Rabbi Yonatan Yussman is the Head of Jewish Studies at The Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Educational Campus, a PreK-12 Jewish community school in Las Vegas, Nevada. He is completing his doctorate in Educational Leadership on Tefilla in Jewish community day schools.
How does an educational leader in a Jewish community school spiritually engage a student who calls herself a “hetero, eco-feminist, vegan, Jewish, history major”? What about a boy who refers to himself as a “grande soy vanilla latte with cinnamon, no foam Jew”? These terms actually come from the literature on how many Jews in America define their identities (Greenberg, 2006; Sales & Saxe, 2006).
America in general, including its Jewish community, is living in a postmodern age where young people are attracted to religion by being treated as a “customer” or “consumer.” (Note: The hallmark of “postmodernism” is the rejection of any objective truths. It rejects sharp distinctions in personal identity – “Jewish,” “American,” “Female.” It asks, do we really know who we are? Personal identity is no longer a given, but an open question.) The traditional approach of an externally-imposed religion will not attract many Jews in the free-market, individualistic social and religious landscape of America. Leaders and teachers in Jewish schools need to be educating these students and running their schools accordingly, or risk losing the next generation of Jewish communal leaders.
What does “strong Jewish commitment” look like?
If a Jewish student graduates from a Jewish community school, but consciously chooses to eat non-kosher food, is that a failure? What if he never attends synagogue after graduation? What if she does not believe in God? In the past, many Jewish leaders would have trouble labeling such graduates “successful”; they would think that perhaps Jewish education had failed these students somehow.
Evidence of this (beyond the great amount of anecdotal stories I could tell) is the way the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey was written, and the widespread reaction to it. This survey was intended to provide a comprehensive social and demographic picture of the American Jewish population, and to help Jewish leaders with programming, policy making, financial resource allocation, Jewish education, and scholarly research. The survey is replete with questions about traditional Jewish religious observance and participation in organized Jewish life. The survey assumed that an individual with a strong Jewish identity was one with commitments to traditional religious, social, and political practices. The survey questions focused primarily on frequency of traditional religious behaviors, attitudes and beliefs. For example, Jewish identity was a function of such things as how frequently one lit Shabbat candles, fasted on Yom Kippur, and affiliated with existing Jewish communal institutions such as synagogues.
Because the research showed that fewer Jews were doing these things, it was largely interpreted that Jewish identity was in decline and Judaism was in a crisis. Naturally, the leadership of the American Jewish community became increasingly concerned with how to deal with reports of soaring intermarriage rates, assimilation, diminishing population numbers, and far fewer young people interested in communal institutions.
However, I believe the survey misjudged what it means to be a committed Jew. In reality, the survey results demonstrated that the traditional way of understanding Jewish identity formation no longer applies to a great many Jews today. As is supported by research (which I will detail shortly), many Jews simply form their Jewish identities and commitments in alternative ways that this survey did not investigate. This survey’s authors, and most Jewish leaders, did not imagine that Jews who were attending synagogue less and less were not actually assimilating; many were just turned off by existing Jewish institutions and were finding alternative ways of constructing their Jewish identities and commitments.
Who are these new Jews?
Who are these Jews who are finding alternative modes of identifying with Judaism? Answering that question will go a long way towards understanding how to best work with them in our schools and communal institutions. Perhaps the seminal study explaining these recent trends in Judaism is Arnold Eisen and Steven Cohen’s book, The Jew Within (2000), which analyzed the “moderately affiliated Jews who make up the bulk of American Jewry.” The authors’ key finding was that the construction of Jewish meaning in America is personal and private, and that communal loyalties and norms no longer shape Jewish identity as they did several decades ago. Judaism used to be expressed primarily through organizational involvement, but today Jewish identification has become much more individual.
Recent research supports what Eisen and Cohen found. For example, a study on Generation Y Jews, Grande Soy Vanilla Latte with Cinnamon, No Foam: Jewish Identity and Community in a Time of Unlimited Choices, “finds Generation Y Jews incredibly self-confident about their Jewish identities, but also defined by many other factors in their lives, including their social networks, geography, gender, and sexual orientation” (Greenberg, 2006). (Note: There is no consensus of when Generation Y was born, but it ranges from the mid 1970s until the 2000s.) The study found that young Jews feel existing Jewish institutions have become increasingly irrelevant to the way they are living their lives. These Jews tends to experience Judaism informally rather than through formal religious practice, and they do not distinguish between “American” and “Jewish” values.
Another study, OMG! How Generation Y is Redefining Faith in the iPod Era, concludes that Generation Y “is characterized by open mindedness and tolerance, believing that people should do their own thing, even if it seems strange to others. For many, pursuing the American Dream simply means, ‘doing whatever I want’” (Greenberg, 2005). The study confirms that Generation Y sees religious commitment as only one possible route to find meaning in Judaism.
How do we move forward?
One can begin to see the challenges that face religious and educational leaders who are in the business of engaging young people in today’s world. Leaders need to consider these postmodern trends in religion, think deeply about how religious identities are now formed, and how communal settings such as schools should be tailored accordingly. In particular, leaders are challenged to guide their students from the simplistic Burger King approach to Judaism (“have it your way”) to a deeper, engaging, joyous, intrinsically-motivated, authentic encounter with Judaism.
There are, in fact, models of religious institutions in America
that are incredibly successful in engaging their young people. I do not want to take away from the efforts being made within the Jewish community (such as Birthright and Synaplex), but the most successful stories are coming from outside of Judaism. (I could not recall ever hearing the description of “incredibly successful” associated with any Jewish day school, which is why I looked outside of the world of Jewish education entirely for models.) If Joel Osteen is able to pack 43,000 people into his church every week, why not see what we can learn from churches like his? Many Jews might irrationally cringe at the thought of learning how to run our schools from Christians, but as the Rambam writes in his commentary to Pirkei Avot: “Accept the truth from wherever it may come.”
In Micklethwait and Wooldridge’s book God is Back (2009), they describe WillowCreekCommunityChurch in South Barrington, Illinois as a good example of a religious institution successfully reaching out and connecting to postmodern youth and the unaffiliated. Willow Creek has food courts, basketball courts, cafes, video screens, and parking for 3,850 cars. It is not easy to locate crosses or altars. The church has two MBAs, a consulting arm, a seven-step strategy, a set of ten core values, a management team, and 4 video-editing suites. They have put the customer first, and have learned how to play the free market where one has to sell a product (religion) to a consumer confronted with many choices. In many ways, they have learned how to be capitalists in the purist way possible.
How did Willow Creek come to be what it is today? Its founder, Bill Hybels, conducted a survey of Chicagoans asking why they did not come to church. He then adapted his church to fit the people’s needs. He removed overtly religious images, he made services more contemporary and made the church “user-friendly,” including making sure that the parking lot was well organized like one would find at a shopping mall. “All this emphasis on customer service is producing a predictable result: growth” (Micklethwait, 2009, p. 185).
Beyond borrowing from the techniques and structure of the corporate world, I see two dynamics from Willow Creek as keys for understanding how to engage our youth in a postmodern world: technology and consumerism. Global consumerism has marked a shift in understanding ourselves. We used to understand ourselves as producers, but now we understand ourselves as consumers. Computers have made the world smaller and faster, and have made identities more fragmented. Religious institutions must be involved in the new media, fully knowing that such involvement runs the risk of being relativized as just another choice on the web. This is a risk that we must take, or be dismissed as irrelevant by our students.
One major criticism of all this growth is that the message will be watered down in the process. Casting such a broad net may leave the end message bland and sanitized. While this critique needs to be taken seriously, according to the website of the biggest mega-church in the world, Joel Osteen’s LakewoodChurch declares that “the entire Bible is inspired by God, without error.” That does not sound like a watered down message.
Pedagogical Implications
How should Jewish community schools define a successful graduate? What is Jewish identity? What is “commitment to Judaism”? I believe all we can give our students is a certain core foundation of knowledge, guide them through a critical and thoughtful analysis of that knowledge, and encourage them to use that knowledge responsibly. We cannot dictate how they should act religiously, nor can we define what “success” looks like Jewishly.
This isn’t a model of relativism, or “anything goes.” Schools should still teach Jewish values such as respect of others, reject bullying and violence, and teach core Jewish texts. They should live a Jewish calendar and celebrate life cycle events, expose students to the spiritual marketplace of Jewish ideas and rituals, and teach skills such as how to keep kosher. Students should learn Jewish history, Hebrew language, Israel and Zionism, and so on. The main difference in what I am espousing is in the outcome – I reject that we can define what a successful Jewish graduate looks like. Likewise, we have to be ready for our students to reject traditional Judaism. But “rejection” is a legitimate Jewish commitment, a defensible action to be respected. It is common knowledge that a great many of our students feel that parts of Judaism are a burden. Many feel it is a burden to keep kosher, or to keep Shabbat in a traditional manner. Too often, though, students make decisions without much knowledge or critical thinking. Take, for example, someone who does not want to wear a kipah. I can respect that, under one condition: that the choice to wear or not wear a kipah is based upon knowledge, critical thinking, and responsible decision-making. (I am grateful to Sim Pearl, the Head of School at the Weber School in Atlanta, who introduced me to the idea teaching our students KTR: to be knowledgable, thoughtful, and responsible.)
In the language of Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra, many Jews consider the rituals of Judaism metaphorically to be “camels.” (Gordon Bernat-Kunin, Rabbinic Director at the MilkenCommunityHigh School, introduced me to the ideas in this paper relating to Nietzche.) The camel bears the heavy burden of tradition; he carries a big load on his back. The camel is an oppressive “you must do this, period.” A ritual may be seen as a “camel” because it is misunderstood. Sometimes better understanding, more knowledge, is all it takes to make a ritual meaningful.
But what happens if that does not occur? What happens if a student learns about a ritual, and the camel remains a camel? Then she moves to the “lion” stage of Nietzsche’s metamorphosis. This stage is “Sacred Nay Saying” – carefully and systematically critiquing and tearing apart the camel’s burden. This stage takes a burdensome ritual, and sets the stages for changing it to make it more meaningful and relevant for that individual.
For example, perhaps a student learns all she can about kashrut, but at the end of the day, it does not speak to her. Why not? Have her break it down and critically analyze it. Maybe nothing can convince her that keeping kosher makes eating a more meaningful and sacred act. How can we move beyond that simple rejection? To paraphrase Nietzsche’s model, how do we move from “Sacred No” to “Sacred Yes”? How do we create new meaning out of the old rituals? For example, perhaps a person who rejects the traditional model of kashrut may decide that vegetarianism is how she will inject meaning, spirituality, connection to Judaism and maybe even to God, in the food that she eats. Vegetarianism becomes this person’s way of keeping kosher.
This is the deep process that our students should embark upon as they form their own Jewish identities, which may or may not adhere to traditional halakhah. This process emphasizes making Judaism relevant by connecting it to their lives. It actively finds ways of making Judaism and Jewish text learning engaging and exciting.
As administrators and teachers, we should be spending less time defining the content-knowledge, behaviors, beliefs, and skill-sets of “successful graduates” and more time teaching our students about the process of how to construct a meaningful Jewish identity across their lifetime. Most schools currently focus on transmitting traditional Judaism, and motivating their students to adopt an existing religious construct. Relatively little time is devoted to helping them develop the skills to construct their own identity, and how to sustain this process once they are in college and beyond.
Likewise, teachers of Judaism need to stop using language that is antagonistic (often unknowingly), and instead consciously and conscientiously use language that advocates individual choice and not externally-imposed obligations. We need to listen to what the research tells us will work.
Teaching for commitment
I also want to be clear that this approach does not negate teaching for commitment. In fact, I believe teaching in a way which does not encourage commitment is a critical educational mistake. I agree wholeheartedly with Barry Chazan:
Non-indoctrinary religious education does not imply neutral, ‘intellectual’, or non-committed religious education. On the contrary, the non-indoctrinary religious educator must be committed to some belief, and must appear so in his student’s eyes… One of the basic principles is that the religious life implies and demands commitment. On the other hand, this expression of commitment is not the same as arbitrary imposition of commitment. The religious educator wants to teach that the religious way necessitates some form of personal commitment, while at the same time preparing the student for his own eventual personal commitments… There need not be a contradiction between religious teachers and schools teaching commitment while preparing students to choose their own commitments. The opposite of an indoctrinary religious education is not neutrality but a committed liberal religious education. (Chazan, 1978, p. 75).
Conclusions
I return to the question of what “strong Jewish commitment” looks like. What does it mean to be a “successful Jewish graduate” of a day school? To some students, Jewish success will be making aliyah, going into the army, and living a secular life in Israel. To others, success will be going to medical school and helping other people with their medical problems and being a philanthropist, but not doing anything “traditionally religious.” To others, success will be being a good mom and raising good children, while being a secular humanist. To others, success will be going to rabbinical school. To still others, success will be living a middle class life, and spending as much time as possible volunteering and helping others.
Just about anything can be used in this paradigm to construct Jewish identity: literature, music, food, Torah, sexual orientation, family, work, nature, volunteering, Israel, language, dress, ideas, art, dance, philanthropy, jokes, politics, overcoming struggles, and so on. It is in no way limited to traditional rabbinic religious Judaism. It is also important to remember that identity will change over time.
As a parent of three children in Jewish day school, and a long-time teacher and administrator in Jewish community schools, I often wonder if this type of Judaism I described can be successfully transmitted from generation to generation. Will my grandchildren be like me? The answer is both yes and no. We can no longer simply pass on rituals and dogma from generation to generation, as many of us are used to. But we can pass on a process of meaningful identity construction, and the importance of making good choices. The outcomes may be different from my own identity and commitments, but ultimately I will be happy with whatever Jewish choices my children (both my biological ones, and my students) make. This is because I am committed to the process, and have confidence that my children are the next generation in an ever-evolving tradition that will not only help them live purposeful lives, but will be enhanced by what they, in return, have to offer.
References
Chazan, B. (1978). The language of Jewish education: Crisis and hope in the Jewish school. Hartmore House: New York.
Cohen, S. M. & Eisen, A. (2000). The Jew within: Self, family, and community in America. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.
Greenberg, A. (2005). OMG! How Generation Y is redefining faith in the iPod era. New York: REBOOT. Retrieved from www.acbp.net/About/PDF/OMG%20Report%202005.pdf
Greenberg, A. (2006). Grande soy vanilla latte with cinnamon, no foam: Jewish identity and community in a time of unlimited choices. New York: REBOOT. Retrieved from http://download.2164.net/PDF-newsletters/Latte_Report.pdf
Micklethwait, J. & Wooldridge, A. (2009). God is back: How the global revival of faith is changing the world. New York: Penguin Press.
Sales, A. & Saxe, L. (2006). Particularism in the university: Realities and opportunities for Jewish life on campus. Avi Chai Foundation. Retrieved from www.avi-chai.org/Static/Binaries/Publications/Jewish%20Life%20on%20Campus_0.pdf
United Jewish Communities (2003). The national Jewish population survey 2000-01: Strength, challenge and diversity in the American Jewish population. Retrieved from www.jewishfederations.org/local_includes/downloads/4606.pdf