Download Two Worlds of Jewish Social Research

Two Worlds of Jewish Social Research
Stevelz M. Cohelz
ot long ago, while working on a project
about training rabbinic leaders, I had the
occasion to seek the help of scholars attending a conference on pre-modern Jewish leadership.
I asked them for advice on the implications of their
research for religious leaders today. This group of
historians, philosophers, and other humanists found
the question novel. Several offered intriguing ideas
and, understandably, some had little to say.
But what was most striking was that a few were
"put off" by the very asking of the question. Not
only was drawing policy implications outside their
area of expertise (a reasonable stance, to be sure),
but some also found it at variance with their roles as
detached scholars. I found the latter position surprising, if not a bit upsetting. In my naivete, I had
naturally assumed that all Jewish Studies scholars
would leap at the opportunity to exercise some infl~~ence,
albeit small, on the world of policy and practice. Instead, I encountered a professional self-conception abjuring engagement in the "real world" that
somehow had eluded me after three decades in the
Jewish social research business.
Indeed, business has been good recently (yes,
I'm using the language of Jewish entrepreneurs with
intent). In the past two decades, policy-oriented Jewish social research has enjoyed what may be regarded
as a minor boom. Federations, foundations, and
other communal agencies have increasingly turned
to sociologists, anthropologists, social psychologists,
policy analysts, and others to address a wide range
of concerns. The field embraces local and national
Jewish population studies, evaluations of educational programs and innovations, and public opinion polls among elites and the wider public (both
Jewish and non-Jewish).
Applied social research constitutes a major component of policy-oriented research that bears directly
upon communal life, policy-making, and Jewish
communal practice. Included are studies on the nature of Jewish identity, the functioning of Jewish
communities, the size and character of the intermarried population, and the impact of a variety of educational instruments upon adult Jewish involvement.
Like their colleagues in the humanities, Jewish
social researchers in academia seek the respect and
-
Slz'ii~a December 2002
approval of their academic peers. But u~llilcemost of
their colleagues in Jewish Studies, Jewish social researchers, keen 011 influencing the Jewish communal world, also orient their work and writing to a lay
audience of readers and critics: communal policymakers and practitioners. The latter include rabbis,
educators, communal professionals, philanthropists,
lay leaders, and, not least, other policy analysts and
researchers.
Not surprising, the contemporary communal
agenda shapes the Jewish social research agenda.
When American Jews in mid-centuly were still struggling for acceptance, social research focused on upward mobility, integration, antisemitism, minority
status, and relationships with Gentiles. More recent
years have seen an emphasis on matters pertaining
to "Jewish continuity" and Jewish education, in accord with the shifting concerns of organized Jewry.
engaged, nonThe impact of the comm~~nally
academic audience on the work of the researcher
extends also to the nature and "packaging" of the
findings. Researchers who write for communal audiences understandably (and correctly, in my view)
take into account the intellectual and cognitivebackgrounds of their readers. In contrast to the work that
appears in academic journals, social policy writing
tends to be freer of specialized tersninology and sophisticated methodological techniq~~es.
Some observers accuse social researchers of tailoring or shading their results to suit the proclivities
of their sponsors. Human nature being what it is,
anything is possible. But, in general, the process of
mutual influence is often more s~ibtlethan researchers simply doing the bidding of their sponsors; researchers tend to find sponsors with similar views.
In comparison with most conventional academic scholars, social policy researchers (in all
fields, not just Jewish Studies) are probably more
vitally concerned about the marketing of their
ideas. They often work hard at getting their research products noticed and cited. They cultivate
relations with funders, influentials, journalists,
and their colleagues. Implicitly, if not explicitly,
they judge their research not only in terms of its
inherent scholarly value, craft, or artistry. At the
end of the day they ask themselves if their research
has somehow exerted a tangible influence on
www.shma.com
thinking, discourse, policies, and practice. Quite
possibly, the realization at times that no one is really listening, or reading, or acting upon policyoriented research is a frustration that every policyoriented social researcher needs to address.
Inthe eyes of some traditional academicians, this
relationship between social researchers and the Jewish comm~mitymay seem distorted, if not, at times,
corrupt. The very act of seeking influence, access, and
notice seems at variance with a "pure" process of
seeking truth and presenting it in a way that is insightful, sophisticated, and aesthetically pleasing. My
own sense is, however, that the continued interplay
between scholarly and communal audiences serves
to enrich the work of social scientists of the Jewish
experience while also enriching the Jewish commu-
nity. In a small way, the Jewish world is probably a
better place - a bit more rational and a bit more interesting -because of the work of those who use their
academic tools to contend with the issues that most
animate Jews, their institutions, and their myriad leaders and practitioners.
Steven M . Cohen is Professor at the Melton Centrefor
Jewish Education, the Hebrew University Jerusalem. His
most recent book, zoith Arnold Eise~z,is The Jew Within:
Self, Family, and Community in the United States. He
serves as a senior research consultant, or in silnilar capacities, to tlze Florence G. Heller IJCCA Research Center, the
United Jewish Conzmunities, the Department of JewishZionist Education of the Jewish Agency, and the UJIAof
the United Kingdonz.
Feminist Scholarship and Jewish Studies
Lyizrz Davidman and Shelly Tenenbaunz
browse through the shelves of a Jewishbook
store or a glance at a recent conference program of the Association for Jewish Studies
confirms that feminist scholarship has influencedJewish Studies. In all fields represented within Jewish
Studies -Bible, rabbinics, philosophy, history, sociology, anthropology, and literature -feminist scholars have asked new questions, formulated new or
modified existing research methods, and
reconceptualized conventional categories of thought
and analysis. For feminist scholars, a thorough understanding of Jewish texts, thought, and social life
req~~ires
a gendered analysis because the division of
society by gender is such a fundamental component
of the constlzlction of Jewish life.
While acknowledging feminism's cumulative
impact on Jewish Studies, we must recognize that
the level of integration varies by discipline: Bible
more than rabbinics, history more than philosophy,
anthropology more than sociology, and American
Jewish literature more than Hebrew literature. The
degree to which feminist scholarship has been incorporated into mainstream disciplinesis central for understanding its acceptance within the parallel domains of Jewish Studies. For example, in anthropology and literary criticism, the category of gender has
been accepted into the mainstream, easing its incorporation into Judaic studies scholarship. Additionally, feminist scholarship remains less integrated in
Slz'iiza
0
December 2002
some fields for reasons that are specific to the particular field. Rabbinics requires sophisticated training in classical texts unavailable to women until recently. Hebrew literature has often been concerned
with collective matters, such as national cultural rebirth and the struggle for independence, rather than
with issues related to the private realm. Because
women were often excluded from public activity, this
body of literature often does not explore the parameters of women's lives. In the sociological study of
American Jewish life, a n area of inquiry that has been
dominated by policy debates related to assimilation
and cohesion, scholars have subordinated women's
points of view to the question of ethnic continuity.
Within this paradigm, women, as well as the ideology of feminism, come to be seen as agents that either maintain or thwart Jewish continuity.
Feminist scholarshipis most exciting when it asks
new questions and redefines importance from the
perspective of women's experiences. For example,
the feminist focus on domestic Judaism has led to
new understandings of spirituality. Most definitions
of Jewish religious behavior emphasize the public
contexts and activities through which men fulfill their
ritual obligations. Women's piety, however, has generally revolved around the concerns of everyday life.
Historical, anthropological, sociological, and literary
studies show that women have developed rituals that
imbue domestic activities with holiness and that they
www.shma.com