Can Jewish life in this country attain that vitality of function, that variety of content, that integrity and distinctiveness of pattern, and that degree of organization which would endow it with the character of a civilization? In the light of the opportunities and requirements of a democratic design for living, is it desirable that Jews mobilize and direct their energies to the end of creating a Jewish civilization?

Obviously, the answer to these questions depends on what is meant by the term “Jewish civilization.” “Civilization,” even if not qualified by the adjective “Jewish,” has different meanings for different people. There is the conception of an inclusive human civilization, and then there is the conception of tribal or national civilizations, in which sense alone a Jewish civilization is conceivable.

Those who argue the possibility and desirability of a Jewish civilization have their common ground in the conception of humanity and human culture as stratified along national lines. They differ, however, on a number of specific issues. There are those who would limit a Jewish civilization to Palestine; others envisage it as world-wide, with Palestine as its center; still others refuse to endow Palestine with a special status in their scheme of a Jewish civilization. Then there is the question of the role of religion in the projected pattern, some maintaining that there can be no Jewish civilization divorced from Jewish religion, whereas others are committed to a purely secular conception. There is in addition the language issue: some would make Hebrew the linguistic base; others, Yiddish; others, both.

This article will confine itself to an appraisal of a particular doctrine as to Jewish civilization in America—the doctrine advanced by the Reconstructionist school of thought, of which Dr. Mordecai Kaplan is the founder and principal exponent. To a great degree the strength or weakness of Reconstructionism can be taken as the strength or weakness of other doctrines of Jewish civilization, all of which are based on a nationalistic approach.

The objective of Reconstructionism is a world-wide, Palestine-centered, Hebraic, religious Jewish civilization. Reconstructionists affirm that only as a full-bodied civilization can Judaism have a vital function and, indeed, survive; that American soil can sustain a Jewish civilization; and that Jews can best contribute to the enrichment of their own lives and serve the interests of the American people and of mankind in general by living their historic heritage as a complete civilization.

In the ten years that have elapsed since its inception, Reconstructionism has gained many adherents among educators, rabbis and lay communal workers. It has contributed measurably to the vitality of Jewish life in this country. The Reconstructionist philosophy is the product of honest, courageous, vigorous, sustained and comprehensive thinking. Nevertheless, this writer feels compelled to register his dissent. I do not say that a Jewish civilization is nowhere desirable and nowhere possible. The rise of a Jewish civilization in Palestine is a fact. And conceivably, Jewish civilization may find suitable soil in some of the multi-national states that may return to life in the post-war world. But I deny the possibility and desirability of a Jewish civilization in a nationally unitarian country like the United States.

There is nothing in the American way of life or climate of opinion, ideas and ideals that encourages the prospect of a Jewish civilization. And even if a Jewish civilization were within the realm of possibility in this country, the harmful consequences entailed would far exceed the gains. While I have no blueprint for an alternative plan, I am convinced that only as a cultural variant of an American civilization, and not as a complete and distinct civilization, can Judaism prosper in this country.

_____________

 

The question of the possibility and desirability of a Jewish civilization has its meaning in the context of the conditions brought about by Jewish emancipation. Judaism as a civilization is one of several programs formulated to the end of adjusting the historic Jewish heritage to participation in the life of the broader national community.

Until the close of the eighteenth century Judaism was everywhere a complete and self-enclosed way of life. Jewish and non-Jewish culture, of course, interacted upon and fructified each other, but Jews and Gentiles did not really share in a common culture. Jews responded to Judaism with every fiber of their beings. Judaism was perfect of its kind, needing nothing external to complement it. It meant faith in a supreme being who was, in a special sense, the God of the Jews; hope for the return of the ancient glory that was Zion; Hebrew as a literary and religious language; Jewish vernacular languages as means of everyday communication; the Torah as the sole thing worthy of study; the Jewish community as a commonwealth; ritual practices; Jewish ethics; Jewish etiquette. Jews withstood with integrity the trials and vicissitudes of an alien world, secure in the conviction of the righteousness of their own way of life and certain of their destiny as a people and of their own individual salvations.

Admission of Jews into the political, economic, social and cultural communities of several of the nations among which they lived distintegrated the distinctive patterns of Jewish life and caused a split in the minds and souls of individual Jews. The spread of the scientific outlook, the expansion of capitalist economy, and faith in human progress conceived as a continuous and endless process of amelioration undermined faith in other-worldly salvation. Jews forsook the Jewish way of life; Hebrew and the Jewish vernaculars fell into disuse; the Jewish community lost its scope and authority; Jewish ideals and sanctions ceased to motivate conduct; the Jewish literary heritage ceased to be an intellectual and spiritual stimulus. What was left were fragments of Judaism torn from their context—ethical-monotheism, ritual observance, charity—each claiming to be the “essence” of Judaism. American Judaism, English Judaism, Reform Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Zionism displaced what was once a uniform pattern of life.

In countries where Jews have come to be identified with the inclusive national group Judaism is no longer a life-process or even an important segment of a life-process. It is rather something imposed from without. To some Jews Judaism is a shadow not to be rid of and yet without function, vitality or interest. To others it is a ghost—insubstantial, yet troubling one’s conscience and interfering with life.

Judaism has thus come to be a source of inner conflict for many individuals. What is left of it continues to condition Jews, to fashion their loyalties and mold their ideals and attitudes. As a result of this dual conditioning—by the Jewish heritage and by the inclusive national culture—Jews experience simultaneously the pulls of two objects of loyalty: the Jewish people and the nations of which they are members. They want to be like their non-Jewish neighbors and yet remain different, Jewish. No formula has yet been devised to convert this conflict into a unified and harmonious way of life.

Wherever Jews are admitted to national fellowship they are confronted by the problem of what to do with their own historic heritage. It is a problem Jews alone can solve. It requires a clarification of purposes, and thoughtful, honest answers to a number of interrelated questions:

  1. Should Jews retain their distinctiveness, and if so, along what lines? As a national minority, as a religious society, as a cultural group, or what?
  2. What elements of the historic Jewish heritage should be retained? What role should these play in a complete pattern of life?
  3. What controlling considerations should serve as criteria in making choices? What importance is to be given to the survival of the Jews as a people? To the abundant and secure life for individual Jews? To the integration of Jews in the general scheme of life of their countries? To the ideal of democracy?

The tragic fate of the Jews in continental Europe and the rising tide of anti-Semitism over here have temporarily blunted the sharp edge of the problem of what to do with Judaism. But if democracy has a real future, this problem will again become focal, particularly in America, which is now the home of almost one-half of the world’s Jews.

And within a generation virtually all American Jews will be native-born, and almost no one will be left with a personal memory of segregated Jewish life. Dual conditioning has already long been present.

On the one hand, American Jews participate in all aspects of American life and their attitudes and habits are molded by the common American environment. On the other hand, the majority of them are concentrated in a relatively few metropolitan areas where they have built a vast network of religious, fraternal, social, cultural, charitable, foreign-relief, and Palestine-building organizations to foster Jewish solidarity and consciousness.

But we American Jews can face the problems posed by dual conditioning with greater freedom than has been possible elsewhere. In the first place, America’s democratic tradition affords Jews a greater variety of choice as regards their place in the life of the American people as a whole. In the second place, the Jewish community in America, lacking a well-established tradition, is in a position to choose on the basis of reasoned experience. In the third place, American Jews, unlike Europe’s surviving Jews, are spared the pressing need to rebuild their individual lives. They are free to give their attention to the problem of Jewish living within the framework of inclusive American life.

Theoretically, there are four ways Jews can deal with their historic heritage: 1) they can discard it and cease being Jews; 2) they can isolate themselves from the general community in order to cultivate an exclusive Jewish way of life; 3) they can make peace with the idea that they are Americans and Jews and proceed to live a complete American and a complete Jewish life on two separate planes; 4) they can integrate certain elements of the Jewish cultural heritage in a unitary design for American living.

One does not resolve a dilemma of this kind by clinging steadfastly to one of its horns and ignoring the other. Assimilationists ignore the fact of Jewish conditioning and the further fact that the walls that separate the Jews from other elements of the community are not entirely of Jewish construction. Conceivably, in the process of time Jews will cease to exist as a distinct people. But if this event transpires, it will be the result of the free interplay and slow merging of cultures and not of a conscious program looking toward assimilation. There is evidence to support the presumption that widespread effort by Jews to assimilate defeats itself by awakening resistances. On the other hand, the Jewish isolationist ignores the fact of conditioning by the general culture. It is extremely unlikely that more than a corporal’s guard could be induced to for-sake the life of the general community in order the better to cultivate the Jewish way of life.

Thus, only two alternatives are left that merit serious consideration. One is to build a complete Jewish civilization alongside the American one and to fashion a Jewish mentality that is consciously hyphenated and dualistic. This is the program of the Reconstructionists. The other is to integrate certain elements of the historic Jewish heritage as a cultural variant in the more inclusive American way of life.

_____________

 

In presenting the position of Reconstructionism a distinction should be made between its general philosophy and its specific program for America. (This statement of the Reconstructionists’ position is based on Judaism as a Civilization by Mordecai M. Kaplan; Macmillan Company, 1935. All quotations are from this book.) This writer objects not so much to the program of Reconstructionism as to its philosophy. By placing special emphasis on the philosophy, the writer does not set up a straw man to knock down. Reconstructionists insist on having their philosophy taken seriously.

The philosophy of Reconstructionism is nationalism—refined nationalism, to be sure, cultural nationalism, the nationalism of civilization—but nationalism all the same. The program calls for the revitalization of the Jewish cultural heritage. One can subscribe to a good deal of this program and at the same time reject its philosophy, which asks for commitments above and beyond the program.

Basic to the philosophy of Reconstructionism are the twin concepts of nation and civilization. A nation is defined as a group of people who share in a common civilization. A civilization is the residual product of a nation’s past life by which it continues its existence as a distinct entity. For Reconstructionists mankind is the arithmetical summation of the nations inhabiting the earth, not an embracing unity that transcends national demarcations. By the same token civilization means the sum total of national civilization, not something shared by all humanity.

The Reconstructionist definition of nationalism is based, not on the way nations actually function, but on the way it is wished they should function. Reconstructionists assure us that the nation is not a state essentially but a cultural fellowship. Exclusiveness of spirit, imperialism and war are written off as perversions of nationalism. In its essence, we are assured, nationalism is a humanizing, civilizing force. To be human in the largest possible sense is to participate in the life of the most inclusive human group, which is the nation. To be civilized in the broadest sense is to have roots in a national civilization.

Reconstructionists deny the reality of civilization and affirm only the reality of civilizations. Just as humanity is divided into nations, so civilization is divided into civilizations, one for each nation. Each is organic, self-enclosed and self-sustaining. A particular civilization can survive even if all others disappear. The distinctive quality of a particular civilization lies not in whatever unique idea or ideal it may have that possesses universal value, but precisely in those elements that cannot be understood by outsiders but which can be “intuited”—and only “intuited”—by the “in” group. Civilizations are their own ends and not the means of a universal mission or function. The “otherness” of a particular civilization and of the national type it fashions need not have any meaning outside its own national group.

The civilization of a nation consists of all material things, ideas, ideals and arrangements it employs to control nature, fashion the character and mentality of its individual members and order their social relations. It is the intellectual, moral, spiritual and institutional atmosphere in which and by which the members of the particular national group live—the matrix creating their entire round of life, the repository of the ends and means of the life of the nation and of its individual members. Civilizations differ in content but conform to a uniform pattern. All civilizations include language, knowledge, skills, tools, arts, literature, laws, folkways, religion, social institutions, etc., etc.

Dr. Kaplan distinguishes between such “transferable” elements as “mechanical developments, inventions, and the funded discoveries of science,” which different civilizations can share and borrow from one another without loss of their respective identities, and “non-transferable” elements such as language, literature, art, religion, folkways and the institutions that give a particular civilization its qualities of “otherness and individuality.” While there can be no distinctively Jewish technology and science, there can and ought to be, Reconstructionists tell us, a distinctively Jewish intellectual, spiritual and moral culture and distinctively Jewish institutional arrangements. Jewish civilization is Jewish language, Jewish religion, Jewish literature, Jewish art, Jewish folkways, Jewish law, the Jewish family and community—not separately but woven into a unitary, organic pattern embracing the total round of life of individual Jews.

The Reconstructionist concept of “civilization” closely parallels the anthropologists’ “culture.” The difference is a matter of terminology. To anthropologists culture is the inclusive term denoting the total unique heritage of a group; to Reconstructionists the inclusive term denoting the same entity is civilization. In Reconstructionist usage culture has a restricted meaning, denoting the literary, artistic, intellectual and spiritual aspects of a group’s total heritage or civilization. Reconstructionists employ the term “Jewish civilization” to emphasize that Judaism is more than a culture in this restricted sense, that it includes in addition an inherited way of social life, with a community, social institutions and laws. The uniform pattern to which, according to Reconstructionism, all civilizations conform is the “universal culture pattern” of the anthropologists. The distinction Dr. Kaplan makes between the “transferable” and “non-transferable” elements of civilization corresponds to the anthropologists’ distinction between “material” and “non-material” culture.

The most important point, however, is that the qualities of organic wholeness and self-sufficiency Reconstructionists attribute to all civilizations are characteristic only of the culture of primitive tribes cut off from outside contacts. In a world made interdependent by science and technology, there can be no organic, self-sustaining, self-sufficient cultures and civilizations. The growing reality is not civilizations but Civilization. Along with the “transferable” elements, everything else, including social institutions, religious ideas, art motifs and literary patterns, is now transferred from nation to nation. To strive to preserve the integrity of a national civilization in contemporary times is to attempt to perpetuate a transient cultural lag.

It would be an error to conclude from what has just been said that the Reconstructionists advocate exclusive nationalism and hermetically sealed national civilizations. On the contrary, they recognize that nations interact and that this process enriches national civilizations and broadens the intellectual and moral horizons of the individual. Reconstructionists advocate a kind of national idealism sensitive to the needs and rights of all nations. They advocate, moreover, close cultural cooperation between nations. But it is questionable whether these professed aims are compatible with the conception of nations and civilizations as self-enclosed and self-sufficient entities and with the passion for national and civilizational otherness.

_____________

 

With the concept of “civilizational” nationalism as a basis, Reconstructionists proceed to assert that the Jews are a nation and Judaism is a civilization. The is and the are in this assertion have different meanings in different contexts. Sometimes the reference is to the past: the Jews once were a nation and Judaism once was a civilization—something that is conceded; at other times the reference is to an ideal future: Jews should be a nation and Judaism should again become a civilization—something that is arguable; at still other times, the reference is to the present: Jews now are, in effect, a nation and Judaism is a civilization—something that calls for a factual demonstration which the Reconstructionists do not undertake; and finally, it is not clear at times whether the reference is to the past, future or present.

As a statement of present fact, the Reconstructionist assertion is easily controverted by the actual pattern of conduct and interests of the majority of Jews. Palestinian Jews do conform to the pattern of nationhood; the majority of East-European Jews in the pre-war years did; but American Jews and British Jews, among others, do not. Judaism in America is neither organic nor pervasive, nor is it potent enough in fashioning the individual personalities of Jews to pass muster as a civilization. To say that the Jewish people as a whole constitute a nation and that Jewish life as a whole constitutes a civilization is to confuse the ideal with the real.

Some of the assertions of the Reconstructionists as regards the possibility and desirability of a Jewish civilization stem from this confusion of the present with the past, of the real with the ideal, of the fact with the wish. “A civilization,” says Dr. Kaplan, “is not a deliberate creation. It is as spontaneous as any living organism. Once it exists, it can be guided and directed, but its existence must be determined by the imperatives of a national tradition and the will to live as a nation. Civilization arises not out of planned cooperation, but out of the centuries of inevitable living, working, and striving together.” If the “will to live as a nation” were prevalent among the majority of American Jews, if there were in this country the “living organism” of a Jewish civilization, then our problem would be merely to guide and direct that civilization. But as the facts stand, it is precisely the “deliberate creation” of a Jewish civilization that the Reconstructionists advocate.

I quote again from Dr. Kaplan: “As a civilization, Judaism possesses the prerogative of being an end in itself.” If there were in fact a self-contained Jewish civilization, it would indeed be an “end in itself.” It would be the framework of all the ends toward which Jews could strive. It would literally be the end, the outside limit, of all Jewish ends. But a Jewish civilization that is to be created or restored cannot claim the “prerogative of being an end in itself.” As an ideal yet to be realized, Jewish civilization must be justified by criteria other than those supplied by Jewish tradition.

With their major premise only loosely defined and not at all established, Reconstructionists go on to argue the legitimacy and desirability of a bi-national status for Jews. Jews, they say, constitute—or should—an “international nation.” The individual Jew should identify himself fully with the nation of the country in which he lives. He should live in and by means of both the Jewish civilization and the civilization of the country he lives in.

Reconstructionists distinguish between citizenship, which means belonging to a state, and nationalism, which means belonging to a cultural fellowship. Whereas dual citizenship opens the way to a clash of loyalties, dual nationality does not. By disavowing any “fighting allegiance” to a central Jewish authority, in Palestine or elsewhere, Jews are free, Reconstructionists feel, to belong simultaneously to the nation of the country in which they live and to the “international” Jewish nation.

To the charge that they advocate cultural and national hyphenism, the Reconstructionists offer a demurrer. They openly admit the truth of the charge, but, they say: “What of it?” They argue that emancipation of the Jews on the condition that they cease being Jews hardly conforms to justice. True emancipation of Jews would permit them to acquire the citizenship, nationality and culture of the lands they live in and still retain their Jewish nationality and culture.

Nor are the Jews the only ones, Reconstructionists add, to claim the right of bi-nationalism and bi-culturism. The right is also claimed by Christians. For Christianity, like Judaism, is more than a religion. It is, like Judaism, a religious civilization. Ever since the rise of modem nationalism the Christian has had to live in two civilizations, the Christian and the national. Theoretically at least, the Christians identify themselves with the international community of all Christians and at the same time with a particular national community.

By describing Jews as an “international nation,” Reconstructionists might mean that the Jews are or should be a non-territorial nation. But they do not mean this, for they assert Palestine to be the home of the Jewish “nation,” and they insist on a Palestine-centered Jewish civilization. They might mean that the Jews are or should be a nonpolitical nation. But the Reconstructionists seem to favor the establishment of a Jewish state or commonwealth in Palestine. In view of the hypothetical bi-nationality of Jews, do the Reconstructionists mean that American Jews have two national homes, one where they live and the other where they do not live? How should an American Jew define his relation to the Jewish state or commonwealth in Palestine once it is established? “Fighting allegiance” on the part of non-Palestinian Jews is ruled out by the Reconstructionists. Is the Jewish commonwealth to be, as far as American Jews are concerned, just another foreign state? Or is the Jewish commonwealth in Palestine to be in some sense the commonwealth of all Jews no matter where they live? Clarification of these points is necessary.

The analogy between Christianity and Judaism breaks down at a number of important points. Christianity desires to fashion national civilizations the world over in its own image; Judaism, as Reconstructionists conceive it, requires the setting up of a Jewish national civilization alongside the national civilizations of different countries. To a Christian, loyalty to a universal human society supplements loyalty to his native land; to the Reconstructionists, loyalty to another particular nation supplements the Jew’s loyalty to his native land.

_____________

 

The chief affirmation of Reconstructionism is that Judaism is indivisible as a civilization. There can be no Jewish religion without a Jewish civilization. Nor can Jewish civilization dispense with Jewish religion. Judaism includes the Jewish religion, the Hebrew language, the Jewish community, Jewish laws, Jewish folkways, Jewish literature and art, and the living memory of Palestine. Each of these elements has meaning, function and vitality only in the context of all the others.

Reconstructionists premise the inseparability of the Jewish religion from Jewish civilization on the assumption that there is no religion but only particular religions; that particular religions are functions of specific civilizations, and that the Jewish religion is the national religion of the Jews.

The function of a religion, as Reconstructionists conceive it, is to consecrate the civilization of a particular people, heighten the people’s consciousness of the worth and uniqueness of its civilization and convey the spiritual content implicit in it. A religion without a civilization is without function. A civilization without a religion is mere mechanical routine.

Reconstructionists distinguish between universal religions, of which Christianity is an example, and national religions, among which is the Jewish. Christianity assumes a universal Christian way of life or civilization and a universal Christian people. A national religion functions within the framework of the civilization of a particular people. What makes the Jewish religion Jewish is not an idea or ideal of universal significance but faith in the destiny of the Jewish people; the sense of the supreme worth of the particular Jewish way of life; the sanctification of things, persons and events derived exclusively from the history of the Jewish nation; and the employment of a national ritual. The difference between a Christian and a Jew is that the former has a national and universal religion whereas the latter has two national religions.

_____________

 

Why should Jews identify themselves with the Jewish nation? Why should they build a distinctive Jewish civilization? To these questions, Reconstructionists have two answers: 1) the Jewish nation and the Jewish civilization are necessary means to the end of an abundant and satisfying life for particular persons called Jews; 2) the Jewish nation and the Jewish civilization are ends in themselves.

The first answer is predicated on the assumption that Jewish emancipation has largely failed. Despite the formal equality extended to Jews in some countries, Reconstructionists argue, they are nowhere completely at home. They lack the social and psychic security that flows from the feeling of intimately belonging and being at home in society, they lack the sense of life’s meaning that comes from feeling the intimate linkage of the individual’s momentary experiences and activities with a people’s past history and future destiny. Consequently, Reconstructionists argue, Jews need a Jewish nation and a Jewish civilization. They propose the establishment of Jewish communities which would be responsive to all the life-needs of Jews—economic, social and cultural—and would strain every effort to find for Jews a place in the sun.

What they have in mind is the restoration in democratic countries, America included, of the East-European Kehillah, which was a commonwealth within a commonwealth. The goal they look forward to is a community with civil laws and civil courts all its own, with an autonomous “general will” sufficiently pervasive and powerful to fashion the conscience of individual Jews and to control their outer conduct; a community which “must at least make a serious attempt to accomplish what, under normal conditions, a nation ought to do for its citizens in the spirit of justice and peace.” They propose to restore Judaism as a civilization which could provide the individual Jew with a complete way of life. Reconstructionists, to be sure, do not suggest that Jews withdraw from American and world culture. But they do advocate the broadening and deepening of Jewish “otherness.” And they do urge Jews to develop a greater degree of social and cultural self-sufficiency.

Reconstructionists show no inclination to consider the possibility that ways might be found toward genuine equality for Jews and toward their complete identification with and at-homeness in the more inclusive national society. But even if they considered this possibility, it is highly doubtful whether their devotion to a Jewish nation and a Jewish civilization could be weakened thereby. Jewish nation and Jewish civilization are for Reconstructionists not only means to the end of an abundant life for individual Jews, but also the framework within whose limits Jews must seek individual salvation. Jews can enrich their lives by means of their nation and civilization. They must, however, in addition live for their nation and civilization.

If indeed it were demonstrated that Jews could never hope to be accepted as full-fledged members of an inclusive national fellowship, we should have no other recourse but to develop our communal resources to the level of nationhood and our cultural heritage to that of a distinct civilization. Admittedly, the ideals of Jewish emancipation have as yet been fully realized nowhere. Admittedly, Jewish rights, though embodied in the laws of democratic countries, are not yet fully translated into social customs and into the attitudes of individuals. But to say that Jewish emancipation has failed is to confuse a moment in a still unfolding historical process with the culmination of that process.

_____________

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link