Isolationism vs. Socialization - Summary and Thoughts
RAV KOOKS LETTERS
By Rav
Shiur #26f:
Summary and Thoughts
1.
The
main thesis that I have attempted to present in the last five shiurim is
that there are differing interpretations of Rav Kook's teachings concerning
society and insularity. The elements that emphasize the open, unifying and
integrative character, as well as the elements emphasizing the dimension of
separation and uniqueness, arise from the inherent tension in Rav Kook's
teachings between the practical level and the practical and educational ideology
and the philosophical dimension of consciousness, which deals with reality as it
truly is, not as it manifests itself in the world.
2.
As I
have argued, the streams among Rav Kook's students from Yeshivat Merkaz Ha-Rav
and its affiliates and among the students of Rav Tzvi Yehuda, who in recent
years have emphasized the principle of seclusion (in terms of a cultural
barrier, educational frameworks, and even, to a certain extent, on the
sociological level[1]),
are actually implementing the educational and cultural practices required of an
aspiring religious society as described by Rav Kook himself. Those who point to
the openness of Rav Kook as a person, the approval with which he spoke of
general studies, and his love for all Jews and all of mankind and enlist this in
their criticism of the above practices are stating the truth but not the whole
truth. Only a complete understanding of Rav Kook's teachings can explain their
influences and developments.
3.
Finally, I would like to set aside the dimension of objective description and
analysis and present some questions that arise from the material itself, with
attention to current trends:
a)
From an ideological point of view, is the path of insularity
indeed the most desirable choice, from a communal perspective, in accordance
with Rav Kook's teachings? Seemingly, as stated, the practice of Divine service,
education, and culture should be based on the principle of separation for the
purposes of (subsequent) inclusion.
b)
Does the fact that Rav Kook himself practiced openness, was
familiar with secular philosophy, maintained contacts with non-religious people,
etc., not in itself represent a model for emulation? To put it more generally:
Should one follow the guidance of Rav Kook as educator and leader or his
personal example?
c)
To formulate the matter even more broadly: Separation or
socialization? Cultural involvement or insularity? Admittedly, this question
entails an overall matter of principle. However, there is a wide spectrum of
decisions and choices that lie between the two poles. The question is, how
should we relate to each of the intermediate positions?
d)
Finally unquestionably, there are educational and ideological
decisions which arise from an imperfect existing reality, rather than as the
result of initial, primary, ideological positions. What is the possible
influence of the particular socio-cultural reality that we live in on our
attitude towards the two poles?
Let us address these questions, in order.
a)
The main question here concerns the degree of influence that our
fundamental world-view should have on our practical attitude. For example, there
can be no doubt that Rav Kook's insights concerning the essence of secular
heresy, while not erasing the distinction between observant and non-observant
Jews, did certainly influence both his emotional and practical attitude towards
the secular pioneers in Israel.
This seems to be significant for our attitude to the whole question. The
Religious-Zionist public has justifiable difficulty in accepting the haredi
claim that the latter group expresses its belonging to Am Yisrael and
bears its yoke along with the rest of the nation by selfless devotion to Torah
study because we believe that an ideal must be manifested in an appropriate
and recognizable tangible form, not just as a declaration. The same applies
here. If, indeed, there is a manifestation of Divine goodness and truth in every
human philosophical, scientific, and even artistic creation, if indeed there is
love for every Jew and every person, and a true recognition of the value of
individuals and groups whose paths are not normative, or are different from
ours, then there is something unseemly on both the educational and the
ideological level in postponing the practical implementation of this awareness
until Mashiach comes. Even if the obvious conclusion is not a complete
rejection of social and educational boundaries, this recognition must at the
very least cause us to create significant points of encounter and crossings,
rather than simply erecting a fortified wall. Do such points of encounter exist?
Do they have a significant presence?
b)
In many places in his writings, Rav Kook certainly speaks with
the consciousness and feeling of a "supreme tzaddik," whose perception of
reality is a unified, immanent Divine whole. This also defined his own
self-perception. It is these esoteric messages that give rise to his practical
educational, communal, and ideological perspectives. The conclusion would seem
to be that it is possible to follow in Rav Kook's footsteps only if one
identifies with his perception of reality i.e., that someone who follows him
is himself a "supreme tzaddik." This would seem to represent a most
severe limitation, leaving us far removed from the possibilities that find
expression in Rav Kook's teachings. Breadth of vision, self-listening, absolute
freedom, creativity, harmony, and nullification of the contrast between the
material and the spiritual would then remain despite their magical attraction
with Rav Kook alone.
I believe that this conclusion should not be accepted in its entirety, and not
only out of educational considerations. The power, the innovation, and the sheer
magic of Rav Kook's teachings arise mainly from his inner experiences and
awareness, rather than from his position as leader and educator. The power of
his teachings lies in the encounter with the real possibilities that he raises
even if one realizes afterwards that they cannot be fully realized.
Therefore, I believe, our approach to this question must be based on two
dialectical foundations. On the one hand, humility and a sober self-awareness
that puts us in our proper place, and on the other hand, an attempt to reach the
uppermost sphere in which Rav Kook existed and from which he saw, in a tangible
way, without creating a binary, two-dimensional educational picture either
you're a tzaddik like Rav Kook or you forego all the spiritual and human
possibilities that he raises. The educational conclusion, to my mind, is that
the supreme religious awareness should be viewed as a state which is possible to
aspire towards and to achieve, and one's personal or social situation in
relation to that supreme level should be viewed as a situation of partial
realization, offering partial possibilities, rather than negating them
altogether. This is not an exact formula, but it attempts to sketch a general
approach that retains the relevance of the deepest and most impressive
dimensions of Rav Kook's teachings, even if they are not able to be fully
realized.
c)
In the two previous points, I explained the educational and
spiritual need for a position that does not force us directly to one of the
poles.[2]
The applications of this general sketch depend, to a considerable degree, on
one's judgment and evaluation of the surrounding society, or of various
frameworks of social and educational partnership; in the cultural context, it
depends on an evaluation and judgment of opinions, cultural phenomena, certain
disciplines, etc. In other words, there lie many possibilities between the
establishment of a Talmud Torah for a defined religious elite, with careful
screening on the basis of halakhic criteria, and the establishment of a school
in which religious and secular children study together, with no admission
criteria, in the same classes and with the same teachers. One might, for
example, establish a "mixed" school with separate classes; or two schools one
religious, the other secular, that share a common yard; or a school that is
religious but which leaves the definition of identity to the children and their
parents; or to establish a relatively lenient religious threshold; etc.
Similarly, there are dimensions of dress which create social identity, social
frameworks, and a range of forms of community and separate dwellings, creating a
broad spectrum of possibilities.
In the intellectual, cultural dimension, we might draw a distinction, for
example, between different philosophical sources. We might distinguish between
philosophy and literature. We might close off vulgar culture (obviously, this
needs to be defined) and recommend culture that is of higher quality.
We might consume media in an absolute way, as part of the ideal of social
inclusion and involvement, or we might forego those aspects of contemporary
culture which are perceived as materialist and appealing to the lowest human
drives. We might thus avoid watching TV or reading newspapers, while still
permitting ourselves classical works (literature, music, etc.), which express
deep, lofty elements of human culture.[3] I
believe that adopting a position of absolute isolation, on the educational or
social level, empties the ideal of overall unity of all meaning; hence, the
distinction between different nuances, different frameworks, or different
disciplines, is of great significance.
Thus, for example, an absolute rejection of any application for an exegetical
discipline that is not based on traditional Jewish sources, simply because it
originates "outside of the camp," does not sit well with Rav Kook's perception
of the truth nor even with his comments on biblical criticism. As noted, one
would be equally mistaken in thinking that absolute acceptance of any position
reflects an accurate understanding of his teachings certainly on the level of
teaching the masses. It is specifically for this reason that it is desirable,
for example, to draw a distinction in the realm of biblical study between the
enlisting of literary tools in exegesis and the wholesale adoption of biblical
criticism, even if we accept that both methods were born in the academic world,
not in the beit midrash.
To explain further: while the point of departure in the literary approach is
"instrumental" i.e., it provides tools for more in-depth understanding of the
text qua text, and insofar as the language of the text is human language (since
it certainly is "the Torah speaks in language familiar to people," and any
reader of Tanakh knows this) the point of departure for biblical
criticism is theological or de-theological i.e., it assumes that Tanakh
was written by a person or by several people, it denies the beliefs of the
Tanakh itself (revelation, prophecy, etc.), and it is on this basis that it
proposes its exegesis and commentary.[4]
d)
In my younger days, the question of reality influencing
principle was often invoked in the context of the co-ed membership in Bnei
Akiva. The argument went as follows: Does the reality in which a mixed society
exists need to cause de facto recognition of that framework, despite the
principled position that such a society is not desirable? Or, on the contrary,
are we meant to fight for the ideal model, or to leave the movement and
establish a new one that will uphold it out of a policy of separation?
In the matter of our discussion, too, I have often heard the claim that cultural
integration is a fact, and that religious society for the most part does not
maintain any clear boundary between itself and the rest of society, and
therefore separation is not effective and may even lead to a distancing of the
religious public from its leadership. The problem is admittedly a complicated
one, and this is not the place to treat it in full. I seek merely to highlight
one particular aspect of it: there is a question that must be raised here, and
that concerns the price. Are we capable of bearing the price that we pay for our
existence alongside the secular public with no boundary? The historical approach
of cooperation need not influence our thinking here, since society itself has
undergone some critical changes.
Aside from the fact, to which I alluded previously, that contemporary culture
reveals itself too often as being centered around ego, hedonism, and base
desires, and too little on idealism,[5]
there is a different problem, which touches on the essence of the matter.
Israeli society at the time of the birth of the state, or prior to it, had a
clear and sharp idea of identity. There was Zionist or anti-Zionist identity,
religious or secular identity. Even the hegemonic attempt to mold a unifying
Israeli identity emerged from the assumption that the category of identity is
clear and solid; the question concerns its content i.e., which identity is the
proper or desirable one. This discourse, while full of ideological tension,
nevertheless facilitated the maintenance of religious identity and its
development, despite the mixed social reality and the absence of clear physical
or social barriers. Contemporary culture, on the other hand, is devoid of stable
identity. A person assumes different identities at will. He exchanges goals and
values if he has any granting them all only relative value. Post-modern
discourse blurs identities. The incessant, unlimited accessibility of
information contributes greatly towards this, as does the inflation of the media
and the loss of the "absolute." The significance of this cultural situation is
that it is enormously difficult to form a stable, self-confident identity that
can stand up to the outside and hold its own against the tide that destroys
boundaries and identities. Seclusion is vital in order to provide a defined,
stable sphere which can serve as a platform to decide whether or not to be
secluded. The setting of boundaries is essential as a first step to create the
conditions for decision-making, even before we start discussing phenomena or
views that are to be ignored or rejected because of their content. The ability
to turn inward, to concentrate, to focus, is critical.
I believe that the option of seclusion, as arising from Rav Kook's writings and
from the philosophy developed by his students, becomes most significant in this
social and cultural context, because it represents a precondition for the
spiritual possibility of molding a personality that has a stable spiritual and
mental center, clear points of orientation, and defined aspirations for holiness
and elevation. The danger is that it can become a "failed version" of haredi
society. The dialectic model that we have proposed, based on Rav Kook's
teachings, with the tension between its philosophy and metaphysics, on the one
hand, and practical aspects (education and society), on the other, while not a
guide for solving every specific problem, may serve as the basis for molding a
path whereby the two opposite poles together form a whole religious personality
and a healthy religious society.
Translated by Kaeren Fish
[1]
To clarify matters: This has nothing to
do with the value attitude towards the State of Israel and its institutions. The
position of Rav Kook's students is squarely in support. On the practical
establishment level, too, there is recognition of and participation in public
activity: in the army (pre-military academies, such as that in Eli), as well as
in a wide range of social projects in the civil sector. The insularity I refer
to above is mainly in the cultural and ideological-educational spheres. See, for
example, the description by Hava ha-Levi Etzioni, "Eretz Shesu'a" (Tel
Aviv, 5760), pp. 64-97. Some of the details there are outdated, but the general
picture does reflect existing processes.
[2]
I have emphasized in particular our
obligation to relate to the dimension of cultural openness and social
involvement, since the justification for separation has already been set forth
at length in the previous shiurim.
[3]
For example, let us consider the realm of music. Post-modern discourse refuses
to accept the supposedly elitist distinction between quality creations and
mediocre ones, between higher and lower music. There are no longer texts that
are considered shallow, nor musical structures that are deemed simplistic.
Everything is of equal value. It is specifically this position, viewing culture
as devoid of hierarchy, with no distinction between different levels, between
the superficial and the profound, that sometimes causes people to think that
there is no choice but to oppose anything that is secular, Western, etc.
However, this discourse is not correct; it is misleading. One is allowed, for
example, to consider Beethoven a more profound composer than Johann Strauss,
just as one is permitted to consider the melodies of Chabad as reaching deeper
recesses of the soul than those of Gur. It is not snobbish to decide that Yoni
Rechter's songs are of higher quality than those of Sarit Hadad. Interested
readers will find an engaging attempt at explaining the differences in quality
in "Yode'a Nagen" by Daniel Shalit (Tel Aviv, 2002). Obviously, every
person may enjoy whatever music he chooses. However, from a cultural and
educational point of view, the ability to distinguish quality is often useful;
it may guide one's decisions such that one need not choose between negating
everything, on one hand, or indiscriminate consumption, on the other. This is
meant on the level of principle, rather than the educational-tactical level,
where the problem is more severe.
[4]
The presentation here is somewhat
simplistic, since the literary approach also sometimes raises fundamental
questions; on the other hand, some have suggested making instrumental use of
biblical criticism, without crediting its basic assumptions. Nevertheless, there
is still room for this distinction, and my intention here is merely to
illustrate one possible distinction from an exegetical and educational
perspective.
[5]
The aim of this shiur is not to
evaluate contemporary culture. My views on the subject are far more critical
than the above presentation. The point here is to illustrate the obligation and
the possibility of distinguishing between and consequently adopting a
different attitude towards different phenomena which originate outside of the
boundaries of Torah and our tradition, even in the broadest sense of the word.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!