Pages

Monday, July 23, 2007

Missing the Point

From Noah Feldman's Orthodox Paradox, which appeared this weekend in the New York Times Magazine:
It is more than a little strange, feeling fully engaged with a way of seeing the world but also, at the same time, feeling so far from it. I was discussing it just the other day with my best friend — who, naturally, went to Maimonides, too. The topic was whether we would be the same people, in essence, had we remained completely within the bosom of modern Orthodoxy. He didn’t think so. Our life choices are constitutive of who we are, and so different life choices would have made us into different people — not unrecognizably different, but palpably, measurably so.

I accepted his point as true — but for some reason I resisted the conclusion. Couldn’t the contradictory world from which we sprang be just as rich and productive as the contradictory life we actually live? Would it really, truly, have made all that much difference? Isn’t everyone’s life a mass of contradictions? My best friend just laughed.
There are a number of ways to approach his fascinating, detailed piece, but I think that these last two paragraphs show best how he missed the point. Feldman is primarily upset that his alma mater, the Maimonodies school in Brookline, MA, cut himself and his - non-Jewish - wife (then girlfriend) out of a picture from their 10th high school reunion. He then proceeds to analyze through his own worldview that which he finds to be the "Orthodox paradox" of Modern Orthodoxy, toeing that line between secularism and religion very precariously.

The problem with his piece is that he just doesn't get it. To some extent, Gil summed this up best: (emphasis mine)
After thirteen years in yeshiva, you knew very well that by marrying outside of the Jewish faith that you were committing the ultimate slap-in-the-faith to the community in which you were raised. It was and remains your choice. This is a free country and it's your life to live. ...

The community in general does not want to completely cut off ties with you. But certainly a smart man like you knows that it can no longer hold you high as an example of one of theirs who succeeded. You didn't.
Gil is focusing on the communal aspect, but I think it's even stronger than that - it's the educational aspect. It's not just that Feldman is complaining that he has been cut out; his example is possibly from the place where it makes the most sense to be cut out: His school. From his school's standpoint, he is quite possibly one of the worst examples of a graduate in terms of the education they are giving to their students: A brilliant mind, a Rhodes Scholar, a valedictorian at Harvard, a Truman Scholar... and yet, married to a woman who is not Jewish - a man whose children will not be Jewish either. To a religious school that strives to show how one can balance a religious lifestyle with the secular world, this demonstrates the complete reverse.

And yet, despite all of this, his school seems to be happy to have him at their events. They have not truly cut him out as implied; he admits and is proud of his close ties with many of his old friends. Clearly, they, too, have not cut him off. They are happy to see him, have no problem talking to him, consider him their friend - but at the same time, they aren't going to praise the choices of his with which they do not agree. His friend is absolutely correct, and the irony is that while Feldman sees it, he doesn't understand it:
Our life choices are constitutive of who we are, and so different life choices would have made us into different people — not unrecognizably different, but palpably, measurably so.
Feldman's mistake is that he gets caught up in that dream of youth, one that often finds itself in liberal and academic ideology - a noble one to be sure, but unrealistic. I saw this quote recently and think it is perfect in this case:
“The charm and insolence of youth is that it is everything in potentiality and nothing in actuality,” wrote the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset.
Jonathan Rosenblum summed it up well over there:
It is characteristic of young people to hesitate in the face of the seemingly infinite possibilities before them; they know that walking through any door will foreclose others and signal the end of their infinite potential.
Feldman (and all of us, really) don't like this idea. We love the idea of infinite potential; we can't stand when that is taken away from us. People hesitate to marry because they constantly wonder if there is 'something even better' out there; they don't take a job offer in case an even better one gets brought to their attention. But while this can sometimes pay off in the short-term (albeit rarely), one cannot do this forever or they will never have either. It is for this reason (among others) that a person cannot afford to out-think their biggest decisions in life, or they will never be able to accomplish much; there is no such thing as the 'perfect' woman, and the 'perfect' job doesn't just land in your inbox all that often. You marry the girl whom you can love, grow with, and be happy with despite all their flaws and who accepts you despite all of yours; you take the job that offers the best balance of income, security, and contentment.

Feldman, however, questions why this must be so - why can't we choose both paths? Why does choosing one automatically exclude the other?
Couldn’t the contradictory world from which we sprang be just as rich and productive as the contradictory life we actually live?
No! We make choices in life, and those choices do make us measurably different. This is why the article ends with his friend's laughing at him. Once he has admitted that he is unwilling or unable to accept that clear and obvious point, there simply is nothing left to say.

39 comments:

  1. From his school's standpoint, he is quite possibly one of the worst examples of a graduate in terms of the education they are giving to their students: A brilliant mind, a Rhodes Scholar, a valedictorian at Harvard, a Truman Scholar... and yet, married to a woman who is not Jewish - a man whose children will not be Jewish either.

    There are two things majorly wrong with this.

    One is that the school (and you) considers him the "worst possible example" of a Maimonides graduate. What an immoral way to summarize a human being. It's only because you are so immersed in that world that it's hard for you to see.

    The second is that the school (and the MO community in general) is in deep denial about people who go off the derech (and/or intermarry.) They think we must have left because of some mistake they made, or our parents made, or because of the lure of drugs and sex. The truth is that frum schools can do everything perfectly and still some of us will leave.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One is that the school (and you) considers him the "worst possible example" of a Maimonides graduate. What an immoral way to summarize a human being. It's only because you are so immersed in that world that it's hard for you to see.

    Argh. I knew someone would take that line and miss the point; so much so that I considered removing it. You need to read the whole paragraph: To a religious school that strives to show how one can balance a religious lifestyle with the secular world, this demonstrates the complete reverse. In fact, it does so for precisely the reasons you enumerate in your second paragraph. This is worse - from an educational point of view only! - than someone who did leave for drugs, sex, or whatever, because it's showing the best and brightest being incredibly successful... and yet, choosing to abandon the religious part.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Exactly. Which is why cropping him out of the photograph is so dishonest and emblematic of the denial of the MO community.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great post, very good points. This was a very weak article and it showed that he's just bitter.

    Like you and many others have no said. He's the one who left the community. He knew what he was doing. He has that right and choice. But you can't expect the school to want to advertise their failures to instill in him the most basic of Jewish laws and customs.

    He's the one who cut himself off from us by cutting off his Jewish heritage and ending his own line.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Still confused.

    "dishonest" about and in "denial" of WHAT?!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "dishonest" about and in "denial" of WHAT?!

    Dishonest about the fact that one of their esteemed graduates has intermarried and in denial about the fact that people intermarry and go off the derech even if they went to good schools, had good parents, and are free from emotional problems.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "dishonest" about and in "denial" of WHAT?!

    Dishonest about the fact that one of their esteemed graduates has intermarried and in denial about the fact that people intermarry and go off the derech even if they went to good schools, had good parents, and are free from emotional problems.

    Okay, one at a time. Where is the lie? It's not like they go around talking up his family life while convenientltly leaving out the fact that his wife is not jewish?

    ReplyDelete
  8. What dishonesty or denial? This is advertising their alumni. You don't advertise the lemons.

    I read once a great line, regarding law: "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to." I've often applied that to other (though certainly not all) situations. One place it certainly applies is advertising: You don't MAKE the consumer asks questions you can't really explain, like "Who's that, why isn't he religious?"

    He in the article, and you in your post, to some extent lump two different things together: An emotional hurt from being cut out [though having left knowing that such a cut was likely], and a societal split in certain areas.

    His emotional hurt (and perhaps your own) stem from choices you and he have made... and are upset that the system made you make that choice.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "denial about the fact that people intermarry and go off the derech even if they went to good schools, had good parents, and are free from emotional problems."

    In my opinion, I do not see this "denial" anywhere. It is all to known that anybody can choose to intermarry, as there many "good" people who have done so. Where is this denial manifested? I think it is more shame that people feel in this situation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I cut off my response when I saw yours...

    Dishonest about the fact that one of their esteemed graduates has intermarried

    Where? They're just not advertising it. That's not dishonesty. This is not an intellectual discussion on the status of his marriage; this is an alumni newsletter catering to people having something to do with the school. They want to cater to their audience with the best examples of the philosophy they're espousing. I believe a commenter by you noted that you're not exactly linking to ex-atheists on the blog; and you shouldn't. That's not what you're pushing.

    in denial about the fact that people intermarry and go off the derech even if they went to good schools, had good parents, and are free from emotional problems

    Not in denial at all - but there's no easy way to explain it, either. Again - not something they're going to advertise.

    What they might advertise is how he's succeeded academically; it's a testament to their academics. But they're not going to advertise his lifestyle, because it doesn't mesh with the lifestyle they project whatsoever. He is the perfect example for a right-wing school nearby to point to when they want to list a flaw in Maimonides: "Look, they had this brilliant mind, and he's so successful... but he's not even religious! Nebach. Is that what you want for your kids?" It's simply stupid to put such a thing in. Their alumni newsletter caters to their school - not one alumnus' feelings... particularly one whose kids won't be attending.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Okay, one at a time. Where is the lie? It's not like they go around talking up his family life while convenientltly leaving out the fact that his wife is not jewish?

    The lie is the doctored photo. It's supposed to be of the alumni at the reunion, but they edited it to remove the one they don't approve of.

    His emotional hurt (and perhaps your own) stem from choices you and he have made... and are upset that the system made you make that choice.

    What's wrong with that? The system's wrong for forcing such a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I believe a commenter by you noted that you're not exactly linking to ex-atheists on the blog; and you shouldn't. That's not what you're pushing.

    That's not at all the same (and I'm not even sure it's true -- I link to a few theists who might have been atheists at some point. I know I used to link to JP, who fits that description. I delinked him because he started advocating the death penalty for gays.) I would never cut a theist out of a group picture in order to misrepresent the nature of the group.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's supposed to be of the alumni at the reunion, but they edited it to remove the one they don't approve of.

    Would you rather they ask him not to join the picture?

    The system's wrong for forcing such a choice.

    LOL. You've brought us back to the original post, basically.

    No, it's not wrong. The system is in and of itself a choice (if even): Be Jewish or not. He chose to not.

    ReplyDelete
  14. That's not at all the same

    ...but it is: I delinked him because he started advocating the death penalty for gays.

    While obviously a more extreme example, you cut off association with that which crosses the line. By marrying a non-Jew, Feldman crossed his school's line - at the LEAST from an educational point of view. That he still attends alumni events is actually pretty impressive on the parts of both him and the school; many schools would cut all ties.

    Is it any different than an academic boycott? I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  15. -->Where is the lie? It's not like they go around talking up his family life while convenientltly leaving out the fact that his wife is not jewish?

    ->The lie is the doctored photo. It's supposed to be of the alumni at the reunion, but they edited it to remove the one they don't approve of.

    That's the "lie"!? What would you have had them do?

    (I apologize if this feels like ganging up. I am truly interested in this thought process.)

    He forced their hand, in a way. Due to his own denial and cognitive dissonance.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Would you rather they ask him not to join the picture?

    It would have been more honest.

    No, it's not wrong. The system is in and of itself a choice (if even): Be Jewish or not. He chose to not.

    Orthodox Judaism isn't some sort of golf club -- it's the extended family that we were born into. Rejecting your children because they decide to marry a perfectly nice woman who happens to not be Jewish is indeed immoral. Forcing someone to choose between remaining a part of the only community he's ever known and his theological beliefs is immoral. What ever happened to letting people make their own life decisions? Whose business is it but his who he marries?

    Orthodoxy is way too happy to throw individuals under the bus so they can maintain the happy illusion that nothing's wrong for their children. It's a disgrace and the antithesis of morality.

    While obviously a more extreme example, you cut off association with that which crosses the line.

    But not dishonestly. I'm not expecting my high school to link to my blog, but I'd be pretty offended if they chopped me out of a picture.

    That he still attends alumni events is actually pretty impressive on the parts of both him and the school; many schools would cut all ties.

    Disgraceful.

    Is it any different than an academic boycott? I think not.

    Huh?

    ReplyDelete
  17. That's the "lie"!? What would you have had them do?

    Either use the photo as it was or not.

    (I apologize if this feels like ganging up. I am truly interested in this thought process.)

    No worries. Always happy to debate. :-)

    He forced their hand, in a way. Due to his own denial and cognitive dissonance.

    Yes, he did. That doesn't mean what they did was right.

    ReplyDelete
  18. -Would you rather they ask him not to join the picture?

    --It would have been more honest.

    Come now, that is being disingenuous. Had that been the case then the same discussion would be taking place, just with a different backround.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It would have been more honest.

    ...and more hurtful. We'd be seeing an even stronger piece in the NYT mag.

    Rejecting your children because they decide to marry a perfectly nice woman who happens to not be Jewish is indeed immoral.

    That's your opinion. Rejecting your parents' way of life so utterly is a slap in the face, too; and rejecting your Jewish education so completely is obviously one to your old schools, telling them they failed.

    Forcing someone to choose between remaining a part of the only community he's ever known and his theological beliefs is immoral.

    Again, your (in this case) biased opinion. The community is one of theological beliefs! As Gil said, you leave KNOWING that. That's the choice you make - these are the effects of those choices.

    What ever happened to letting people make their own life decisions? Whose business is it but his who he marries?

    You can make whatever choices you want... within the religion. Otherwise, you're choosing outside of it.

    Orthodoxy is way too happy to throw individuals under the bus so they can maintain the happy illusion that nothing's wrong for their children.

    What's "happy" about this?! I'm sure they'd have loved if he'd stayed religious. There is little more hurtful to a Jewish educational system than to see the Jewish part be thrown out the window.

    They're not throwing anyone under the bus - this is someone making a conscious decision knowing the consequences. To make that choice and then be upset about those consequences is incredibly short-sighted and/or pathetic. Again - you live by the choices you make. You seem to have as much trouble accepting this as he does.

    Huh?

    Think about what an academic boycott is. Cutting off ties with that which you disagree with.

    ReplyDelete
  20. -He forced their hand, in a way. Due to his own denial and cognitive dissonance.

    --Yes, he did. That doesn't mean what they did was right

    Perhaps. However (and I realize this is to a different point), it should prevent him from taking the stance he does (in the tone he does) in the piece.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jewish atheist: Don't want to sound monstrous here, but why do you find that cutting ties with children for some reason is immoral? If they've committed something you consider heinous, you don't think parents have the right to associate with them? What if they committed a serious crime? I'm talking about adult children, who are no longer dependent on their parents in any legal way. Sure, it may seem horrible from emotional point of view... but I don't see it as something necessarily immoral. Just something that's not common in our society. But I don't see how it's different than showing disapproval to anyone else close to you who's done something you cannot forgive. I know that if my parents, G-d forbid, were doing things I considered extremely wrong, I probably would not want to be associating with them either, though I love them both dearly. But there are things you cannot do if they go against your morality, and sometimes, that means continuing to stay in touch with other people who do that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Come now, that is being disingenuous. Had that been the case then the same discussion would be taking place, just with a different backround.

    Yeah, on second thought, it'd be just as bad.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ezzie:

    That's your opinion. Rejecting your parents' way of life so utterly is a slap in the face, too; and rejecting your Jewish education so completely is obviously one to your old schools, telling them they failed.

    As you know, I've personally chosen to date only Jews so as to spare my parents the pain of their son marrying out. Still, if I did marry out, it wouldn't be a slap in their face unless I was doing it just to spite them. Otherwise, their hurt wouldn't be my responsibility.

    Would you argue that becoming a BT is slapping your parents and/or secular education in the face?

    The community is one of theological beliefs! As Gil said, you leave KNOWING that. That's the choice you make - these are the effects of those choices.

    I'm not saying I didn't know the choice; I'm saying forcing people to choose is immoral.

    You can make whatever choices you want... within the religion. Otherwise, you're choosing outside of it.

    But it's not just a religion; it's a community, too. If religious belief is so fragile that an alumnus who married out is a threat to your children's emunah, it's not much of a belief system.

    What's "happy" about this?! I'm sure they'd have loved if he'd stayed religious. There is little more hurtful to a Jewish educational system than to see the Jewish part be thrown out the window.

    But as soon as the Jewish part goes, the person gets thrown under the bus. That's what I was referring to.

    They're not throwing anyone under the bus - this is someone making a conscious decision knowing the consequences. To make that choice and then be upset about those consequences is incredibly short-sighted and/or pathetic. Again - you live by the choices you make. You seem to have as much trouble accepting this as he does.

    So if my father gave me a choice of getting a beating or kicking a puppy, it's my fault if I don't kick the puppy? When the choice itself is immoral, you can't blame the person choosing "wrongly."

    Think about what an academic boycott is. Cutting off ties with that which you disagree with.

    I've never heard of an academic boycott as such.




    g:

    Perhaps. However (and I realize this is to a different point), it should prevent him from taking the stance he does (in the tone he does) in the piece.

    Why? Just because he knew they would act a certain way means he can't criticize them for doing it?




    IT:

    If they've committed something you consider heinous, you don't think parents have the right to associate with them?

    I think it's important to differentiate between ben-adom-l'chaveiroh and ben-adom-l'makom. For the latter, why can't people let God worry about it if He cares so much?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Can I interrupt to make what I see as a VERY IMPORTANT POINT?

    The only version of events we have is Noah Feldman's.

    We have no idea what happened here in Maimonides. We have no idea why (or if!) they doctored this photo. We haven't heard their side of the story, their defense or their point of view.

    Before you get into this whole discussion about the photoshopped/ cropped/ doctored photo, I think it would be best if someone who knows the principal of/ administrators at Maimonides heard what their official explanation for this is. I know I am curious to hear their side of the story and their point of view. We are all speculating as to reasons that this was done without knowing their version of the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As you know, I've personally chosen to date only Jews so as to spare my parents the pain of their son marrying out.

    Yes, that's why I only added the "in your case" to the next paragraph. When he did it, he clearly slapped whatever he'd come from in the face.

    Still, if I did marry out, it wouldn't be a slap in their face unless I was doing it just to spite them. Otherwise, their hurt wouldn't be my responsibility.

    I don't think that's true. You might feel better that you're not doing it to hurt them, but that doesn't mean they are hurt; similarly, this isn't being done to Feldman to hurt him, but he is being hurt.

    Would you argue that becoming a BT is slapping your parents and/or secular education in the face?

    Of course it is. Which is why BTs should be especially careful to show their parents that their rejection has nothing to do with them, and that they still love them.

    I'm not saying I didn't know the choice; I'm saying forcing people to choose is immoral.

    It's the nature of the choice, so I disagree.

    But it's not just a religion; it's a community, too.

    A religious community.

    If religious belief is so fragile that an alumnus who married out is a threat to your children's emunah, it's not much of a belief system.

    No, but certainly not a great thing to advertise.

    gotta run to eat before fast, to be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Chana - I'm saying that it's okay *even* if his version is correct. If it's less, then certainly so.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't see an article in Times about the Amish. I went to Amish town and was given a tour on a horse drawn wagon by a woman, who left her community and was shunned. At the age of 13 the Amish (Mennonite) teenagers are given a choice- they can stay in the community or go out and explore. If they go out and explore other options and come back, then great, they saw, they did and they returned. But if they are not like the prodigal child and decide they like what they have seen then they can stay out of the community, but they are shunned. Some or even ostracized- this tour guides mother went so far as to even have nothing to do with her child, but she will talk to her grandchild. This woman knew her options and the consequences that came with it. It was her choice and the Amish community gave her the option to make that choice- but they also said if she made that choice and show that way, she would be shunned,because that new lifestyle doesn't go hand in hand with their life- style and their value system and set of morals. Believe me i doubt highly that Ms. tour guide would have even been invited to the reunion- quick call the NY Times!

    ReplyDelete
  28. --Why? Just because he knew they would act a certain way means he can't criticize them for doing it?

    Just makes the whole piece seem less legit, to me.

    Gotta go.

    Easy fast everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  29. would they cut out his photo if his wife were Jewish but didn't cover her hair? Why or why not? Would they cut out his photo if he weren't wearing a kippah? If he was chewing treif gum at the event? If.... .etc etc etc.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ezzie, have a meaningful fast!

    ReplyDelete
  31. But as soon as the Jewish part goes, the person gets thrown under the bus. That's what I was referring to.

    ...in terms of their Jewish identity. Yes, that's the choice they've made.

    So if my father gave me a choice of getting a beating or kicking a puppy, it's my fault if I don't kick the puppy? When the choice itself is immoral, you can't blame the person choosing "wrongly."

    What's the immoral choice?!
    a) Stay religious, stay part of the community.
    b) Don't.

    This is circular - you keep complaining that you can't choose to not be religious and still remain part of the (religious) community which you're turning from. That's ridiculous.

    That would be like being a part of an atheist convention, a short while later proclaiming my absolute belief in God, and then wondering why they're not thrilled to see me back at the atheist convention. (Except in this case it's worse, because it's not just an idea - he's cutting off his family from Judaism for the future.)

    I've never heard of an academic boycott as such.

    Against Israel, all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  32. IYWI - :) Thanks!

    Anon - I don't know if that's a fair comparison; there have been plenty of articles on Rumspringa all over the place. Moreover, there aren't many prominent Amish people writing pieces like this; part of the 'big deal' here is that Feldman has these outstanding academic credentials.

    ReplyDelete
  33. would they cut out his photo if his wife were Jewish but didn't cover her hair? Why or why not? Would they cut out his photo if he weren't wearing a kippah? If he was chewing treif gum at the event? If.... .etc etc etc.

    I actually figured someone would ask that, but there's a huge difference between not being perfect and (knowingly) cutting off your future generations from the religion.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Any dishonesty as to the record of who was at the reunion, pales beside the raw, honest, educational message about the school's position.

    Specifically, no matter how great your other accomplishments, no matter how warm our personal feelings may be to you, marry out and any subsequent public institutional association with you shames us.

    Many Jewish communities give undue honor to those who are wealthy. In a community where academic accomplishment is sometimes treated similarly, this is a huge statement.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Specifically, no matter how great your other accomplishments, no matter how warm our personal feelings may be to you, marry out and any subsequent public institutional association with you shames us.

    Many Jewish communities give undue honor to those who are wealthy. In a community where academic accomplishment is sometimes treated similarly, this is a huge statement.
    ---------

    Correct, and everyone knows this.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ezzie- "Moreover, there aren't many prominent Amish people writing pieces like" thats my point- there are not articles like this because you leave the Amish faith you need to realize whats going to happen- no one who left will go write an article how they were left out of the class picture- that was an expected thing to happen and they knew it when they left. "Part of the 'big deal' here is that Feldman has these outstanding academic credentials"- more so- I highly doubt that any of his credentials or academic achievements were really molded from his 12 years of grade school. Perhaps some of the molding took place throughout high school, doubtfully any during elementary school and the blossoming was most probably in college, research and graduate school. Besides the reunion photo was not taken to highlight who strived and succeeded academically from the school so his accomplishments and academic stellar play no light in this matter except highlighting his profound lack of comprehension that someone with such brights and such afor-mentioned academic achievements should realize that bringing a non-Jewish girl to the orthodox class reunion was egotistical inconsiderate and not to mention uncomfortable,expecting her to be in the picture is just plain bad A**, and a real question of his genius.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I think we're basically agreeing, anon.

    ReplyDelete
  38. B"H I liked your analysis, as I did Gil's. I thought that Avraham Burg's recent take on how Jews should approach the non-Jewish world frightening (as opposed to comical). And now this? I don't believe in coincidences. Something's up, and it smells like Erev Rav.

    ReplyDelete