I'm putting together the materials for the workshop I'm teaching next Friday morning at the NHC Summer Institute. Here's the blurb.
We're going to start out looking at Lakoff and the idea of cognitive frames. One of Lakoff's key points is that the Republicans have been successfully framing the debate, so that the Democrats are still talking within the Republican frames, leading to defeat. Then we're going to look at some examples of framing in contemporary Jewish life. The basic frame (encompassing terms like "observant", "religious", "traditional", "shomer shabbat", and "kosher" as they are commonly used today) is that Orthodox Judaism (as practiced today) is authentic Judaism as it has always been, and that other forms of Judaism are by nature "less observant", and Orthodoxy is the standard by which these other forms are measured. (Examples: "He became more observant - he started putting on tefillin." "She became more observant - she stopped putting on tefillin.") The key is that this frame has been accepted across the board (we'll look at ways in which liberal Jews have accepted it), which is self-defeating for liberal Judaism. This framing also occurs within the Orthodox world, with Modern Orthodox seen as "less religious" than haredim, and with the process of Artscrollization.
I'll post more about all of this after the Institute. But in the meantime, I want to post an article that we'll be using for "text study". When I came across this Associated Press article (which appeared in many newspapers), I realized that this was the best example of this type of framing that I had ever seen -- you just can't make this stuff up. So next week in the workshop, we're going to play a game, and see who can count the most instances of framing in the article. I invite all of you in the blogosphere to do the same. (Ignore the headline - that's just Brandeis's spin.) I count 8, but I'm sure you can do better.
There is a difference in terms of history, however (though I know that's never a favorite tpoic with Jewish feminists).
ReplyDeleteModern Orthodox is closer to Judaism throughout the ages in terms of the level they prefer to deal with the secular world- these new ultra-Orthodox movements, while more religious, are modern, fundamentalist movements.
This is in contrast to the liberal branches of Jewry who just make stuff up as they go.
The argument isn't about the merits of the various streams of Judaism; that's a separate conversation. The issue is about how they view themselves, and the frames they use to express their values.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure why this really bothers you. It is like a spruced up debate by a woman I once knew who resented when people claimed she "wasn't as religious" as girls who didn't wear pants or kiss boys.
ReplyDeleteI was certainly not one to suggest she desist either, and would have understood if she merely felt her religious life was none of her business, I found her dismissal of framing her behavior in those terms a bit farfetched.
So too here.
Because it requires accepting someone else's definition of what it means to be "religious". Go read Lakoff.
ReplyDeleteBZ I think you are correct, framing and language is incredibly important and may be at the heart of Liberal Judaism's self esteem issue (that and comments like Mr. Kelsey's). In my experience the pride does not come from identifying with an institution, but with small scale meaningful communities. This article is a prefect outline for the failures of the Conservative movement in instilling that pride in one's potentially well grounded yet idiosyncratic relationship to Jewish identity and practice. Compare Sarna's recommendations to to Ismar's. No contest there what will be more effective, the question is, can the conservative movement make the shift?
ReplyDeleteFinal comment: The other big problem is movements existing for themselves. If Jews are fleeing conservative Judaism in order to create meaningful Jewish lives as reform, orthodox, unique, heterodox, pagen, shomer-mitzvot jews, Kol HaKavod. Ismar, do you do the work you do out of a love for Jewish community and meaning, or are you really so petty to only see the world as "us" and "them" conservative Jews and everyone else?
I actually give Schorsch some credit for acknowledging the reality that his movement does not have a place for successful products of the system. In contrast, I have seen no such public acknowledgement from the Reform movement (where I grew up). (Perhaps Schorsch is forced to acknowledge this because the C movement's numbers are shrinking, whereas the R movement doesn't have to worry yet since it is still gaining members from elsewhere?)
ReplyDeleteI disagree, of course, with his (and Sarna's) conclusion that these people should be brought back into the C movement, but that's because our perspectives differ wildly: he's trying to do his job, whereas I have benefited greatly from the communities built by people who have been alienated from the C movement (in the 1970s and the 2000s).
In any case, the largest framing issues in that article come not from the people quoted in it, but from the s'tam of the AP reporter.
You've gotta watch out for that dreaded Brandeis spin
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhat would a religiously liberal framing sound like?
ReplyDeleteThat's what we're going to brainstorm at the workshop next Friday, and then I'll post all about the results. In the meantime, everyone is invited to brainstorm here in the blogosphere.
ReplyDeleteanyone have a copy of the article? it's gone
ReplyDeletenevermind, found it on Google
ReplyDelete