"after Auschwitz, poetry cannot be written" - Theodor Adorno
The technological development in the field of nuclear weapons has brought humanity to a state which the danger of total extinction is hovering above it. This brings us to the question - who will suffer the loss of human beings lives if they themselves annihilate these lives? Answer: not a single soul. Total annihilation is not a loss for there can be no loss without there being a loser. Therefore, we must search for the meaning of extinction only in human beings expectation of it, the very same expectation that corrupts their very own lives (according to Jonathan Shell).
Just as the meaning of the past is only fully understood in the present, the meaning of our acts in the present seek for their full understanding in the future. The threat of self extinction of humanity therefore redefines the face of the moral world we live in today. It is commonly considered that a single event that occurs in the present may lead to several different results in the future. This may also be looked upon from the opposite perspective - our acts in the present, in part, are a suggestion as to shaping the future a certain way. In other words, the future which we are preparing ourselves has a role in shaping the present we are operating in now.
The current policy of nuclear threat is in a way a suggestion to a general behavior that portrays a refusal by principal to the possibility of the existence of a moral world, one of a moral time and space, without such there is no moral existence to the world.
If an end shall come to man in the same threat of mutual suicide, history will then come to an end. If our present is the past of the future - it now has a new meaning from the one we thought. One of the ways in which our acts in the present get their meaning is from our own conception - the way we imagine the future. Self extinction of humanity is a denial of any possible future, and in that it is in fact denial of any meaning of the present.
Today denial of human respect is no theoretical threat - it is an existing reality that is well instilled in us. We are living in the present, in a world that chooses to continue what was invented in Auschwitz, Majdanek and Hiroshima. Today, human traits are no longer a source of great honor. Degrading behavior is no longer surprising or upsetting, insult and disrespect have become integral parts of our world.
If indeed justice is with sustainers of the nuclear threat there is then no alternative to this world of degraded honor: we are - in Albert Camus' words - "the victims and the executors" all at once.
Is it possible to create a present based on a positive memory of the future and not that of annihilation?
The answer is in the hands of man!
Notes:
How can you write poetry when you know man can create the Holocaust?
Future picture and self-fulfilling prophecy
Is it possible to have a positive future picture?
Future picture is hard > idealistic, but also shaped by the fact that humans created Auschwitz. Which "reality" is more prevalent?
humans created Auschwitz shaping future picture > apathy
What is the future picture for your life? Your actions, interactions, and relationships should reflect that. Garin Aliya? Socialism? Anarchy? Shivyon Erech Haadam? Or is it a super capitalist America?
Don't accept that there will be conflict and war forever!
("That's not what I want, but that's what it is.") No > Enemies surrounding us > Mifgash B'Englit > accepting that
See peace in future > prepare for it, treat Israeli Arabs better
See no peace in future > prepare for it, racism
Use imagination in future picture!
Martin Buber, Zion and the Youth: Older people see "reality" > push on youth > accepting
America's future picture > violent, survival of the fittest > strength, don't touch us > mass weapon build-up
Postitive future picture > may sound naive, but it is important, even essential > We need the courage to see and act towards things that may be/seem naive, but is what we believe is right.
Don't be afraid to think naive thoughts or to imagine a different world.
You can't imagine or work toward a better world alone. You need a group. Work together!
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
On the New Human - A. D. Gordon
Creating a new life requires the creation of a new person. Ideals, aspirations, and deeds that a person does not renew with his own hands will end up being dictated by the very life and spirit around him that he seeks to conquer, and will become swallowed up by that life until no trace is left...
A true expression of an ideal must live in all of the cells and atoms of an entire organism. This expression, which is essentially the life renewal of the bearer of the ideal, is the complete and proper discovery of this being's desire for change.
A true expression of an ideal must live in all of the cells and atoms of an entire organism. This expression, which is essentially the life renewal of the bearer of the ideal, is the complete and proper discovery of this being's desire for change.
On Judaism - Berl Katznelson
There is an ancient Hebrew saying, which I believe is an important principle, particularly in these times: 'Anyone who repudiates idolatry is called a Jew' (Megillah, 13A)... Judaism was based on the belief in the Oneness of the Creator. And then arose the sage who proclaimed that this one thing alone was sufficient for Judaism: repudiating idolatry! I look upon this as one of the brilliant discoveries of Jewish thought and character. Jewish culture does not begin with some grand credo, but with the war against idolatry. We might well translate 'idolatry' as 'fetishism'. The starting point for Judaism is the war against fetishism; the search for truth begins with the war against idolatry.
Zion and the Youth - Martin Buber
The youth are humanity's eternal possibility for happiness. This possibility occurs
repeatedly and humanity misses it again and again. Generations of people in their
twenties return to the stage again and again with the passion of absolute yearning
in their hearts, devoted to ideals, ready and waiting to break through the blocked
gates of Eden.
Nothing stands between this generation and the fulfillment of its obligation but the deed itself; and hence they prepare themselves. But in the hour of preparation an abundance of inferior and unimportant goals from the society around them take control of the youths' souls. Vain urges of egotism and the urges for excellence and power take control of them. Their environment preaches the perception that the 'facts' are stronger than the ideals and that we are subjects in a sequence of events that we cannot change, shape, or control, and that the aspiration to escape from the rituals of the all-powerful “greater good” will turn the rebel into an outsider from society and a hallucinatory person. He will become a man that lives a life of celibacy, who isolates himself from society, and is unsuccessful. This preaching overcomes the longings and devotion; the pure force, which was going to actualize a life of truth on earth, was coerced into becoming a burden of lies and the burden of the soulless walking on the sidelines. And the remaining few rebels, who were abandoned and left behind by their friends become – as was foretold – the exceptions that do not succeed in life. And again the empty mechanism was saved; it was proven again that inertia is stronger than the flight of the free spirit, which aspires to legislate more exalted laws. And again humanity did not receive the achievement and the chance that fate summoned for it, and a new generation rises up, a new youth, and what had happened to its predecessors will happen to it too.
However, the uniqueness of times in which great internal and external crises occur in the lives of nations and humanity as a whole, is that they refuse to surrender to the decree, they rebel against the law of inertia and dare to save the youthful vigor that did not yet disintegrate, and from it they dare to grow an act of revolution, an act of renewal. These times speak to the youth with lungs of fire, they demand from the youth, even command of it, not to surrender, to face the evil, to save the soul, and to do its deeds. And the youth listens.
This youth stretches via great exertion and shakes itself free from the coercion of the empty mechanism, and is not tempted by it. This youth dares to do what is beyond. It performs an act like Yehoshua in Givon: it delays the sun from rising in the sky until its endeavor is completed. It prolongs its youth by one hour, one great hour, and performs what is necessary for the turning point to occur.
Nothing stands between this generation and the fulfillment of its obligation but the deed itself; and hence they prepare themselves. But in the hour of preparation an abundance of inferior and unimportant goals from the society around them take control of the youths' souls. Vain urges of egotism and the urges for excellence and power take control of them. Their environment preaches the perception that the 'facts' are stronger than the ideals and that we are subjects in a sequence of events that we cannot change, shape, or control, and that the aspiration to escape from the rituals of the all-powerful “greater good” will turn the rebel into an outsider from society and a hallucinatory person. He will become a man that lives a life of celibacy, who isolates himself from society, and is unsuccessful. This preaching overcomes the longings and devotion; the pure force, which was going to actualize a life of truth on earth, was coerced into becoming a burden of lies and the burden of the soulless walking on the sidelines. And the remaining few rebels, who were abandoned and left behind by their friends become – as was foretold – the exceptions that do not succeed in life. And again the empty mechanism was saved; it was proven again that inertia is stronger than the flight of the free spirit, which aspires to legislate more exalted laws. And again humanity did not receive the achievement and the chance that fate summoned for it, and a new generation rises up, a new youth, and what had happened to its predecessors will happen to it too.
However, the uniqueness of times in which great internal and external crises occur in the lives of nations and humanity as a whole, is that they refuse to surrender to the decree, they rebel against the law of inertia and dare to save the youthful vigor that did not yet disintegrate, and from it they dare to grow an act of revolution, an act of renewal. These times speak to the youth with lungs of fire, they demand from the youth, even command of it, not to surrender, to face the evil, to save the soul, and to do its deeds. And the youth listens.
This youth stretches via great exertion and shakes itself free from the coercion of the empty mechanism, and is not tempted by it. This youth dares to do what is beyond. It performs an act like Yehoshua in Givon: it delays the sun from rising in the sky until its endeavor is completed. It prolongs its youth by one hour, one great hour, and performs what is necessary for the turning point to occur.
About Approval and Demand, or "How Can You Move the Earth Through One Spot"
"Give me one point to stand on, and I will move the Earth." - Archimedes
Suddenly, when you are approved of, you are happy.
That revolutionary sensation that only someone standing in front of you can give you: that you have an undisputed, unconditional place; regardless of reality, regardless of season. That within you, within your uniqueness, there is an internal place that will exist forever and eternally have a place in the world. This is how the person facing you makes you happy and gives you his approval.
There is here a very fragile sensitivity, but its power is great.
You are being approved of. There is a concealed part within you - that even you do not understand completely, which is given an undisputed place. And now, all of the storms, all of the arguments, all of the challenges, all of the hardships and disagreements can come and they are suddenly not so bad, not so final, and not so cold. Not everything is dependent on them. Suddenly everything is not so dependent on these things. What freedom! The painful dependence has disappeared.
There is now the place to make mistakes, to receive, to be angry and to demand.
And you feel as though someone has found within you that same "Archimedean point," that inner-point that will not disappoint, that, with its help, it is possible to move the entire world.
Now, suddenly, a place for demand is created, as if by itself. A great place. The demand stops being external, hostile or foreign. It becomes natural and warm. The difficulty still exists within it, and it can still hurt, but it's a difficulty of warmth, of contact. It no longer has within it the cold and distant sting of judgment, the threatening sward of loneliness, "If you don't do this, than you will no longer have a place."
You are approved of, and then demanded of, demanded of and then approved of. And suddenly something is cleared up for you - that the demand of you is an extension of the approval. That only those who truly demand of you, with warmth and with feeling, can approve you and vice versa.
And without words, you are demanded, maybe, to speak the most beautifully, the most difficultly - you also must approve of - the person facing you.
Only you can do this. What a simple wonder, and so difficult! And only you can give him - the person in front of you - make him feel approved of and happy. And now, it is possible to imagine, to desire, and to demand - an approving, demanding, and happy tzevet, and approving and demanding society. A happy society.
Suddenly, when you are approved of, you are happy.
That revolutionary sensation that only someone standing in front of you can give you: that you have an undisputed, unconditional place; regardless of reality, regardless of season. That within you, within your uniqueness, there is an internal place that will exist forever and eternally have a place in the world. This is how the person facing you makes you happy and gives you his approval.
There is here a very fragile sensitivity, but its power is great.
You are being approved of. There is a concealed part within you - that even you do not understand completely, which is given an undisputed place. And now, all of the storms, all of the arguments, all of the challenges, all of the hardships and disagreements can come and they are suddenly not so bad, not so final, and not so cold. Not everything is dependent on them. Suddenly everything is not so dependent on these things. What freedom! The painful dependence has disappeared.
There is now the place to make mistakes, to receive, to be angry and to demand.
And you feel as though someone has found within you that same "Archimedean point," that inner-point that will not disappoint, that, with its help, it is possible to move the entire world.
Now, suddenly, a place for demand is created, as if by itself. A great place. The demand stops being external, hostile or foreign. It becomes natural and warm. The difficulty still exists within it, and it can still hurt, but it's a difficulty of warmth, of contact. It no longer has within it the cold and distant sting of judgment, the threatening sward of loneliness, "If you don't do this, than you will no longer have a place."
You are approved of, and then demanded of, demanded of and then approved of. And suddenly something is cleared up for you - that the demand of you is an extension of the approval. That only those who truly demand of you, with warmth and with feeling, can approve you and vice versa.
And without words, you are demanded, maybe, to speak the most beautifully, the most difficultly - you also must approve of - the person facing you.
Only you can do this. What a simple wonder, and so difficult! And only you can give him - the person in front of you - make him feel approved of and happy. And now, it is possible to imagine, to desire, and to demand - an approving, demanding, and happy tzevet, and approving and demanding society. A happy society.
On Education - David Cohen
At the moment that the decision to take this action came to fruition in my heart, I knew that the organizational and educational path that would bring them to us was not to try to raise them up, but rather to descend to them, to join them, live with them and with them to ascend.
This was my educational method, for raising garinim (seeds) – hardcore groups from within the neighborhoods, not to call them to come to HaNoar HaOved, but rather, to truly bring HaNoar HaOved to them.
I enlisted alongside the first ones, the founders, the living spirit and the force directing the operation, and with them, as an assistant for them; and together we started to set the foundations and to create the tools for this enterprise.
This was my educational method, for raising garinim (seeds) – hardcore groups from within the neighborhoods, not to call them to come to HaNoar HaOved, but rather, to truly bring HaNoar HaOved to them.
I enlisted alongside the first ones, the founders, the living spirit and the force directing the operation, and with them, as an assistant for them; and together we started to set the foundations and to create the tools for this enterprise.
Notes on R. Wesley Hurd's Postmodernism
Maybe people saw modernism as a race to win instead of an open opportunity.
Modernism = man controls itself and can effect the world > creation of ideologies, expectation that things will be better in the world, solve societies problems
Absolute elements: premodern > G-d, modern > man, postmodern > no absolute elements, maybe nothing
We live in a postmodern era, so everything is a part of it, so it is hard to understand
Postmodernism = apathetic and dissapointed
Is acceptance of all truth apathetic?
Perceived truths are relative, but point to universal truths
I don't like the idea that no one should impose truth, "That is your opinion (truth)" > is this wrong?
Postmodernism brought about both pluralism and relativism
You can't tell anyone that they are wrong
Reality and truth are different > Reality: things that happen in life, the situation we are in that created or was brought about by "truth" Truth: guiding principle/ideology
Postmodernism brings attention to marginalized people by deconstruction, gives validation to more than one thing, bringing power to the unprivileged, not putting one above the other, and bringing attention to the other
Each person creates their own interpretations of reality
Postmodernism = reality is based on images of perceived reality, not on truth
movies described a reality, but that reality no longer exists, so those images have become the reality
Critical thought is important in a postmodern world, important to have opinions, no matter what they are
The way the movement looks at Judaism is a mixture of modernism and postmodernism = spectrum, but there is a limit to the spectrum
Postmodernism makes people alone, even in thoughts and beliefs (they are unique)
Postmodernism isn't trying to be a thing, but it is a rejection of a thing (modernism)
Modernism ended > Postmodernism
Feminism ended > Postfeminism = Ditch it, disappointment, disillusionment, apathy Zionism ended > Postzionism
Our society is based on postmodernism
Not saying what the world should look like, but what it does
Masa = postmodern, nobody opposes you because of apathy and they don't have a truth
People feel threatened by truth
When postmodernists are faced with people who bring/promote truth, they say they are brainwashing.
Brainwashing in a postmodern world is bringing and teaching toward a strong truth and direction.
In a postmodern world, there is no truth, optimism or direction.
How do you live by a truth in a society where truth doesn't exist?
Postmodernism goes well with capitalism.
In postmodernism, there is no rebellion. There is nothing to rebel against.
Postmodern rebel > running through an open door, nobody fighting back, entitled to opinions/truths
What is the place of a revolutionary movement in a postmodern society?
What kind of influence can a movement have in a postmodern world?
We need to rebel against postmodernism itself!
Modernism = man controls itself and can effect the world > creation of ideologies, expectation that things will be better in the world, solve societies problems
Absolute elements: premodern > G-d, modern > man, postmodern > no absolute elements, maybe nothing
We live in a postmodern era, so everything is a part of it, so it is hard to understand
Postmodernism = apathetic and dissapointed
Is acceptance of all truth apathetic?
Perceived truths are relative, but point to universal truths
I don't like the idea that no one should impose truth, "That is your opinion (truth)" > is this wrong?
Postmodernism brought about both pluralism and relativism
You can't tell anyone that they are wrong
Reality and truth are different > Reality: things that happen in life, the situation we are in that created or was brought about by "truth" Truth: guiding principle/ideology
Postmodernism brings attention to marginalized people by deconstruction, gives validation to more than one thing, bringing power to the unprivileged, not putting one above the other, and bringing attention to the other
Each person creates their own interpretations of reality
Postmodernism = reality is based on images of perceived reality, not on truth
movies described a reality, but that reality no longer exists, so those images have become the reality
Critical thought is important in a postmodern world, important to have opinions, no matter what they are
The way the movement looks at Judaism is a mixture of modernism and postmodernism = spectrum, but there is a limit to the spectrum
Postmodernism makes people alone, even in thoughts and beliefs (they are unique)
Postmodernism isn't trying to be a thing, but it is a rejection of a thing (modernism)
Modernism ended > Postmodernism
Feminism ended > Postfeminism = Ditch it, disappointment, disillusionment, apathy Zionism ended > Postzionism
Our society is based on postmodernism
Not saying what the world should look like, but what it does
Masa = postmodern, nobody opposes you because of apathy and they don't have a truth
People feel threatened by truth
When postmodernists are faced with people who bring/promote truth, they say they are brainwashing.
Brainwashing in a postmodern world is bringing and teaching toward a strong truth and direction.
In a postmodern world, there is no truth, optimism or direction.
How do you live by a truth in a society where truth doesn't exist?
Postmodernism goes well with capitalism.
In postmodernism, there is no rebellion. There is nothing to rebel against.
Postmodern rebel > running through an open door, nobody fighting back, entitled to opinions/truths
What is the place of a revolutionary movement in a postmodern society?
What kind of influence can a movement have in a postmodern world?
We need to rebel against postmodernism itself!
Monday, April 22, 2013
Postmodernism - R. Wesley Hurd
At the end of
this century the big questions about reality and being human rise with
unexpected power. We ask ever more agonizingly: What does it mean to
be human? How do human beings fit into this vast cosmos? Where to
from here? We live in a time of great uncertainty–caught in the
transition from a bold and passionate optimism about the future to a
deep skepticism and spirit of nihilism about finding any universal ways
for mankind. We live in a postmodern time.
The term “postmodernism” pops up in newspapers, magazines, and other media. What does it mean? And what does it mean for a Christian? My goal in this essay is to describe some primary features underlying postmodernism and to give examples of postmodernism’s effects. In the first section, I will focus on postmodernism’s philosophical underpinnings. In the second, I will present some examples of how postmodernism manifests itself today.
The Underpinnings
To characterize postmodernism, we must look briefly at what came before: modernism. “Modern” was once used liberally as an adjective to describe many things–from the latest kitchen gadget to a style of art. But “modern” also refers to a specific period of time (roughly 1870 through the mid-1960s) and to the range of cultural ideas, beliefs, and artifacts that people generated during that period.
Modernism was grounded in the beliefs of the Enlightenment–a time in western civilization (roughly 1730-1800) in which the “great minds” of the West began to disbelieve in the authority of the Judeo-Christian God as the basis for the truth and the law that undergird society and culture. Replacing traditional beliefs in God, church, and king, they established a new authority centered in man and his rational abilities to create a new, “liberated” social and intellectual framework for human endeavor.
The modernist believed that science had shaken the foundations of traditional authorities and truths. (Consider, for example, how three developments–the steam engine, the harnessing of electricity, and Darwin’s evolutionary theory–had radically altered the social consciousness of western man.) Modern man could find a new, rational foundation for universal truth; science, particularly, would reveal new truth, which, when applied to modern society and institutions, would literally remake the world. Modernism “… held the extravagant expectation that the arts and sciences would further not only the control of the forces of nature but also the understanding of self and world, moral progress, justice in social institutions, and even human happiness.” (Jurgen Habermas, Modernity: An Unfinished Project, pp 162-63.)
Modernism presupposed an understanding of human identity and self that was unified, coherent, and autonomous: man was a thinking being capable of rationally perceiving, knowing, and conquering the world–and he would. To be “modern,” then, was to embrace the power of scientific rationality, the spirit of progress, a vision of unlimited potential for human society, and an optimism for the future in which man could obtain his two greatest needs: meaning and material security.
Looking to man and not God, the optimism of modernism has proven itself ill-founded. The response has been postmodernism. The best Christian book on postmodernism that I have found is A Primer on Postmodernism by Stanley J. Grenz. In this article, however, I will have to describe postmodernism more briefly, which I will do by looking at five presuppositions inherent in the postmodern worldview:
(1) The quest for truth is a lost cause. It is a search for a “holy grail” that doesn’t exist and never did. Postmodernists argue that objective, universal, knowable truth is mythical; all we have ever found in our agonized search for Truth are “truths” that were compelling only in their own time and culture, but true Truth has never been ours. Furthermore, if we make the mistake of claiming to know the Truth, we are deluded at best and dangerous at worst.
(2) A person’s sense of identity is a composite constructed by the forces of the surrounding culture. Individual consciousness–a vague, “decentered” collection of unconscious and conscious beliefs, knowledge, and intuitions about oneself and the world–is malleable and arrived at through interaction with the surrounding culture. Postmodernism then, in stark contrast to modernism, is about the dissolving of the self. From the postmodernist perspective, we should not think of ourselves as unique, unified, self-conscious, autonomous persons.
(3) The languages of our culture (the verbal and visual signs we use to represent the world to ourselves) literally “construct” what we think of as “real” in our everyday existence. In this sense, reality is a “text” or “composite” of texts, and these texts (rather than the God-created reality) are the only reality we can know. Our sense of self–who we are, how we think of ourselves, as well as how we see and interpret the world and give ourselves meaning in it–is subjectively constructed through language.
(4) “Reality” is created by those who have power. One of postmodernism’s preeminent theorists, Michel Foucault, combines the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas about how those in power shape the world with a theory of how language is the primary tool for making culture. Foucault argues that whoever dominates or controls the “official” use of language in a society holds the key to social and political power. (Think, for example, of how official political “spin” control of specific words and phrases can alter the public perception of political decisions, policies, and events.) Put simply, Nietzsche said all reality is someone’s willful, powerful construction; Foucault says language is the primary tool in that construction.
(5) We should neutralize the political power inherent in language by “deconstructing” it. Another leading postmodernist, Jacques Derrida, theorizes that the language we use when we make statements always creates a set of opposite beliefs, a “binary,” one of which is “privileged” and the other of which is “marginalized,” and the privileged belief is always favored. For example, if one says “Honey is better for you than white sugar,” this statement of opinion has “privileged” honey over white sugar. In the arena of morals one might say “Sex should only happen in marriage,” in which case the experience of sex in marriage is “privileged” and sex out of wedlock is “marginalized.” Derrida argues that all language is made up of these binaries, and they are always socially and politically loaded. “Deconstruction” is the practice of identifying these power-loaded binaries and restructuring them so that the marginalized or “unprivileged” end of the binary can be consciously focused upon and favored.
Some Examples
The central characteristics of postmodernism present us with a radically different way of looking at life. At this point, however, we need to remember the proverb that says “If you want to know about water, don’t ask a fish!” The postmodernist elements of our culture are to us like water to the fish: we live and breathe in them everyday, but we take them so much for granted that it is very difficult for us to see them.
Perhaps the most general characteristics of postmodernism are fragmentation and pluralism. Our culture is rapidly reaching the point where we no longer think of ourselves in a universe but rather a multi-verse. In the postmodern worldview, transience, flux, and fragmentation describe our growing sense of how things really are. Where do we see this played out around us?
Personal identity. At the level of the individual, there abides a sense of uncertainty about how to understand oneself; most people consciously search for a sense of identity–for who and what they are and for what significance and worth they have. Our media-generated, consumer culture daily offers us a thousand choices for who we should be like, what we should value, and how we can attain worth and significance. And we take these images for what is real. So, for example, tennis pro Andre Agassi can say “Image is everything!” in an advertisement, and we believe him.
Education and academics. From the modernist perspective, truth was largely relative, but the possibility of universals in knowledge remained conceivable. In the postmodern model, we don’t really “know” anything; rather, we “interpret.” Postmodernist education says “Pick a worldview,” as if only a choice of clothing style were at issue, “and create your interpretations accordingly,” since truths are only language constructions put in place by those who have influence and power. The emphasis on multi-cultural education is grounded philosophically in this perspective. After all, says the postmodernist educator, the emphasis in Western education on rationality and the quest for what is ultimately true is only another manifestation of Western “cultural imperialism” motivated by consumer capitalist power.
The term “postmodernism” pops up in newspapers, magazines, and other media. What does it mean? And what does it mean for a Christian? My goal in this essay is to describe some primary features underlying postmodernism and to give examples of postmodernism’s effects. In the first section, I will focus on postmodernism’s philosophical underpinnings. In the second, I will present some examples of how postmodernism manifests itself today.
The Underpinnings
To characterize postmodernism, we must look briefly at what came before: modernism. “Modern” was once used liberally as an adjective to describe many things–from the latest kitchen gadget to a style of art. But “modern” also refers to a specific period of time (roughly 1870 through the mid-1960s) and to the range of cultural ideas, beliefs, and artifacts that people generated during that period.
Modernism was grounded in the beliefs of the Enlightenment–a time in western civilization (roughly 1730-1800) in which the “great minds” of the West began to disbelieve in the authority of the Judeo-Christian God as the basis for the truth and the law that undergird society and culture. Replacing traditional beliefs in God, church, and king, they established a new authority centered in man and his rational abilities to create a new, “liberated” social and intellectual framework for human endeavor.
The modernist believed that science had shaken the foundations of traditional authorities and truths. (Consider, for example, how three developments–the steam engine, the harnessing of electricity, and Darwin’s evolutionary theory–had radically altered the social consciousness of western man.) Modern man could find a new, rational foundation for universal truth; science, particularly, would reveal new truth, which, when applied to modern society and institutions, would literally remake the world. Modernism “… held the extravagant expectation that the arts and sciences would further not only the control of the forces of nature but also the understanding of self and world, moral progress, justice in social institutions, and even human happiness.” (Jurgen Habermas, Modernity: An Unfinished Project, pp 162-63.)
Modernism presupposed an understanding of human identity and self that was unified, coherent, and autonomous: man was a thinking being capable of rationally perceiving, knowing, and conquering the world–and he would. To be “modern,” then, was to embrace the power of scientific rationality, the spirit of progress, a vision of unlimited potential for human society, and an optimism for the future in which man could obtain his two greatest needs: meaning and material security.
Looking to man and not God, the optimism of modernism has proven itself ill-founded. The response has been postmodernism. The best Christian book on postmodernism that I have found is A Primer on Postmodernism by Stanley J. Grenz. In this article, however, I will have to describe postmodernism more briefly, which I will do by looking at five presuppositions inherent in the postmodern worldview:
(1) The quest for truth is a lost cause. It is a search for a “holy grail” that doesn’t exist and never did. Postmodernists argue that objective, universal, knowable truth is mythical; all we have ever found in our agonized search for Truth are “truths” that were compelling only in their own time and culture, but true Truth has never been ours. Furthermore, if we make the mistake of claiming to know the Truth, we are deluded at best and dangerous at worst.
(2) A person’s sense of identity is a composite constructed by the forces of the surrounding culture. Individual consciousness–a vague, “decentered” collection of unconscious and conscious beliefs, knowledge, and intuitions about oneself and the world–is malleable and arrived at through interaction with the surrounding culture. Postmodernism then, in stark contrast to modernism, is about the dissolving of the self. From the postmodernist perspective, we should not think of ourselves as unique, unified, self-conscious, autonomous persons.
(3) The languages of our culture (the verbal and visual signs we use to represent the world to ourselves) literally “construct” what we think of as “real” in our everyday existence. In this sense, reality is a “text” or “composite” of texts, and these texts (rather than the God-created reality) are the only reality we can know. Our sense of self–who we are, how we think of ourselves, as well as how we see and interpret the world and give ourselves meaning in it–is subjectively constructed through language.
(4) “Reality” is created by those who have power. One of postmodernism’s preeminent theorists, Michel Foucault, combines the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas about how those in power shape the world with a theory of how language is the primary tool for making culture. Foucault argues that whoever dominates or controls the “official” use of language in a society holds the key to social and political power. (Think, for example, of how official political “spin” control of specific words and phrases can alter the public perception of political decisions, policies, and events.) Put simply, Nietzsche said all reality is someone’s willful, powerful construction; Foucault says language is the primary tool in that construction.
(5) We should neutralize the political power inherent in language by “deconstructing” it. Another leading postmodernist, Jacques Derrida, theorizes that the language we use when we make statements always creates a set of opposite beliefs, a “binary,” one of which is “privileged” and the other of which is “marginalized,” and the privileged belief is always favored. For example, if one says “Honey is better for you than white sugar,” this statement of opinion has “privileged” honey over white sugar. In the arena of morals one might say “Sex should only happen in marriage,” in which case the experience of sex in marriage is “privileged” and sex out of wedlock is “marginalized.” Derrida argues that all language is made up of these binaries, and they are always socially and politically loaded. “Deconstruction” is the practice of identifying these power-loaded binaries and restructuring them so that the marginalized or “unprivileged” end of the binary can be consciously focused upon and favored.
Some Examples
The central characteristics of postmodernism present us with a radically different way of looking at life. At this point, however, we need to remember the proverb that says “If you want to know about water, don’t ask a fish!” The postmodernist elements of our culture are to us like water to the fish: we live and breathe in them everyday, but we take them so much for granted that it is very difficult for us to see them.
Perhaps the most general characteristics of postmodernism are fragmentation and pluralism. Our culture is rapidly reaching the point where we no longer think of ourselves in a universe but rather a multi-verse. In the postmodern worldview, transience, flux, and fragmentation describe our growing sense of how things really are. Where do we see this played out around us?
Personal identity. At the level of the individual, there abides a sense of uncertainty about how to understand oneself; most people consciously search for a sense of identity–for who and what they are and for what significance and worth they have. Our media-generated, consumer culture daily offers us a thousand choices for who we should be like, what we should value, and how we can attain worth and significance. And we take these images for what is real. So, for example, tennis pro Andre Agassi can say “Image is everything!” in an advertisement, and we believe him.
Education and academics. From the modernist perspective, truth was largely relative, but the possibility of universals in knowledge remained conceivable. In the postmodern model, we don’t really “know” anything; rather, we “interpret.” Postmodernist education says “Pick a worldview,” as if only a choice of clothing style were at issue, “and create your interpretations accordingly,” since truths are only language constructions put in place by those who have influence and power. The emphasis on multi-cultural education is grounded philosophically in this perspective. After all, says the postmodernist educator, the emphasis in Western education on rationality and the quest for what is ultimately true is only another manifestation of Western “cultural imperialism” motivated by consumer capitalist power.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
On Faith - Berl Katznelson
Faith is a great and deep matter, but proclamations about faith cannot themselves produce it. By demanding faith from one another, we shall not ignite the fire of faith in his heart.
Happy are they who have faith! But, is self-inspired conviction or easy bought belief which proclaims itself as faith, capable of inspiring other people with genuine, true faith?
And if one says, "I believe" -- does he thereby answer all the questions which gnaw at the heart of everyone who bears within him the grief of man in our time and the pain of Jewish suffering in the world today?
We often hear of the wonders of faith and the bliss of the believer. No doubt people know whereof they speak. But it seems to me that the plight of a true believer, whose faith - whatever it may be - is not a mere duty of convention, is not an easy one either. If one believes in a living G-d, who judges the world with mercy, is he not now compelled to tear down the heaven with his outcry? And if one holds his sociological or political views as a faith (and it is in this regard that we are now challenged to believe) he can not but feel that his convictions are under severe strain today. He must demand of his views an answer of life and death, to his questioning and doubt.
Perhaps Micah the Morashtite was right, when he demanded that faith "walk humbly." And if one has really been graced with faith, has he the right to demand of others that they believe as he does? Can we ask of the Youth Leader, standing at the beginning of his way, that he have as firm convictions as our comrades of the Second Aliyah? ... Not everyone has had the good fortune of our fruitful, fortifying experience in Palestine, which teaches us to regard every ill event as something passing and to be able to say, whatever the situation: "Thou hast sown a seed - be of good heart!" Let us not forget that we live in a time when even firm trees have been uprooted from their bed. There is certainty only in the menace which surrounds us on every side. We are threatened by concrete dangers. Consolation? That, each one of us must find in his heart - and that requires stern efforts.
Happy are they who have faith! But, is self-inspired conviction or easy bought belief which proclaims itself as faith, capable of inspiring other people with genuine, true faith?
And if one says, "I believe" -- does he thereby answer all the questions which gnaw at the heart of everyone who bears within him the grief of man in our time and the pain of Jewish suffering in the world today?
We often hear of the wonders of faith and the bliss of the believer. No doubt people know whereof they speak. But it seems to me that the plight of a true believer, whose faith - whatever it may be - is not a mere duty of convention, is not an easy one either. If one believes in a living G-d, who judges the world with mercy, is he not now compelled to tear down the heaven with his outcry? And if one holds his sociological or political views as a faith (and it is in this regard that we are now challenged to believe) he can not but feel that his convictions are under severe strain today. He must demand of his views an answer of life and death, to his questioning and doubt.
Perhaps Micah the Morashtite was right, when he demanded that faith "walk humbly." And if one has really been graced with faith, has he the right to demand of others that they believe as he does? Can we ask of the Youth Leader, standing at the beginning of his way, that he have as firm convictions as our comrades of the Second Aliyah? ... Not everyone has had the good fortune of our fruitful, fortifying experience in Palestine, which teaches us to regard every ill event as something passing and to be able to say, whatever the situation: "Thou hast sown a seed - be of good heart!" Let us not forget that we live in a time when even firm trees have been uprooted from their bed. There is certainty only in the menace which surrounds us on every side. We are threatened by concrete dangers. Consolation? That, each one of us must find in his heart - and that requires stern efforts.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
This is the Nucleus of a New Reality - Pesach Housepetter
Here we see the expression of this group's need to develop life skills in a more humane manner, as an expression of humanism - humanism that is always synonymous with sociability. These skills cannot be developed unless one is a part of a chevruta, an organic group, tangible life circles in which man is actualizing himself in each circle using the new modus operandi. There is no seperation between these life circles; they are unified in their modus operandi.
In this activity there is no seperation between individual life on one hand, and social life on the other. This means that individual life is the end, and social life is the means. From here we also draw the need for living in a social environment, which is an expression of a developed humanism. It is the expression of the development of social skills, the development of man.
There are places in which material life becomes the basic and only need. That is when society turns into a battlefield, through differential wages, or various kinds of privatization. In such places, regression occurs with great strength. Such places are the target for regeneration. Such regeneration will actually happen only if a certain group of people, a certain human circle, lives by a different modus operandi inside such a place. In order for this regeneration process to happen, we simply need to live differently, so that other people who are seeking the fulfillment of their natural human needs and do not find fulfillment in today's society will find it in our life circles.
Human reality is always shaped by the various powers that are active in it. We wish to see ourselves as the subjects of this regenerating reality. We wish to create it practically, not theoretically. This is why we need to shape the circles in which it is created in a matter that will allow us to actualize this, just as we do in the youth movement. We are trying to eliminate the gap between theory and practice in the educational process that occurs between the madrich and his chanichim. Theory has become activity. What is experienced by each of the two sides was spiritual and pure, and because of this it has not yet reached the examination of consciousness, but rather the meaning of this experience is self-education. Self-education educates toward understanding the praxis and eliminating the gap between the idea and reality.
From: The Community of Shitufi, Messimati Kibbutzim of Kvutzot
Notes: theoretical leads to practical
theory and action are connected
combine theory and action in all different circles of our lives - kvutza of kvutzot
see the larger body of kvutzot
it is a choice what groups you relate to or interact with
In this activity there is no seperation between individual life on one hand, and social life on the other. This means that individual life is the end, and social life is the means. From here we also draw the need for living in a social environment, which is an expression of a developed humanism. It is the expression of the development of social skills, the development of man.
There are places in which material life becomes the basic and only need. That is when society turns into a battlefield, through differential wages, or various kinds of privatization. In such places, regression occurs with great strength. Such places are the target for regeneration. Such regeneration will actually happen only if a certain group of people, a certain human circle, lives by a different modus operandi inside such a place. In order for this regeneration process to happen, we simply need to live differently, so that other people who are seeking the fulfillment of their natural human needs and do not find fulfillment in today's society will find it in our life circles.
Human reality is always shaped by the various powers that are active in it. We wish to see ourselves as the subjects of this regenerating reality. We wish to create it practically, not theoretically. This is why we need to shape the circles in which it is created in a matter that will allow us to actualize this, just as we do in the youth movement. We are trying to eliminate the gap between theory and practice in the educational process that occurs between the madrich and his chanichim. Theory has become activity. What is experienced by each of the two sides was spiritual and pure, and because of this it has not yet reached the examination of consciousness, but rather the meaning of this experience is self-education. Self-education educates toward understanding the praxis and eliminating the gap between the idea and reality.
From: The Community of Shitufi, Messimati Kibbutzim of Kvutzot
Notes: theoretical leads to practical
theory and action are connected
combine theory and action in all different circles of our lives - kvutza of kvutzot
see the larger body of kvutzot
it is a choice what groups you relate to or interact with
Kvutza Messimatit
"An individual that's involved and active in social change processes according to his beliefs and views"
"An individual that aspires to fulfill himself in the state of Israel and is a partner in its processes of building."
-From the Goals of the NOAL movement
Messima is an attempt and effort to create a better reality not just within the kvutza, but also towards the environment and society that the kvutza is in.
The universality and exclusiveness of Shivyon Erech Ha'adam demands the believer to actualize it in his own life and in his surroundings and wider society. To this manner adds the understanding that we cannot create a nice, warm bubble for ourselves inside a self-consuming, self-destructive society and if we value and crave for life (chafetz chaim) we must act and influence Israeli society in the deepest, most meaningful way possible.
As a result, we choose to take an active and shaping stand withing Israeli society which is expressed by the personal responsibility that every chanich and madrich must bear in his community.
In messima, the madrich is exposed to Israeli society from a view point of a shaper, educator and ties himself in a relationship of partnership to society. Only from that place cam he become a chalutz.
Messima is a platform for a kvutza experience, an opportunity for mutual thinking and doing, learning the kvutza itself and the people in it.
Creating a meaningful base of encounter - that reveals the individuals, their desires, and abilities in a new light.
"An individual that aspires to fulfill himself in the state of Israel and is a partner in its processes of building."
-From the Goals of the NOAL movement
Messima is an attempt and effort to create a better reality not just within the kvutza, but also towards the environment and society that the kvutza is in.
The universality and exclusiveness of Shivyon Erech Ha'adam demands the believer to actualize it in his own life and in his surroundings and wider society. To this manner adds the understanding that we cannot create a nice, warm bubble for ourselves inside a self-consuming, self-destructive society and if we value and crave for life (chafetz chaim) we must act and influence Israeli society in the deepest, most meaningful way possible.
As a result, we choose to take an active and shaping stand withing Israeli society which is expressed by the personal responsibility that every chanich and madrich must bear in his community.
In messima, the madrich is exposed to Israeli society from a view point of a shaper, educator and ties himself in a relationship of partnership to society. Only from that place cam he become a chalutz.
Messima is a platform for a kvutza experience, an opportunity for mutual thinking and doing, learning the kvutza itself and the people in it.
Creating a meaningful base of encounter - that reveals the individuals, their desires, and abilities in a new light.
On Modern Man - Erich Fromm
"What
is the outcome? Modern man...has been transformed into a commodity,
experiences his life forces as an investment which must bring him the
maximum profit obtainable under existing marketing conditions. Human
relations are essentially those of alienated automatons, each basing his
security on staying close to the herd, and not being different in
thought, feeling or action. While everybody tries to be as close as
possible to the rest, everybody remains utterly alone, pervaded by the
deep sense of insecurity, anxiety and guilt which always results when
human separateness cannot be overcome. Our civilization offers many
palliatives which help people to be consciously unaware of this
aloneness: first of all the strict routine of bureaucratized, mechanical
work, which helps people to remain unaware of their most fundamental
human desires, of the longing for transcendence and unity. Inasmuch as
the routine alone does not succeed in this, man overcomes his
unconscious despair by the routine of amusement, the passive consumption
of sounds and sights offered by the amusement industry; futhermore by
the satisfaction of buying ever new things, and soon exchanging them for
others.
Modern man is actually close to the picture Huxley describes in his Brave New World: well fed, well clad, satisfied sexually, yet without self, without any except the most superficial contact with his fellow men, guided by the slogans which Huxley formulated so succinctly, such as: 'When the individual feels, the community reels'; or 'Never put off till tomorrow the fun you can have today,' or, as the crowning statement: 'Everybody is happy nowadays.' Man's happiness today consists in 'having fun.' Having fun lies in the satisfaction of consuming and 'taking in' commodities, sights, food, drinks, cigarettes, people, lectures, books, movies -- all are consumed, swallowed. The world is one great object for our appetite, a big apple, a big bottle, a big breast; we are the sucklers, the eternally expectant ones, the hopeful ones -- and the eternally disappointed ones. Our character is geared to exchange and to receive, to barter and to consume; everything, spiritual as well as material objects, becomes an object of exchange and of consumption.
Modern man is actually close to the picture Huxley describes in his Brave New World: well fed, well clad, satisfied sexually, yet without self, without any except the most superficial contact with his fellow men, guided by the slogans which Huxley formulated so succinctly, such as: 'When the individual feels, the community reels'; or 'Never put off till tomorrow the fun you can have today,' or, as the crowning statement: 'Everybody is happy nowadays.' Man's happiness today consists in 'having fun.' Having fun lies in the satisfaction of consuming and 'taking in' commodities, sights, food, drinks, cigarettes, people, lectures, books, movies -- all are consumed, swallowed. The world is one great object for our appetite, a big apple, a big bottle, a big breast; we are the sucklers, the eternally expectant ones, the hopeful ones -- and the eternally disappointed ones. Our character is geared to exchange and to receive, to barter and to consume; everything, spiritual as well as material objects, becomes an object of exchange and of consumption.
On Interactions Between Different Sects of Jews - Berl Katznelson
Who do we see as the bearers of the Zionist hagshama? We say the Jewish people. But do we live in a way that the concept of a Jewish people is a reality for us or not? When one of the kids from Kinneret or Degania meets a Kurdish Jew or their kids in Tveria, do they feel as if they are one people and one family? Will a child, that had been raised in a kvutza and comes across these Jews, feel a real sense of partnership with them? Is Tveria (not Warsaw or Lublin!), the Jewish community of Tveria, a differnt world altogether? Officially it is considered to be a part of the Jewish people, but in what way does the fate of the Jew in Tveria really concern him? And I would like to hear the truth: how does he interact with the "other Jew"?
When a Jewish kid from a kvutza meets a Jew with peas and a zupitsa (kind of hat) or a Jew dressed in Sephardic fashion, does he really feel (not just like he learned about it in school!) that they belong to the same society? I am not sure of that. Sometimes I think that a friend of his from Ha'noar Ha'oved, or the movement or the meshek, when he talks about the fate of the Jews, can't imagine something outside of the blue shirts. He can include Hashomer Hatzair, even though they have a different semel...
When a Jewish kid from a kvutza meets a Jew with peas and a zupitsa (kind of hat) or a Jew dressed in Sephardic fashion, does he really feel (not just like he learned about it in school!) that they belong to the same society? I am not sure of that. Sometimes I think that a friend of his from Ha'noar Ha'oved, or the movement or the meshek, when he talks about the fate of the Jews, can't imagine something outside of the blue shirts. He can include Hashomer Hatzair, even though they have a different semel...
On Klaliyut in Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed
In Sukkoth 1924, Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed was established. First, as Ha'noar Ha'oved and then in a series of mergers it became Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed as we know it today. At an asefa in Tel Aviv in 1924, 150 working teenagers passed a resolution declaring that each and every youth that wishes to can become a member of Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed.
This is a unique component in Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed's identity - klaliyut. From the beginning this component lent a unique quality to its act, as we can see in this article by Benjamin Kachlily:
"It was a general movement, a framework available for every working youth. The youth organized itself, from the bottom up, and created from scratch a movement that didn't stop growing.
As it grew bigger, the movement managed to unionize youth from three different sources: working youth, learning youth from the cities and moshavot, and youth from the working settlements - the kibbutzim and the moshavim. They overcame the differnces and the three strams consolidated into one."
That comes to say that from its beginning, Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed was a general movement, addressing all sectors and parts of Israeli society and binds them together into one movement. This approach is the opposite to the elitist approach - more common in other youth movements at that time - an approach that demanded a filtering process that will create a strong chalutznik avant-garde.
From the perception of shivyon erech ha'adam that puts the human being in the center, we must see all children and youth as our chanichim and potential partners in the movement. The educational way of the movement demands the hard core to take responsibility over the outer layers, the means is a rational and logical use of the informal code of education, adapting the activities and the demand to the different populations and not being dogmatic.
This is a unique component in Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed's identity - klaliyut. From the beginning this component lent a unique quality to its act, as we can see in this article by Benjamin Kachlily:
"It was a general movement, a framework available for every working youth. The youth organized itself, from the bottom up, and created from scratch a movement that didn't stop growing.
As it grew bigger, the movement managed to unionize youth from three different sources: working youth, learning youth from the cities and moshavot, and youth from the working settlements - the kibbutzim and the moshavim. They overcame the differnces and the three strams consolidated into one."
That comes to say that from its beginning, Ha'noar Ha'oved Ve Ha'lomed was a general movement, addressing all sectors and parts of Israeli society and binds them together into one movement. This approach is the opposite to the elitist approach - more common in other youth movements at that time - an approach that demanded a filtering process that will create a strong chalutznik avant-garde.
From the perception of shivyon erech ha'adam that puts the human being in the center, we must see all children and youth as our chanichim and potential partners in the movement. The educational way of the movement demands the hard core to take responsibility over the outer layers, the means is a rational and logical use of the informal code of education, adapting the activities and the demand to the different populations and not being dogmatic.
On Judaism as a Civilization - Amos Oz
Religion is a central element in the Jewish civilization, perhaps even its origin, but that civilization cannot be presented as nothing more than religion. From the religious source of that civilization grew spiritual manifestations that enhanced the religious experience, changed it, and even reacted against it: language, customs, lifestyles, characteristic sensitivities (or perhaps it should be said, sensitivities that used to be characteristic), and literature and art and ideas and opinions. All of this is Judaism. The rebellion and apostasy in our history and in recent generations - they are Judaism, too. A broad and abundant inheritance. And I see myself as one of the legitimate heirs: not as a stepson, or a disloyal and defiant son, or a bastard, but as a lawful heir.
And what follows from my status as an heir will certainly cause you people great unease, for it follows that I am free to decide what I will choose from this great inheritance, to decide what I will place in my living room and what I will relegate to the attic. Certainly our children have the right to "import" and combine with my inheritance what I see fit - without imposing my taste or preference on another heir, on you for one. That is the pluralism I praised earlier. It is my right to decide what suits me and what doesn't, what is important and what is negligible and what to put into storage. Neither you, nor the ultraorthodox, nor Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz can tell me, in whatever terms, that it's a package deal and I should take it or leave it. It is my right to separate the wheat from the chaff.
And from this follows another fateful spiritual decision: can any civilization survive as a museum or does it only live when it wears the garb of dramatic improvisation?
A museum curator relates ritualistically to his ancestral heritage: on tiptoe, in awe, he arranges the artifacts, polishes the glass cases, cautiously interprets the significance of the items in the collection, guides the astonished visitors, convinces the public, and seeks, in due time, to pass on the keys of the museum to his sons after him. The museum curator will proclaim, Holy, Holy, Holy. And he will proclaim, I am too humble to determine what is important here. It is my lot only to see that the light of this inheritance shall shine in as many eyes as possible, and that nothing is damaged or lost. Up to this point I have presented a drawing (sketchy and simplistic, for the sake of argument) of the museum curator. But I believe there can be no vital existence for a museum civilization. Eventually it is bound to shrivel and to cut off its creative energies: at first it permits innovations only on the foundations of the old, then the freedom is restricted to the freedom to interpret, after that it becomes permissible only to interpret the meaning of the interpretations, until finally all that is left is to polish the artifacts in their cases.
A living civilization is a drama of struggle between interpretations, outside influences, and emphases, an unrelenting struggle over what is the wheat and what is the chaff, rebellion for the sake of innovation, dismantling for the purpose of reassembling differently, and even putting things in storage to clear the stage for experiment and new creativity. And it is permissible to seek inspiration from and by other civilizations as well. This implies a realization that struggle and pluralism are not just an eclipse or a temporary aberration but, rather, the natural climate for a living culture. And the rebel, the dismantler, is not necessarily perverted or trying to assimilate. And the heretic and the prober are, sometimes, the harbingers of the creator and the innovator.
On this we disagree, at the root of the matter: Museum or drama? Ritual or creativity? Total orientation toward the past - "What was is what will be" - i which every question has an answer from the holy books, every new enemy is simply a reincarnation of an old familiar one - or not? Can it be that history is not a spinning wheel but a twisting line, which, even if it loops and curves, is essentially linear, not circular?
And what follows from my status as an heir will certainly cause you people great unease, for it follows that I am free to decide what I will choose from this great inheritance, to decide what I will place in my living room and what I will relegate to the attic. Certainly our children have the right to "import" and combine with my inheritance what I see fit - without imposing my taste or preference on another heir, on you for one. That is the pluralism I praised earlier. It is my right to decide what suits me and what doesn't, what is important and what is negligible and what to put into storage. Neither you, nor the ultraorthodox, nor Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz can tell me, in whatever terms, that it's a package deal and I should take it or leave it. It is my right to separate the wheat from the chaff.
And from this follows another fateful spiritual decision: can any civilization survive as a museum or does it only live when it wears the garb of dramatic improvisation?
A museum curator relates ritualistically to his ancestral heritage: on tiptoe, in awe, he arranges the artifacts, polishes the glass cases, cautiously interprets the significance of the items in the collection, guides the astonished visitors, convinces the public, and seeks, in due time, to pass on the keys of the museum to his sons after him. The museum curator will proclaim, Holy, Holy, Holy. And he will proclaim, I am too humble to determine what is important here. It is my lot only to see that the light of this inheritance shall shine in as many eyes as possible, and that nothing is damaged or lost. Up to this point I have presented a drawing (sketchy and simplistic, for the sake of argument) of the museum curator. But I believe there can be no vital existence for a museum civilization. Eventually it is bound to shrivel and to cut off its creative energies: at first it permits innovations only on the foundations of the old, then the freedom is restricted to the freedom to interpret, after that it becomes permissible only to interpret the meaning of the interpretations, until finally all that is left is to polish the artifacts in their cases.
A living civilization is a drama of struggle between interpretations, outside influences, and emphases, an unrelenting struggle over what is the wheat and what is the chaff, rebellion for the sake of innovation, dismantling for the purpose of reassembling differently, and even putting things in storage to clear the stage for experiment and new creativity. And it is permissible to seek inspiration from and by other civilizations as well. This implies a realization that struggle and pluralism are not just an eclipse or a temporary aberration but, rather, the natural climate for a living culture. And the rebel, the dismantler, is not necessarily perverted or trying to assimilate. And the heretic and the prober are, sometimes, the harbingers of the creator and the innovator.
On this we disagree, at the root of the matter: Museum or drama? Ritual or creativity? Total orientation toward the past - "What was is what will be" - i which every question has an answer from the holy books, every new enemy is simply a reincarnation of an old familiar one - or not? Can it be that history is not a spinning wheel but a twisting line, which, even if it loops and curves, is essentially linear, not circular?
On Human Nature - CrimethInc.
We're often told
it is "human nature" to be greedy, and that this is why our
world is the way it is. The very existence of other societies and other
ways of life contradicts this. Once you realize that modern capitalist
society is only one of a thousand ways that human beings have lived and
interacted together, you can see that this talk of "human nature"
is nonsense. We are formed first and foremost by the environments we grow
up in - and human beings now have the power to construct our own environments.
If we are ambitious enough, we can design our world to reconstruct us
in any shape our hearts desire. Yes, all of us are haunted by feelings
of greed and aggression, living as we do in a materialistic and violent
world. But in more supportive environments, built on different values,
we could learn to interact in ways that would bring more pleasure to all
of us. Indeed, most of us would be far more generous and considerate today
if we could be - it's hard to give gifts freely in a world where you have
to sell a part of yourself away in order to get anything at all. Considering
that, it's amazing how many gifts we still give each other.
From Days of War, Nights of Love
From Days of War, Nights of Love
Why Socialism? - Albert Einstein
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social
issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a
number of reasons that it is.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.
On Post-Assimilatory Jewry - Gershom Scholem
The definition "post-assimilatory" Jew" applies to me. I am a member of a family that had lived in Germany for a long time; I myself was a fourth-generation Berliner. The transition in our family from Orthodox at the beginning of the 19th century to almost total assimilation at the beginning of the 20th was a matter of three generations - from my grand father, through my father, to my own generation; in the third generation, assimilation was complete - or so it seemed. The Jewish post-assimilatory renaissance meant a revolt against the lifestyle of the parent's home or of the circle of families like it. This was a conscious breakaway, a volitional act, a decision - albeit a childish one... My decisions of that period were not clearly formulated, but the fact is that there was a decision to make a post-assimilatory break, at the time; I did not have an abstract conceptual awareness of assimilation. My awareness was an emotional one. This I shared with my contemporaries who joined the Zionist youth movements...
The revolt or the break - in instances like mine - was against self-deceit. A person living in a liberal-Jewish, German-assimilationist environment had the feeling that those people were devoting their entire lives to self-delusion. We did not come to Zionism in search of politics. It is important to understand that for my contemporaries in Germany, Zionism was only to a limited degree (it would be wrong to say not at all) a political Zionism. Some of us, to be sure, went on to become real political Zionists, but the Zionist choice was a moral one, an emotional one, an honesty-seeking response. The honesty did not express itself in the desire for a state, but in a revolt against the lie that Jewish existence was. Jewish reality seemed alive, flourishing, but those who went over to Zionism saw that reality as rotten. Zionism was a revolt against the life-style of the run-of-the-mill bourgeoisie to which my family belonged. This was the milieu in which hundreds of thousands of young Jews grew up in Germany...
I can't explain why a 15-year old boy decides as he does. Something impels him, draws him, after a situation of emptiness, after being surfeited with things that he felt lacked vitality. The members of the assimilatory generation angrily rejected the charges of the children. Papa certainly didn't enjoy hearing me tell him he was deceiving himself. Friday night was observed as a family night. The uncles - my father, his brothers and their families - would get together the way they used to do, more or less, the way assimilated families do. At the Seder, one of the uncles, who knew how to read Hebrew without knowing what he was reading, would recite the Haggada in some kind of sing-song, and everybody sang "Ehad mi yode'a" and "Had gadya." We made something of a mess of it. The melodies were more popular and better remembered than the words.
The revolt or the break - in instances like mine - was against self-deceit. A person living in a liberal-Jewish, German-assimilationist environment had the feeling that those people were devoting their entire lives to self-delusion. We did not come to Zionism in search of politics. It is important to understand that for my contemporaries in Germany, Zionism was only to a limited degree (it would be wrong to say not at all) a political Zionism. Some of us, to be sure, went on to become real political Zionists, but the Zionist choice was a moral one, an emotional one, an honesty-seeking response. The honesty did not express itself in the desire for a state, but in a revolt against the lie that Jewish existence was. Jewish reality seemed alive, flourishing, but those who went over to Zionism saw that reality as rotten. Zionism was a revolt against the life-style of the run-of-the-mill bourgeoisie to which my family belonged. This was the milieu in which hundreds of thousands of young Jews grew up in Germany...
I can't explain why a 15-year old boy decides as he does. Something impels him, draws him, after a situation of emptiness, after being surfeited with things that he felt lacked vitality. The members of the assimilatory generation angrily rejected the charges of the children. Papa certainly didn't enjoy hearing me tell him he was deceiving himself. Friday night was observed as a family night. The uncles - my father, his brothers and their families - would get together the way they used to do, more or less, the way assimilated families do. At the Seder, one of the uncles, who knew how to read Hebrew without knowing what he was reading, would recite the Haggada in some kind of sing-song, and everybody sang "Ehad mi yode'a" and "Had gadya." We made something of a mess of it. The melodies were more popular and better remembered than the words.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Zionism as a Constant Revolution - Shlomo Avineri
The essence of Zionism, when it was originated, was to change the
abnormal status of the Jewish people. This was a goal which many of the
Zionist philosophers believed to be impossible without a state.
Being Jewish from the time of the Exile until the Emancipation, was not just a matter of belief and mitzvot, but also belonging to a community, a congregation. A Jew alone was simply not a Jew (eg minyan, shochet, synagogue, mikve and wedding witnesses.)
Post-Haskala, Secular Jews had to find a new communal meaning to their existence: Zionism restored the public norm aspect to the Jewish people, after the dismantling of the religious public aspect.
What is the difference between Israel and other Jewish concentrations? Other communities are gatherings of individuals, but their place of their togetherness has no intrinsic meaning. On the other hand, Israel's collective existence bears a moral and normative significance. The state of Israel is the public expression of the Jewish people. And as such, it replaces the traditional communal religious boundaries that preserved the Jewish people.
This success has meant that the most unifying factor today across the Jewish world is the State of Israel. More than religion. More than any distressed Jewish community in any state the in world. Over the years world Jewry's relationship to the Zionist movement became similar to the relation that Irish or an Italian immigrant has to their homelands. And even more so, considering the involvement of North American Jewry in Israel is greater than that of an Irish Americans in their homeland. This is a glorious success considering that the Zionist movement began as an insignificant minority within the Jewish people.
Life in the western diaspora was characterized by high percentages of Jewish involvement in middle classes: economically, intellectually, culturally, etc. But when the Zionist revolution began one of its objectives was to turn Jews into a 'normal' nation that included a full range of occupations. This has since changed. Furthermore, materialism, privatization, consumerism, and a 'survival of the fittest' culture are now thriving in Israel. But if Israel shall be only a mirror to world Jewry, if it shall be just another western country, if it shall be just a New-York on the middle east coast, it will stop being such a large center of identification as it is today.
The Zionist revolution is a constant revolution. A revolution aiming to bring the Jewish people into a situation of self-providing both economically and socially. A situation in which the nation is responsible for its own destiny. No longer an abnormal congregation living on the fringes of other nations, dependent on their kindness. Zionism is a constant revolution in the Jewish people's tendency to seek a good existence, by dealing with need of building a national society whose purpose is providing the communities needs, and not a sole concern for the individual. The Zionist revolution is necessarily a social revolution concerning all aspects of life. Therefore, Zionism will not survive if there will be no constant revolution in the Jewish way of life, always seeking the mold itself while updating to reality.
For many years, the greatest struggle of Zionism was the physical existence of the State of Israel. This constant threat was the immediate cause of identification with Israel. Today, Zionism is required to continue its revolution, by forming a unique just and moral society, thus influencing both the whole Jewish and wider world.
Being Jewish from the time of the Exile until the Emancipation, was not just a matter of belief and mitzvot, but also belonging to a community, a congregation. A Jew alone was simply not a Jew (eg minyan, shochet, synagogue, mikve and wedding witnesses.)
Post-Haskala, Secular Jews had to find a new communal meaning to their existence: Zionism restored the public norm aspect to the Jewish people, after the dismantling of the religious public aspect.
What is the difference between Israel and other Jewish concentrations? Other communities are gatherings of individuals, but their place of their togetherness has no intrinsic meaning. On the other hand, Israel's collective existence bears a moral and normative significance. The state of Israel is the public expression of the Jewish people. And as such, it replaces the traditional communal religious boundaries that preserved the Jewish people.
This success has meant that the most unifying factor today across the Jewish world is the State of Israel. More than religion. More than any distressed Jewish community in any state the in world. Over the years world Jewry's relationship to the Zionist movement became similar to the relation that Irish or an Italian immigrant has to their homelands. And even more so, considering the involvement of North American Jewry in Israel is greater than that of an Irish Americans in their homeland. This is a glorious success considering that the Zionist movement began as an insignificant minority within the Jewish people.
Life in the western diaspora was characterized by high percentages of Jewish involvement in middle classes: economically, intellectually, culturally, etc. But when the Zionist revolution began one of its objectives was to turn Jews into a 'normal' nation that included a full range of occupations. This has since changed. Furthermore, materialism, privatization, consumerism, and a 'survival of the fittest' culture are now thriving in Israel. But if Israel shall be only a mirror to world Jewry, if it shall be just another western country, if it shall be just a New-York on the middle east coast, it will stop being such a large center of identification as it is today.
The Zionist revolution is a constant revolution. A revolution aiming to bring the Jewish people into a situation of self-providing both economically and socially. A situation in which the nation is responsible for its own destiny. No longer an abnormal congregation living on the fringes of other nations, dependent on their kindness. Zionism is a constant revolution in the Jewish people's tendency to seek a good existence, by dealing with need of building a national society whose purpose is providing the communities needs, and not a sole concern for the individual. The Zionist revolution is necessarily a social revolution concerning all aspects of life. Therefore, Zionism will not survive if there will be no constant revolution in the Jewish way of life, always seeking the mold itself while updating to reality.
For many years, the greatest struggle of Zionism was the physical existence of the State of Israel. This constant threat was the immediate cause of identification with Israel. Today, Zionism is required to continue its revolution, by forming a unique just and moral society, thus influencing both the whole Jewish and wider world.
On Youth - Herzl
I address the right mind, though I am aware that the right mind is simply not enough. Prisoners who have had a long incarceration would not leave their jails easily. Let us see if the youth have matured enough, the same youth we expect to take the lead. The same youth that carries the elders on their shoulders, the same youth that turns the right mind to enthusiasm.
Sartre on Choice and Freedom
A critical claim in existentialist thought is that individuals are always free to make choices and guide their lives toward their own chosen goal or "project." The claim hold that individuals cannot escape this freedom, even in overwhelming circumstances. For instance, even an empire's colonized victims possess choices: to submit to rule, to negotiate, to act in complicity, to commit suicide, to resist nonviolently, or to counter-attack.
Although external circumstances may limit individuals, they cannot force a person to follow one of the remaining courses over another. In this sense the individual still has freedom of choice. For this reason, individuals choose in anguish: they know that they must make a choice, and that it will have consequences. For Sartre, to claim that one amongst many conscious possibilities takes undeniable precedence (for instance, "I cannot risk my life, because I must support my family") is to assume the role of being an object in the world, rather than a subject or a free agent.
Sartre asserts that even when I don't choose, then I preferred not to choose, and it is still a choice. Thus, for example, on election day, whether you like it or not, you choose how to be. Whether by ballot or by a white slip of abstention from voting, or if you choose with your feet not to show up or not to reach for the ballot, you still choose a "non-choice." This choice is our humanity, continues Sartre, and it is our fate as human beings that we will always live in a state of freedom and choices, even when we do not wish to.
Although external circumstances may limit individuals, they cannot force a person to follow one of the remaining courses over another. In this sense the individual still has freedom of choice. For this reason, individuals choose in anguish: they know that they must make a choice, and that it will have consequences. For Sartre, to claim that one amongst many conscious possibilities takes undeniable precedence (for instance, "I cannot risk my life, because I must support my family") is to assume the role of being an object in the world, rather than a subject or a free agent.
Sartre asserts that even when I don't choose, then I preferred not to choose, and it is still a choice. Thus, for example, on election day, whether you like it or not, you choose how to be. Whether by ballot or by a white slip of abstention from voting, or if you choose with your feet not to show up or not to reach for the ballot, you still choose a "non-choice." This choice is our humanity, continues Sartre, and it is our fate as human beings that we will always live in a state of freedom and choices, even when we do not wish to.
Millions of People All Alone - Gadi Taub
The idea of authenticity of the individual is so well accepted among us that we are unaware of the depressing world of loneliness we live in, a world in which all people look only inwards, a world in which Narcissism is ideology. The problem with Narcissism is not its egotism, but rather its loneliness and alienation. The American world in which someone fall down in the street and you don't go to help the for the fear that he will sue you is not merely an incidental result of individualism. Within this individual's authentic self-loyalty lays the most pessimistic instinct: that everybody must look out for themselves.
The Kvutza as an Answer to the Inner Struggle of the Human Being - Yitzhak Tebenkin
There is an enormous force in people - the force of customs - that is an education of thousands of years. We are accustomed to the path of separation. The idea of unification destroys the order that we are used to living in. We are accustomed to living in the light of competition. This is how society accustomed us to live. But the demand now is to live in fraternity and with unified forces. The idea for which we unify, and which makes us the chalutzim of today's society, is the idea of the commune, of collaboration. The faith in human beings, in their strength, their creation, their war, negates the idea of competition and the goal of being totally able to not depend on others.
The main content of the movement, and the necessary path, is the path of the kvutza, because there won't be any freedom if society is not based on the forces of collaboration, help, and mutual responsibility. We are not optimist-utopists who believe that human beings are naturally good. We know that human beings aren't only good, we know that there also exist forces of competition and that we are not only motivated by fraternity, but also by hatred and egotism. And this idea of kvutza is of a society that doesn't compete and where the human being fights on its behalf in an inner war against his tendencies.
The main idea of Tnuat HaAvoda is that of collaboration and cooperation. The thing that was created in the world workers movement isn't only a public war, but also an inner spiritual war. And our movement in Israel calls for human beings to fight against themselves...
...We have no illusions, we know the path doesn't lead itself. It is important that we can see our path within the atmosphere around it.
The main content of the movement, and the necessary path, is the path of the kvutza, because there won't be any freedom if society is not based on the forces of collaboration, help, and mutual responsibility. We are not optimist-utopists who believe that human beings are naturally good. We know that human beings aren't only good, we know that there also exist forces of competition and that we are not only motivated by fraternity, but also by hatred and egotism. And this idea of kvutza is of a society that doesn't compete and where the human being fights on its behalf in an inner war against his tendencies.
The main idea of Tnuat HaAvoda is that of collaboration and cooperation. The thing that was created in the world workers movement isn't only a public war, but also an inner spiritual war. And our movement in Israel calls for human beings to fight against themselves...
...We have no illusions, we know the path doesn't lead itself. It is important that we can see our path within the atmosphere around it.
Sacrifice? - Rachel
M. Beilinson's remarks about the Second Aliyah seem very
strange to me. He paints a tragic picture of the heroic struggles of
a few pioneers who sacrificed their lives on behalf of their
homeland. But I see them differently. They didn't sacrifice
themselves. They conquered a new world; they stood on a mountain peak, breathed the fresh clean air and saw the dawn of a new
age.
But let me deal with the details. "They left developed,
cultured societies ... " They did not. They left the small,
wretched village or town of their birth - a place of age-old poverty and despair that has nothing to do with "developed,
cultured society." World literature is full of descriptions of such places and
the youth who suffer and die there.
"They abandoned their middle class lives ... "
Such words would be understandable if spoken by a middle class Jew for whom
his society encompasses all that is good and true in life. But from M. Beilinson? Why does he feel he must mourn a
lifestyle that is opposed, in essence, to the Zionist dream? He
himself thinks that that kind of life is monstrous - for what does
he
mourn?
"They left despite the opposition of world figures ...
" Moshe Beilinson does not know how little the chalutzim cared about world figures? They didn't care either because they were
naive youngsters, or because they despised politics to a certain degree. But they didn't care.
"They left to a homeland that existed only in their
dreams ... " Doesn't M. Beilinson know that for youth a dream is very
real if it has the power to push them to action?
"They came here to build a new life ... " As if
every youth (if he is really a youth) doesn't seek a new life? As if
sleeping in a stable isn't much preferable to an easy, comfortable
life for anyone who is really young?
"They came to a land whose inhabitants were strangers ... " But there wasn't any reason to meet the inhabitants, and
that didn't bother them as much as the lack of nationalist
feeling amongst their own people.
"They lived year after year without joy and celebration ... " To get up in the morning and set out, not for the school or the office, but to the fields, to that wonderful meeting
with nature and the land - that isn't joy? To sow and to plant and to join God in the act of creation; to be together with
other young people who dream and hope like you- that isn't joy? And to dance throughout the night and to ride bareback across the land and to hike each spring through the Galil - that is
life without joy?
I agree with M. Beilinson's main point that it all took
courage. But he sees their courage in their sacrifice of the good
life on behalf of a new life here. I see their courage in their
willingness to be true to themselves, in their audacity in doing so
here in their reviving homeland.
The Rebels - Moshe Beilinson
They left developed, cultured societies in the midst of a social revolution which promised a new world. They left
centuries-old large Jewish communities with a rich web of community organisations. They abandoned their middle class lives and
background. They abandoned those most precious of human
treasures - the mother tongue and the culture of birth. They left all
this
without any collective framework or youth movement support,
without public recognition or encouragement, without any
certainty that anyone backed them at all. They left as individuals,
isolated and despised by the masses. They left despite the
indifference of the middle class, even that part which called
itself "Zionist". They left despite the opposition of
world figures, be they English lords or socialist leaders.
They left in confusion, in rebellion, almost in despair,
without any assurance that they would not be the last pioneers
as well as the first. They left sometimes without believing
that all this made any difference; that someone would continue
their rebellion. They left their country of birth to travel to
their "homeland" - a homeland that existed only in their
dreams. They came here to begin a new life, both materially and
spiritually, in a language that they did not yet know.
They came here to begin a life of physical labour, unused to it and unaware of all it entailed. They came to a land whose inhabitants were strangers, much stranger than the Russian or Polish peasant; they came without any way to bridge that gap. They came to a land ruled by an uncultured, rotten regime
without any possibility of negotiation or communication. They
came here to a small, backward Jewish community with a different
set of values and different world view. They met here a few
Zionist settlers who had lost any desire for independence, as if
they had forgotten why they came here in the beginning. These
settlers didn't accept the newcomers with joy, but were suspicious
and sought to hinder their progress, if only from a lack of
understanding of the newcomers' spirit and goals. They came here as individuals - a few dozen, a few hundred - scattered across the land. They lived here year after year without joy, without celebration, in continual struggle with the new climate and unfamiliar conditions. They lived here
in loneliness, with one eye always to the horizon, seeking a
sign that some new boatload of pioneers was on its way to join
them. But the boat never arrived.
They lived almost without hope that something would change,
that the sacrifice was not in vain. They lived in the shadow of
fear that the Zionist movement had reached a dead end. They saw a Zionist movement whose leader was dead, and whose untalented successors continued without belief and without vision.
And they came to live here in poverty, fighting disease,
their lives continually in danger. They lived without any organization, without organs of mutual aid, without cultural institutions
or Kupat Cholim. They lived without moshavim, without
kibbutzim, without any organised workers' settlements, without the idea
of such a thing, in the beginning. Instead, they searched for a living as simple hired workers.
They did all this for years, and remained faithful to
themselves and their values. And in the meantime they accomplished a
miracle. They built the basis of a Jewish workers' society. They laid
the foundation of a revived Hebrew culture, they created the
kvutza, the kibbutz, a newspaper and a web of cooperative
institutions. They did more than that. They created a new man - the Jewish worker,devoted, honest, resourceful; new kinds of
relationships amongst men, between men and women, a new style of public
life.
They created a community of proud Jewish workers who lived
on their own labour, and who despise exploitation and greed.
All this required courage. The Jewish people has few other examples of such courage; the Zionist movement has none at
all. The Jewish workers' society of today stands in gratitude and respect toward those few who rebelled against the reality of Jewish life and who understood the path upon which the
Jewish people needed to embark.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Zion and the Youth - Martin Buber
The youth are humanity's eternal possibility for happiness. The possibility occurs repeatedly and humanity misses it again and again. Generations of people in their twenties return to the stage again and again with the passion of absolute yearning in their hearts, devoted to ideals, ready and waiting to break through the blocked gates of Eden.
Nothing stands between this generation and the fulfillment of its obligation but the deed itself; and hence they prepare themselves. But in the hour of preparation the abundance of minute and marginal goals from the society around them take control of the youths' spirits. Vain urges of egotism and the urges for excellence and arrogance take control of them. Their environment preaces the perception that the "facts" are stronger than the ideals and that we are subjected to a sequence of events that we cannot in any way change, shape, or control.
Nothing stands between this generation and the fulfillment of its obligation but the deed itself; and hence they prepare themselves. But in the hour of preparation the abundance of minute and marginal goals from the society around them take control of the youths' spirits. Vain urges of egotism and the urges for excellence and arrogance take control of them. Their environment preaces the perception that the "facts" are stronger than the ideals and that we are subjected to a sequence of events that we cannot in any way change, shape, or control.
Freedom From and Freedom To - Erich Fromm
"What is freedom as a human experence? Is the desire for freedom something inherent in nature? ... Is freedom the absence of external pressure or is it also the presence of something - and if so, what? ... Can freedom become a burden, too heavy for man to bear, something he tries to escape from?"
Fromm distinguishes between "freedom from" and "freedom to." The former refers to the process of becoming emancipated from the restrictions placed on humanity by other people or institutions. This has often been fought for historically but is not of much inherent value unless accompanied by a creative element, "freedom to"; the use of freedom to behave in ways which are constructive and respond to the genuine needs and wants of the free individual/society by creating a new system of social order. In the process of becoming emancipated from an overbearing authority or set of values, Fromm argues, we are left with feelings of emptiness and anxiety (he likens this process to the individuation of infants in the normal course of child development) that will not abate until we use our "freedom to" and develop some form of replacement of the old order.
Fromm distinguishes between "freedom from" and "freedom to." The former refers to the process of becoming emancipated from the restrictions placed on humanity by other people or institutions. This has often been fought for historically but is not of much inherent value unless accompanied by a creative element, "freedom to"; the use of freedom to behave in ways which are constructive and respond to the genuine needs and wants of the free individual/society by creating a new system of social order. In the process of becoming emancipated from an overbearing authority or set of values, Fromm argues, we are left with feelings of emptiness and anxiety (he likens this process to the individuation of infants in the normal course of child development) that will not abate until we use our "freedom to" and develop some form of replacement of the old order.
Laz - Zika - Martin Buber
There are two ways one person can relate to another in this world:
The first - "I - You" The second - "I - It"
We're walking on our path and we meet another person walking on his. All we know is the road that we walked on, and we don't know the road the other person has walked on. It is a coincidence that we met, nevertheless our relationship is valuable. While we look at the person in front of us, we decide how we'll behave: will we warmly greet the person, or will we ignore them? Will we try to be open and honest, or maybe closed? Will we be indifferent about the road that he's walking on, or maybe the opposite - we could ask him where he's coming from and where he's going to, and we can show curiosity towards all that happens to him. The question "what is our wish/intention we carry when we approach a conversation," is the first and most basic question that we shall ask ourselves. One wish is to form a relationship of "I - It" type. The "It" is the other. The unknown. The distant. The frightening. The "It" is for us just a shaky bunch of qualities, that will never be linked strong enough to form a whole human being. Another wish is to form a relationship of affinity, the "I - You" type. The other person isn't an object. I don't have any prejudice towards him. I see him as a whole human being that has wills, dreams, loves, and disappointments. He's complex and multi-colored and it's impossible to put one label on him. In every encounter that we have, we choose our relationship to our world: Is this a world of people who see each other as "It," that are all strangers to each other, or is this a world of "I - You," where people are seeking of human contact, where people are looking for other people?
The first - "I - You" The second - "I - It"
We're walking on our path and we meet another person walking on his. All we know is the road that we walked on, and we don't know the road the other person has walked on. It is a coincidence that we met, nevertheless our relationship is valuable. While we look at the person in front of us, we decide how we'll behave: will we warmly greet the person, or will we ignore them? Will we try to be open and honest, or maybe closed? Will we be indifferent about the road that he's walking on, or maybe the opposite - we could ask him where he's coming from and where he's going to, and we can show curiosity towards all that happens to him. The question "what is our wish/intention we carry when we approach a conversation," is the first and most basic question that we shall ask ourselves. One wish is to form a relationship of "I - It" type. The "It" is the other. The unknown. The distant. The frightening. The "It" is for us just a shaky bunch of qualities, that will never be linked strong enough to form a whole human being. Another wish is to form a relationship of affinity, the "I - You" type. The other person isn't an object. I don't have any prejudice towards him. I see him as a whole human being that has wills, dreams, loves, and disappointments. He's complex and multi-colored and it's impossible to put one label on him. In every encounter that we have, we choose our relationship to our world: Is this a world of people who see each other as "It," that are all strangers to each other, or is this a world of "I - You," where people are seeking of human contact, where people are looking for other people?
Reuven and Shimon - Martin Buber
Let us imagine two human beings, sitting one beside the other, having a conversation - Reuven and Shimon - see if we can count the number of faces acting in this play.
Firstly - here is Reuven the way he wishes to be seen by Shimon, and Shimon the way he wishes to be seen by Reuven. Reuven as he really appears to Shimon, that is Shimon's image in Reuven's eyes, that usually isn't the same with the image wanted by Shimon, and vice versa.
Add to this Reuven as he is in his won eyes and Shimon as he is in his own eyes.
Lastly, Reuven and his inner world, and Shimon's inner world.
Two living human beings, six imaginary characters.
A truly spooky crowd.
Often involved in a conversation of two!
If so, what is really real in human dialogue?
Firstly - here is Reuven the way he wishes to be seen by Shimon, and Shimon the way he wishes to be seen by Reuven. Reuven as he really appears to Shimon, that is Shimon's image in Reuven's eyes, that usually isn't the same with the image wanted by Shimon, and vice versa.
Add to this Reuven as he is in his won eyes and Shimon as he is in his own eyes.
Lastly, Reuven and his inner world, and Shimon's inner world.
Two living human beings, six imaginary characters.
A truly spooky crowd.
Often involved in a conversation of two!
If so, what is really real in human dialogue?
On the Kibbutz - Yitzhak Tabenkin
The kibbutz preceded the State of Israel. The establishment of the collective came before there was any state authority. It was not coincidental that the establishment of the kibbutz movement led to solving the problems of paramount importance. The kibbutz created new perspectives towards social, economic, and personal attitudes. Man's horizon was widened. His whole world was influenced.
It all started from the moment the kibbutz ceased to be an incident in a person's life and became a way of life. This entailed a different attitude towards economic, national, and social problems which enabled each individual to fulfill his mission and enhanced each person's value in the... A hundred people in a commune are much more powerful than a hundred individuals elsewhere. The collective is a source of strength...
The kibbutz movement established our agriculture and industry. It founded a new system of equality including our youth movement.
...I am not going to claim that without kibbutz, there is no solution to the problems of the existence of the Jewish people. But no doubt, the kibbutz way of life promises a broader foundation and... tempo of establishing the National Jewish homeland.
Kibbutz is no longer a utopia. It is a valuable time in the life of our people, our country. Kibbutz is a historical fact of life...
It all started from the moment the kibbutz ceased to be an incident in a person's life and became a way of life. This entailed a different attitude towards economic, national, and social problems which enabled each individual to fulfill his mission and enhanced each person's value in the... A hundred people in a commune are much more powerful than a hundred individuals elsewhere. The collective is a source of strength...
The kibbutz movement established our agriculture and industry. It founded a new system of equality including our youth movement.
...I am not going to claim that without kibbutz, there is no solution to the problems of the existence of the Jewish people. But no doubt, the kibbutz way of life promises a broader foundation and... tempo of establishing the National Jewish homeland.
Kibbutz is no longer a utopia. It is a valuable time in the life of our people, our country. Kibbutz is a historical fact of life...
From the Address to the 9th Convention of Hanoar Haoved Vehalomed - Yitzhak Rabin
I used to be a member of the movement; I grew up in this movement where we slept in cabins. Cabins that were hot in the summer and, in the winter, leaked from the rain. I was among those who did Hachshara. I ended up in the Palmach, the Tzahal, and the rest we all know…
I came here today to greet you, but not only that, I also came to demand of you…
What do I expect of you? I was told by the mazkir that the issue for your discussion is: “Israeli society in times of peace.” Of course we have to look at the image of society once we will achieve peace, but we are still striving towards peace. The first thing I expect from this movement and from many others in this country is: Deal with the killers of peace! Deal with the Arabs and the Jews who are the killers of peace.
If there won’t be a movement of young people – and I mean your movement – that will know how to stand up, to support peace, and to resist the killers – those who want to assassinate peace… This is the movement that you have to be. This is your future.
The second thing is: Don’t accept conventions. Not in society, nor in any other fields. Whether it’s a society, a state, or any other kind of entity that does not know how to create change, it is an entity that has gone withered. The reality of today is different than the reality of fifty years ago in every aspect. If there is anything that is unique about youth, it’s the tendency towards rebellion against conventions. That is, not just for the sake of being a rebel, but for the sake of creating change…
This is why I place this demand on you – the youth movements. The youth movements in our times built an army and we built settlements because that was the need of the hour. Today the needs are different, more varied, and present more challenges for you to face. You will be tested in your ability to continue and change what there is to be changed. I wish for you to be like that. I believe you can be like that and, together, adults and youngsters, we will march this country into peace, security, prosperity and success.
On Educating Children - Janusz Korczak
Understanding their vulnerability: Children have little power and are therefore easily exploited and disempowered. This leads to a need for a pedagogy of "Stewardship" and the need to create a safe space for children to express themselves without the fear of being exploited.
Understanding their uniqueness: This is the key to nurturing children. We need to understand the spark in each child, respect the mystery in each child and therefore, while we try to understand and work with their uniqueness we should not try to reduce each young person to a totally understood human being. We need to lead each child to where they need to go. It is not about "making you into something" rather about helping "make you what you can make of yourself."
Understanding meaning making: Children are involved in a process of making meaning of their selves, their surroundings, their community, and their world. Educators have the power to shape the narrative within which this meaning making takes place.
Understanding community: To enable all the above to happen, it is important to create a community for these to happen and to enable the educators to ask the central questions: Who is the child? What is their greatest gift? What do they fear? How can we make them feel valued?
Understanding their uniqueness: This is the key to nurturing children. We need to understand the spark in each child, respect the mystery in each child and therefore, while we try to understand and work with their uniqueness we should not try to reduce each young person to a totally understood human being. We need to lead each child to where they need to go. It is not about "making you into something" rather about helping "make you what you can make of yourself."
Understanding meaning making: Children are involved in a process of making meaning of their selves, their surroundings, their community, and their world. Educators have the power to shape the narrative within which this meaning making takes place.
Understanding community: To enable all the above to happen, it is important to create a community for these to happen and to enable the educators to ask the central questions: Who is the child? What is their greatest gift? What do they fear? How can we make them feel valued?
On Moratorium - Reuven Kahane
Moratorium is an arrangement that allows postponement of commitment, responsibility, decisions, and obligations, to allow "trial and error" in a wide range within institutionalized boundaries and outside of them. In a more active manner, we can describe moratorium as a situation in which trial and error are not just legitimate, but also encourages, and no punishment is given for "wrong" normative actions. It can be viewed as the realm between borderless indulgence and free reign, and behavior based on well defined borders. Paradoxically, expanding the range of experimentation and accepting straying from norms create the conditions for development of behavior which is both normative and inventive at the same time.
Moratorium allows experimentation with various roles (which might not fit into what society generally expects), and self-examination to eventually come to the truth, before accepting commitment.
Moratorium allows experimentation with various roles (which might not fit into what society generally expects), and self-examination to eventually come to the truth, before accepting commitment.
Jewish Memory - Avraham Infeld
When I came to study in Israel, I wrote my dad a letter saying I would be studying Jewish History. He said "What, they teach Jewish History at the Hebrew University? There is no such thing as Jewish history. Gentiles have history, Jews have memory." The most important part of being a Jew is a sense of Jewish memory.
That is why the verb that appears most in our ritual is Z'chor, Zecher, Zicharon. Remember, remember, remember. If someone asks me to describe who is a Jew in one sentence, I would say, "a Jew is one who is strictly forbidden from suffering amnesia.
Imagine a couple about to get married, they are in love. Their parents have spent a fortune on the caterer. They get under the chuppa, and what is the first thing they do? Break a glass. Why? To remember the destruction of Jerusalem.
Believe me, I have never met a couple who have spent the first night of their marriage worrying about the destruction of the Temple. But you cannot build a Jewish family, build a new Jewish home, you cannot create Jewishly without calling upon Jewish memory. And my father was right. What is the difference between history and memory? History is knowing what happened in the past. Memory is asking how does what happened in the past impact on who I am today.
That is why we don't teach our children that our forefathers came out of Egypt. We teach them that each person must see oneself as if he or she personally came out of Egypt. The challenge to the Jew is how do you take this collective memory of this people and make it a part of your life.
As a child in South Africa, a major holiday in our home was Shavuot. I used to walk around the dining room table with a basket of fruit singing songs about fruits and the harvest. But it was stupid. It was the wrong season. I was in the wrong hemisphere! You pray for rain at the wrong time. You know why? Because as a Jew you don't function out of your own personal needs, you function out of a collective memory of a people.
That is why the verb that appears most in our ritual is Z'chor, Zecher, Zicharon. Remember, remember, remember. If someone asks me to describe who is a Jew in one sentence, I would say, "a Jew is one who is strictly forbidden from suffering amnesia.
Imagine a couple about to get married, they are in love. Their parents have spent a fortune on the caterer. They get under the chuppa, and what is the first thing they do? Break a glass. Why? To remember the destruction of Jerusalem.
Believe me, I have never met a couple who have spent the first night of their marriage worrying about the destruction of the Temple. But you cannot build a Jewish family, build a new Jewish home, you cannot create Jewishly without calling upon Jewish memory. And my father was right. What is the difference between history and memory? History is knowing what happened in the past. Memory is asking how does what happened in the past impact on who I am today.
That is why we don't teach our children that our forefathers came out of Egypt. We teach them that each person must see oneself as if he or she personally came out of Egypt. The challenge to the Jew is how do you take this collective memory of this people and make it a part of your life.
As a child in South Africa, a major holiday in our home was Shavuot. I used to walk around the dining room table with a basket of fruit singing songs about fruits and the harvest. But it was stupid. It was the wrong season. I was in the wrong hemisphere! You pray for rain at the wrong time. You know why? Because as a Jew you don't function out of your own personal needs, you function out of a collective memory of a people.
A Call for the Separation of Religion and State - Yehoshua Leibowitz
Separation of religion and state is the slogan heard from time to
time in public debate in Israel. It is not, however, the actual policy of any
party or political group. The slogan is raised as the expression of a
theoretical position in "secular" circles, but its advocates do not regard it
seriously as a political demand to be realized in the present. They do not
attempt to clarify its meaning nor do they propose a plan for embodying it in
law and government. Their struggle is limited to episodic clashed with religious
or pseudo-religious aspects of administrative behavior or legislative action. At
the same time, official religious Jewry, its spiritual leaders and political
representatives, who rejected the idea of separation and supported the existing
relation between state and religion, never accounted for their own position. It
is doubtful whether they have ever critically examined it. A struggle over the
relation of religion and the state has never really been conducted between the
religious and secular in Israel. Out of sheer opportunism, both sides accept the
reality of a secular state with a religious façade.
In these pages the demand for separation of religion and state
will be presented from a religious viewpoint, from which the present relations
between the state and the Torah appear as Hillul Hashem, contempt of the Torah,
and a threat to religion. Two prefatory
remarks are necessary in order to clarify this position.
First, the religion with which we are concerned is traditional
Judaism, embodies in Torah and Mitzvoth, which claims sovereignty over the life
of the individual and the life of the community - not a religion which can be
satisfied with formal arrangements grafted on to a secular reality.
Second, the state of which we speak is contemporary Israel, a
state defined by its manner of coming into being in 1948 and its mode of
existence from then onward - not the state as an ideal. In other words, the
relation of religion and state is not discussed here as an article of faith. We
shall not inquire as to what, in principle, should be the relation between
"religion" (in general) and "state" (in general), nor seek to demarcate "the
holy," "the secular," the historical, or the metaphysical essence of the Jewish
people as the people of the Torah. We are concerned with determining what sort
of political-social organization would be in the religious interest in the
existing situation.
The state of Israel that came into being in 1948 by the common
action, effort, and sacrifices of both religious and secular Jews was an
essentially secular state. It has remained essentially secular and will
necessarily continue to be such, unless a mighty spiritual and social upheaval
occurs among the people lining here. The secularity of this state is not
incidental but essential. The motivation and incentive for its foundation were
not derived from the Torah. Its founders did not act under the guidance of the
Torah and its precepts. It is not conducted by the light of the Torah. That "the
state of Israel is a state ruled by law and not a state governed by Halakhah" is
recognized by all - including the religious - as the principle governing the
activity and administration of this state, in which official religious Jewry has
participated since its establishment. Whether we are religious or secular, we brought this state
about by dint of our common efforts as Jewish patriots, and Jewish patriotism -
like all patriotism - is a secular human motive not imbued with sanctity.
Holiness consists only in observance of the Torah and its Mitzvoth: "and you
shall be holy to your God." We have no right to link the emergence of the state
of Israel to the religious concept of messianic redemption, with its idea of
religious regeneration of the world or at least of the Jewish people. There is
no justification for enveloping this political-historical event in an aura of
holiness. Certainly, there is little ground for regarding the mere existence of
this state as a religiously significant phenomenon.
Even from the standpoint of religious awareness and faith, this
Jewish state is in the same category as the kingdoms of Yarov'am, Ahab,
Menasseh, and Herod were in their time. A person does not and may not sever his
connection with a criminal parent, nor may a parent repudiate a son who has gone
astray. Likewise, the Jew, including the religious Jew, may not dissociate
himself from this state. However, though we fully recognize its legitimacy, it
is necessary to confront the secular state and society with the image of a
religious society and state, that is of a state in which the Torah is the
sovereign authority. What is truly illegitimate is the surreptitious
introduction, by administrative action of religious items into the secular
reality so as to disguise its essential secularity.
The demand for the separation of religion from the existing
secular state derives from the vital religious need to prevent religion from
becoming a political tool, a function of the governmental bureaucracy, which
"keeps" religion and religious institutions not for religious reasons but as a
concession to pressure groups in the interest of ephemeral power-considerations.
Religion as an adjunct of a secular authority is the antithesis of true
religion. It hinders religious education of the community at large and
constricts the religious influence on its way of life. From a religious
standpoint there is no greater abomination than an atheistic-clerical regime. At
present we have a state - secular in essence and most of its manifestations -
which recognizes religious institutions as state agencies, supports them with
its funds, and, by administrative means, imposes, not religion, but certain
religious provisions chosen arbitrarily by political negotiation. All the while,
it emphasizes its rejection of guidance by Torah ("a state ruled by law, not by
Halakhah"). We have a rabbinate invested by the state, which receives its
appointment, authority, and pay from the secular government and confines itself,
therefore, to the functions that this government allots to it. It is a religion
whose position in the state parallels that of the police, the health
authorities, the postal services, or customs. There is no greater degradation of
religion than maintenance of its institutions by a secular state. Nothing
restricts its influence or diminishes its persuasiveness more than investing
secular functions, with a religious aura; adopting sundry religious obligations
and proscriptions as glaring exceptions into a system of secular laws; imposing
an arbitrary selection of religious regulations on the community while refusing
to obligate itself and the community to recognize the authority of religion; in
short, making it serve not God but political utility.
This is a distortion of reality, a subversion of truth, both
religious and social, and a source of intellectual and spiritual corruption. The
secular state and society should be stripped of their false religious veneer.
Only then will it become possible to discern whether or not they have any
message as a Jewish state and society. Likewise, the Jewish religion should be
forced into taking its stand without the shield of an administrative status.
Only then will its strength be revealed, and only thus will it become capable of
exerting an educational force and influencing the broader public.
Against this argument, religious circles claim that such
separation would make the social and perhaps even physical existence of
religious Jews within the secular state and society unbearable and compel Jews
to forsake their religious way of life. These arguments stem, to some extent,
from naïveté, from misunderstanding the implications of separation of religion
and state for the conduct and administration of state and society. To some
extent they only pretend naïveté and veil vested interests. In effect, such
separation would not in the least narrow the possibilities open to religious
Jews of living according to their wont. It would even foster the expressions of
religious life in the community at large. Let us attempt to gain a realistic
view of the consequences of separating religion and state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)