Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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