The Peoplehood concept is a new organizing concept for Jewish organizations. This paper will lay out several schools of thought about the Jewish Peoplehood concept, each offering a different way of understanding Jewish Peoplehood.

What is Jewish Peoplehood? Principles on which there is Agreement

There are a number of areas of agreement between the different schools of thought regarding peoplehood, and describing those will enable us to delineate that which is unique about the Peoplehood concept, both in terms of what Peoplehood is and what it is not. The areas of agreement point to three principles which, taken together, provide the conceptual depth and coherency needed to turn Peoplehood into an actionable concept.

1. A multi-dimensional experience – The concept of Jewish Peoplehood assumes an understanding of Jewish belonging that is multidimensional.

2. Rejection of strong ideology - Strong ideological frameworks that over emphasize one dimension of the larger Jewish experience are not an acceptable starting point for understanding how individuals connect to the Jewish People.

3. Connections between Jews, not Jewish identity - Those concerned with the Jewish Peoplehood concept do not focus on the identity of individuals, but rather on the nature of connections between Jews. The concern is with common elements and frameworks that enable Jews to connect with one another both emotionally and socially.

In combination, these three principles imbue the Peoplehood concept with coherence and, we believe, offer an added value to organizations that wish to create programs “that build Jewish peoplehood” in a sustainable and measurable way. Let us first explore each of these three agreed upon principles of Jewish Peoplehood and then look at the differing conceptions of Peoplehood.

Jewish Peoplehood is a Multidimensional Concept

There is general agreement that any discussion about the Peoplehood must be multi-dimensional. By “multi-dimensional” the authors refer to the complex nature of Jewish identity and their desire to embrace and even celebrate this complexity as the key to understanding the basis of belonging to the Jewish People. Eisen (forthcoming) eloquently presents the connection between the complex nature of Jewish belonging and “Peoplehood”.

“Peoplehood” – appears … the concept best suited by far to answer (or at least cope with) the quandary of Jewish identity. Indeed, it is probably the only concept that meets present needs on the score and suits the present situation. “Nation” and “religion” are each in their own way “too big.” They demand more than many Jews are willing to give in terms of belief or behavior and thus leave those Jews outsiders to a group which they know belongs to them and which they want very much to claim as their own. Ethnicity and heritage are “too small.” They miss out on a lot of what makes Jewish identity attractive and even compelling to many Jews -- a part of the self for which they are profoundly grateful and that many are profoundly disappointed not to pass on. Only “peoplehood” seems “just right.” It betokens an identity in which “religious” as well as “secular” Jews, Israeli as well as Diaspora Jews, can feel at home.

Mittelberg (2006) argues that the Jewish People includes within itself religious and nationalist components but cannot be reduced to either religion or nationalism. He fears the increasing emphasis on the religious component among American Jews, and the emphasis Israeli Jews place on the nationalist dimension. The result, he argues, is the increasing separation of the two largest parts of the Jewish People.  

Halbertal (2008) points to three conceptions of Jewish identity which have emerged in modern times: the covenantal (religious) identity, the national identity, and the cosmopolitan identity. He argues that these alternatives are incommensurable, yet many modern Jews do not reside in purity in either of them - the plurality resides in their own soul. He opposes projects such as Rav Kook’s that attempt to explain one identity in terms of the other (for example explaining that secular identity is a necessary stage in the saga leading to redemption). Each identity should be respected on its own terms. The modern Jew is a complex hybrid and it would be wise to recognize and respect this plurality as it is.

Rejection of Strong Ideologies

The flip side of embracing complexity is the rejection of strong ideologies. This is essential and must be understood if one is to appreciate the contribution of the “Jewish Peoplehood” concept Strong ideology often leads to an overemphasis of one aspect of the Jewish experience or another. There are many thinkers, religious and Zionist, who talk about their commitment to “the Jewish People” but are not promoting “Jewish Peoplehood” in the sense used by the contemporary supporters of the concept. The authors writing about Peoplehood are all uncomfortable with the claims of religious or Zionist ideologies that there is a particular approach to Jewish life that holds the answer to Jewish continuity. "Peoplehood" does not privilege one aspect or another of Jewish religiosity or nationalism, rather, the only given is that there are Jewish individuals who want to connect to the Jewish People. The questions are: (1) How do Jews succeed in sustaining a sense of belonging to the Jewish People in contemporary times? And, (2) do Jewish organizations facilitate this connection in a manner that also recognizes the complex nature of Jewish belonging?

Connections between Jews

A discussion about the Jewish Peoplehood concept always begins with a focus on the nature of the connection between individual Jews and not about choices individual Jews make or Jewish identity. In her PhD dissertation, Wolf elaborates on the idea that Peoplehood is about the group dimension.  

The idea of modern Jewish belonging or peoplehood relates to several key concepts. First, it is connected to familism, an element of Jewish collective consciousness describing “the tendency of Jews to see themselves as part of an extended family” (Liebman and Cohen 1990: 17). Familism incorporates mutual responsibility, obligation, and permanence, along with a sense of caring about other Jews. Second, peoplehood relates to the concept of transcendent belonging, “a feeling of deep connection to previous generations and future generations as well as to Jews of today who are scattered around the globe” (Cohen and Eisen 2000: 114). And finally, it is connected to what Cohen (2003) refers to as mythic collective narrative.

Wolf’s focus is the Jewish group. This is a major step away from the concern with the individual Jews, their lifestyle choices and Jewish identities, which has dominated discussion, debate and research about contemporary Jewish belonging over the past 50 years.

The following example taken from jewcy.com helps illustrate the significance of the difference between a focus on individual identity as opposed to the Jewish collective Joey Kurtzman, who takes what we call the “Jewish identity” position, takes issue with Jack Wertheimer, representing the Peoplehood position. While Wertheimer focuses on issues that threaten the group, such as intermarriage. Kurtzman and his supporter are concerned with the identity of individuals.  

Dr. Wertheimer isn't wrong about the threats posed by intermarriage and ‘syncretism’…. But I simply cannot accept his solution. …. I take very seriously my Jewish heritage. The Holocaust and my familial connection to it has deeply impacted my politics and values - first and foremost my rejection of tribalism and ethnocentrism! …. I do not think we can go backward into a tribal world. I think it is wrong. I don't want to have to choose between my Jewish identity and my deeply held values of tolerance, cosmopolitanism, existentialism, identity-creation, and universalism. But if I had to choose, as much as it pains me to say it, I would have to choose my values over my heritage.

Note the writer's emphasis on “my Jewish identity.” Jewish identity here is taken to its logical extreme. The Jewish individual is conceptualized as an autonomous agent who picks and chooses elements of Jewish culture which are personally meaningful. In its more moderate form, identity is about “my” connection to a particular group or movement. For example, Reform identity is about an individual’s connection to the Reform movement. Either in its radical individualist or moderate forms, identity is about the choices individuals make to shape a meaningful Jewish lifestyle. In contrast, Peoplehood does not focus on individual choice, but rather on those elements of Jewish culture and institutional life that enable Jewish individuals to connect to one another, should they choose to do so. The group, and not the individual, serves as the analytical starting point.

Divergent Schools of Thought

Beyond the three areas of agreement described above, there are divergent schools of thought regarding Jewish Peoplehood. The primary division between these schools is similar to the “communitarian” and “liberal” divide that exists in the wider debate about the nature of citizenship, community and belonging in contemporary society. Communitarians tend to look for the common resources and obligations that people draw on when they join a community or are members of a society. In contrast, liberals do not focus on what people have in common with one another. Rather, liberals concern themselves with the challenge of maintaining public frameworks that will at once allow for social order, but at the same time for cultural diversity in the face of pressures to assimilate in multi-cultural societies. The liberal wants to understand how it is possible to create a common sense of belonging that doesn’t demand the assimilation of different social groups to a single cultural model. (Note: the two positions are not exclusive of one another - many authors reference both the common content as well as the pluralism upon which Jewish Peoplehood builds.)

The Communitarian Position - The Common Fabric of Jewish Peoplehood

There are several variants of the communitarian position among intellectuals writing about Jewish Peoplehood. The common denominator is the desire to find common ground upon which connections between Jews are built. We discern four distinct positions: (1) Peoplehood as shared mission with an emphasis on shared destiny; (2) Peoplehood as shared mission with an emphasis on Tikkun Olam; (3) Peoplehood as shared kinship and mutual responsibility and; (4) Peoplehood as obligation.

Peoplehood as Shared Mission 1: Shared Covenant/Destiny

Rosenak (2008) argues that Peoplehood is the common ground among Jews which may be either descriptive (of reality as it is) or prescriptive (of what we hope reality to be). The idea of a Peoplehood as descriptive as opposed to prescriptive builds directly on Rabbi Soloveichik's concepts of a covenant of fate and covenant of destiny. As long as there is anti-Semitism there will be a covenant of fate among persecuted Jews. But this is a cheerless prospect. If we are to attract Jews who live in the West in the best of conditions we must develop a covenant of destiny as well. It is not enough to rely on the social factors that enable Jewish Peoplehood - we must also offer a prescriptive call for action. Rosenak calls for the development of a "uniquely Jewish spiritual life."

Peoplehood as Shared Mission 2: Tikkun Olam  

When Rosenak an Orthodox Jew, speaks of shared mission, he is addressing other Jews. This is typically the case when Jews of Orthodox or Conservative religious backgrounds address the shared mission of the Jewish People. In contrast, liberal Reform and secular Jews often push a conception of Jewish Peoplehood that calls for Tikkun Olam. The term has been used for many years without connection to the concept of Jewish Peoplehood, but is now being integrated into the Peoplehood discussion.  

The argument is that in open societies, in which Jews are full citizens, Jewish Peoplehood will only be meaningful if the common Jewish mission addresses universal issues of social justice faced by Jews and non-Jews alike. For example, Fein (2006) calls on congregations to support social justice as a central Jewish value. Abramowitz, in his rich and diverse writings on the www.peoplehood.org website, is a leading proponent of the Tikkun Olam understanding of Jewish Peoplehood. The following is an example of Abramowitz’s world view.  

“We have been a global people for 2,000 years. At a time when the international institutions formed after World War II are lacking in the ethical framework to deal with a new and more complex age, the Jewish people have some things to say, teach, model.”

Peoplehood as Shared Kinship and Mutual Responsibility Part of Rosenak’s argument cited above is that Peoplehood is produced by shared experience and must also include a shared destiny. Like Rosenak, Cohen (2003) and Cohen and Wertheimer (2006) also regard shared experience as one half of the Peoplehood equation, but use the analytical lens of social science to interpret the philosophical idea of shared destiny as “mutual responsibility.” Shared experience produces a sense of kinship and a common descent and history.

Among its [Jewish Peoplehood] key elements are: a sense of kinship and common descent, an interlinked history, shared threats, and ultimately a shared destiny. Correlatively, Jews have also believed that they resemble one another in key aspects of culture and personality, as well as sharing common values, circumstances, and interests. They could easily say to one another, ‘We are alike, and different from others. We hold similar beliefs and ideas, we share the same sorts of opportunities and challenges, we have been subject to the same threats, experienced the same possibilities, and feel as if we are a large extended family with a great sense of mutual obligation’ (Cohen 2003: 1)

In this school of thought, shared experience and mutual obligation feed off of one another. While shared experience and mutual obligation don’t have to go hand in hand with one another, there is an assumption in their writing that if shared Jewish experiences drop, so the feeling of shared kinship and mutual obligation between Jews will decline.

Cohen and Wertheimer argue that throughout Jewish history Jews were propelled to action by the common kinship they felt with other Jews. They feel that the last example of this type of mass Jewish action on behalf of other Jews was the demonstration for Soviet Jewry that brought over a quarter million Americans to Washington DC and other activity on behalf of Soviet Jews in the 1980s. They argue that today, American Jews are giving less to causes that are specifically Jewish. The fraying of bonds has to do with the dissolution of the common Jewish experience in the openness of American society and the feeling of full citizenship and security that American Jews feel. The results are high rates of intermarriage and high numbers of non -Jewish friends, with less of a desire to search out and create social relationships with other Jews.

Prell (2008) offers a variation of the “shared experience" thesis, arguing that Peoplehood builds on a sense of a shared past. The project of Peoplehood must go against the cultural grain in that it should demand commitment to the collective even when it "takes forms that differ from one's own practice or world view." Jews must be able, within the umbrella of Peoplehood, to find a common vocabulary and shared symbols while maintaining a commitment to pluralism. A way to promote this common commitment is by nurturing a sense of a common Jewish past.

Peoplehood Mitzvot/Obligations

Wertheimer, Cohen and Prell’s argument, that Jewish Peoplehood is built on a sense of common experience (past and present) and a mutual commitment between Jews, is taken one step further by Hoffman (2006) and Wilf (2005). They feel that Jewish Peoplehood is an organizing platform that is equivalent to religion, to the point that they argue that there is a need for “the mitzvot of Jewish Peoplehood.” The mutual commitment described by Cohen and Wertheimer becomes an obligation or mitzvah. Hoffman (2006) writes:

Michael Rosenak has pointed out that the notion of Peoplehood can be both descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptively, it helps us understand the differences and commonalities among Jews. But Jewish Peoplehood, in order to have a more robust existence, has to move from being descriptive to being prescriptive. What are the minimal conditions of being an active member of this people? What contents, acts, or behaviors create the commonalities that give Jewish Peoplehood an active rather than passive meaning? … Only when we grapple with the prescriptive aspects of Jewish Peoplehood — what are the 'mitzvot' of Jewish Peoplehood? — will we give this notion both body and weight.

We see among communitarians a search for the common elements of the Jewish experience. The difference between them rests on the degree of emphasis placed on the “prescriptive” dimension. A central question within the debate between Jewish communitarians is: To what degree do we need a common mission? And, do we need to go as far as formulating “the mitzvot” of Jewish Peoplehood?

The Liberal Position – Incorporating Jewish Pluralism into a Common Public Framework

In contrast to the communitarians, with their emphasis on the need to define the common content that Jews share and which enables Jewish Peoplehood, “liberals” focus on the public frameworks, or the “form”, in which Jews are able to connect to one another. At the heart of the liberal position is the ideal of “conversation” – the ability of Jews of different types to meet and talk with one another. What they talk about is less important than the act of conversation. We call this “the Peoplehood as Conversation” position. A more developed version of this position we refer to below as the idea coined by Ravid - “Peoplehood Capital.”

Peoplehood as Conversation

A common element among the authors taking a liberal position is the stress on incorporating Jewish diversity by enabling a conversation between different types of Jews. For example, Eisen (2008), Halbertal (2008) and Walzer (2008) each argue that striving for a common Jewish "destiny", as suggested by Rosenak (2008), would be a mistake. Rather, Eisen endorses the idea that conversation and not education is the answer. Rather than focusing on what Jews should learn, we are better off promoting frameworks that will enable Jewish conversation and sociability.

Eisen’s rejection of the argument that building Peoplehood can begin with a focus on common cultural knowledge or mission is a common theme pursued by the liberal authors. The liberal position worries about focusing on that which is common, as it drags one into the need to determine boundaries and to decide on whose version of common Jewish culture or mission will determine the criteria for the “legitimate” basis of Jewish Peoplehood. Rather, liberals argue that the common elements of Jewish culture are contextual and will be selected by those who are involved in a given conversation.

Geller (2008), a Reform Rabbi, wants to promote “Jewish conversations” among her constituents. Her concern is with the spiritualistic, privatized Judaism promoted by liberal Jews that does not make a conscious attempt to connect individuals to the Jewish collective. For the idea of Peoplehood to make sense to this generation it must be framed in terms of "being in a relationship". That can be done by taking concepts from Jewish collective history and applying them to personal needs. For example the redemption from Egypt can be likened to personal redemption from anything from stress to addiction. What is important is that the people share a story and are part of an ongoing conversation with the Jewish sources. The first step is to engage Jews in the conversation. The second step is to "lift up the dimensions of Peoplehood that deepen the conversation around Torah" and "it must be made more transparent that Torah study is not just about personal growth… but about being connected to a community of other people who also study Torah".

Note that Geller is balancing communitarian and liberal positions. Her emphasis is on the importance of a conversation between Jews and she suggests Torah as an important common resource for deepening the Jewish conversation.

Peoplehood as Social Capital

Ravid (unpublished), Kopelowitz (forthcoming, 2006) and a group at Oranim College in Israel (Dror-Bender and Tzafoni 2006, Wolfin 2006, Mittelberg 1999, 2006, Shmidt 2006) elaborate on the idea of Peoplehood as conversation by focusing on the concept of “social capital”. Social capital speaks to the knowledge, resources and institutions that enable individuals to connect with others to create and maintain community.

Like Eisen, both Kopelowitz and Ravid argue that it is unproductive to begin by defining the common content of Peoplehood. We don’t need to define the content of Jewish Peoplehood ahead of time in order to understand how to build Jewish Peoplehood. Note that these authors are not rejecting the importance of a “common heritage, values and future goals,” but argue that those are only relevant within the context of particular conversations. The people involved in a given conversation will imbue it with the shared Jewish content that they find meaningful.

Initial work is underway to develop a theory of Jewish social capital. Kopelowitz (forthcoming) describes Jewish social capital in terms of the rituals, ceremonies, institutions and communities, which he argues are the building blocks of Jewish Peoplehood. The Oranim group is developing the idea of Jewish social capital from the perspective of “community building.” They focus on institutions of a local community that enable Jews to interact with one another as well as the global Jewish community, in which meetings between Jews from different countries plays a central role. For example, Drori-Bender and Tzfoni (2006) and Mittleberg (2007) write about the “glocalization” of Jewish Peoplehood, by which they mean the simultaneous experience of local and global Jewish community that they argue is enhanced by the technology revolution that is part of post-modern society.

Summary

The difference between the communitarian and liberal schools of Jewish Peoplehood can be summed up as one of emphasis on either the content or form of Jewish collective belonging. It is clear to us, that one cannot build Jewish Peoplehood without creating a framework (form) that will enable Jews to connect with one another, however, the Jewish public frameworks which concern liberals must at the same time have content in order to be meaningful.

No one who takes a Peoplehood position will reject form for content, or vice-versa. Rather, the question is how much emphasis do scholars and practitioners place on the form or content of Jewish collective life. Where do they begin the quest for building and sustaining Jewish Peoplehood in contemporary times?

References

Bar Shalom, Yehuda. 2003 (Hebrew). "On the Possibility of Educating for Jewish Peoplehood in Israel: A Case Study of The Collaboration between the Jewish Agency and Teacher Training Colleges". Department of Education, The Jewish Agency for Israel. Jerusalem. Paper can be downloaded at: http://www.jafi.org.il/education/moriya/newpdf/BarShalom.pdf    

Cohen, Steven, M. and Jack Wertheimer. 2006. "Whatever Happened to the Jewish People?" Commentary, June pg. 33-37.

Cohen, Steven M. 2003. JAFI Consultation on Jewish Community and Peoplehood (pp. 10): unpublished.

Drori-Binder, Ruth & Guy Tzfoni. 2006 (Hebrew). "Jewish Peoplehood as a Network of Communities." Alumot. Oranim College and Jewish Agency for Israel. pp. 21-36.

Eisen, Arnold. 2008. “Thinking about Peoplehood – Lessons Learned from the Peoplehood Project.” In Jewish Peoplehood: Change and Challenge. Editors: Ezra Kopelowitz and Menachem Revivi. Pp. 3-12. Academic Studies Press.

Geller, Laura. 2008. "A New Understanding of Peoplehood: The Jewish Conversation." in Jewish Peoplehood: Change and Challenge. Editors: Ezra Kopelowitz and Menachem Revivi. Pp. 78-86. Academic Studies Press.

Govrin, Michal. 2008. "Jewish Literary Manifesto (in First Person Feminine)" in Jewish Peoplehood: Change and Challenge. Editors: Ezra Kopelowitz and Menachem Revivi. Pp. 13-29. Academic Studies Press.

Moshe Halbertal. 2008. "On Modern Jewish Identities" in Jewish Peoplehood: Change and Challenge. Editors: Ezra Kopelowitz and Menachem Revivi pg. 109-121. Academic Studies Press.

Fein, Leonard. 2006. "The Morning After: Sustaining Social Change." Shma 37. pg. 6

Hoffman, Allan. 2006. "Challenging Peoplehood Sh’ma Editor Susan Berrin speaks to Allan Hoffman" Shma 37. pg. 7-8. http://www.shma.com/oct_06/challenging_peoplehood.htm

Kopelowitz, Ezra. 2006. “Don’t Focus on Mitzvoth,” Shma 37. http://www.shma.com/oct_06/dont_focus_mitzvot.htm

Kopelowitz, Ezra and Menachem Revivi (2008). Eds. Jewish Peoplehood: Change and Challenge. Academic Studies Press.

Mittelberg, David. 2007. Convergent and Divergent Dimensions of Jewish Peoplehood. A Paper for the 2007 WCJCS Quadrennial. Oranim, Academic College of Education

Mittelberg, David. 2006 (Hebrew). "Toward an Understanding and Realizing of Collective Jewish Peoplehood." Alumot. Oranim College and Jewish Agency for Israel. pp. 16-21.

Mittelberg, David. 1999. The Israel Connection and American Jews. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

Prell, Riv-Ellen. 2008. "Against The Cultural Grain: Jewish Peoplehood for the 21st Century." in Jewish Peoplehood: Change and Challenge. Editors: Ezra Kopelowitz and Menachem Revivi. Pp. 53-65. Academic Studies Press.

Rosenak, Michael. 2008. "The Problem of Jewish Peoplehood" in Jewish Peoplehood: Change and Challenge. Editors: Ezra Kopelowitz and Menachem Revivi. Academic Studies Press.

Schmidt, Tzukit. 2006. (Hebrew) "Jewish Peoplehood in Public Schools." Alumot pp. 52-60.

Walzer, Michael. "The Anomalies of Jewish Political Identity" in Jewish Peoplehood: Change and Challenge Editors: Ezra Kopelowitz and Menachem Revivi. Pp. 30-33. Academic Studies Press.

Wilf, Anat. 2005. “Mitzvot of Peoplehood,” Ynet News. June 2nd. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3041999,00.html

Wolfin, Elisha. 2006 [Hebrew]. "Jewish Peoplehood for Young Adults." Alumot. Oranim College and Jewish Agency for Israel. pp. 37-50.