in: Tamir, T. (ed.), Sabbath at
the Kibbutz 1922-1998, an Exhibition Catalog, The Rami & Uri Nechushtan House, Kibbutz Ashdot
Ya'acov Me'uchad, 5-14 (Hebrew).
Weissberg, M. 2000: “A Happy Birthday to the Dead”, Haaretz, Nov. 1, p. B2 (Hebrew).
Zerubavel, Y. 1994: “The Historic, the Legendary, and the Incredible: Invented Tradition and Collective
Memory in Israel”, in: Gillis, J. (ed.), Commemorations - the Politics of National Identity, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 105-123.
Zerubavel, Y. 1995: Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition,
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.
Zuckerman. M. 1998: “The Kibbutz in the Contemporary Israeli Society”, in: Tamir, T. (ed.), Sabbath
at the Kibbutz 1922-1998, an Exhibition Catalog, The Rami & Uri Nechushtan House, Kibbutz Ashdot
Ya'acov Me'uchad, 101-102 (Hebrew).

Archive Documents
Degania Archive, document no. 085-55-01-05-06.
Degania Archive, document no. 10-05-55.