Reviews for Methodology in the Academic Teaching of Judaism

The average rating for Methodology in the Academic Teaching of Judaism based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2017-08-15 00:00:00 Laurel Maile Edmonson I was really looking forward to reading this book for a long while. After having trouble tracking down a copy, I finally payed what felt like an exorbitant amount for it online, assuming it would be well worth the price of admission. Although it was a terribly interesting read, sadly it didn't live up to my expectations. Before even commenting on the content of the book, I would be remiss if I did not mention one crucial factor. From the very initial stages of reading, one of my first and strongest impressions was, "Where on earth was this man's editor?!" Heilman overuses the word "moreover" to the point where it is actually distracting from the content and message that he is trying to impart. He often repeats this word several times per page. My husband, who has been reading the book alongside me (snatching my copy every time I put it down) commented, "It almost seems as if he isn't aware of any other transitional words. That's basic 6th grade English. And this man considers himself an academic...." The use of the word "moreover" stood out so much that we've started referring to it at home as "The Moreover Book" and inserting "moreover" into our casual conversations. Just as an actor's cellphone ringing would disrupt a play and remove the audience from the theatrical moment, so too the author's word choice removed the reader from the critical analysis he was trying to guide us through. I was really primed to enjoy this book. First of all, I am a member of the population under discussion, and have witnessed throughout my life the phenomenon Heilman is describing. I was rather excited to see his take on the situation, as well as the historical contexts and any analysis he would provide on the topic. I also tend to be strongly drawn to academic works in the social sciences, particularly ethnographies, and books about people on the edge of multiple cultures, so reading "Sliding to the Right" was a bit of a no-brainer, and likely to be right up my alley. In addition, upon picking up the book to read, I noticed that the author is the father of one of my former classmates from middle school. The name "Heilman" is not particularly common, and I wondered if there was any relation. Indeed, after seeing the dedication page, my suspicious were confirmed. The author's son was in my class for several years, and he and I were part of the same social group and quite friendly. He stands out in my memory as an exceptionally kindhearted boy, and I remember him only with fondness, so that personal factor added to my eager anticipation to read and enjoy. Within the very first chapter, it becomes apparent that Heilman has rather strong anti-Haredi biases. Rather than merely reporting on and analyzing a phenomenon, he uses loaded terms that color the readers' viewpoint, using words such as "archaic" and "radical traditionalists," among others, referring to the phenomenon of Haredization as "insidious". He clearly places himself among the "contrapuntalist" modern orthodox camp, and this book is his forum for warning the masses about a shift that he considers to be a "usurping" (Heilman's term) of a culture that he holds dear. Heilman also seems to make assumptions about certain community operatives. For example, one of the premises he builds his ideas upon is that Orthodoxy in America was, and continues to build itself on the concept of Jewish survival in response to the Holocaust. That is, he assumes that the attitude of the Orthodox Jewish community in America is fearfully responding to an imagined or real threat of community wide annihilation. As someone who grew up very much a part of the community in question, I would say that this assessment is not only false, but exactly contrary to a very clear message that was always imparted, that of the idea that the Jewish people, and the Torah, will always be fine, and are assured existence forever, but that individuals are not included in this promise and therefore must cleave to the source of infinity if they want to get a chance at this infinite existence. This was by far not the only example. Another case: Heilman spoke of a lack of "contrapuntalist" (read: ideologically Modern Orthodox) rabbis and teachers, and claims that the Modern Orthodox schools therefore had to hire many "Haredi" teachers for their schools, who then tried to indoctrinate their students to follow "Haredi" ways. I had many (though definitely not a majority) Haredi teachers during my Modern Orthodox schooling experience, but they never pushed us to move in a more right-wing direction - with one exception, that, in my mind, stood out as a very big flaw in Heilman's book. These Haredi teachers encouraged us to keep halacha (Jewish law). As did the vast majority of the "contrapuntalist" teachers. However, Heilman seems to imply over and over (and states explicitly at least once or twice towards the end of the book) that concern with halacha as a guiding force for one's behavior is an exclusively Haredi phenomenon, and that contrapuntalist Orthodox do not feel the need to be restricted by the rules that come from books and tradition, but rather live their lives through autonomy and personal choice, while still maintaining their unwavering commitment to Judaism. As if the two (concern with halacha and personal autonomy) are mutually exclusive. His statement to this effect left me wondering what "Judaism" the people he has in mind are unwaveringly committed to. If an individual is able to constantly redefine a concept to match his own values, then his unwavering support to that value is no commitment to anything other than his own whims. Indeed, this is the approach that Heilman seems to take, claiming that "frum" (religiously observant) was historically always determined by the status quo of the community and not based on adherence to any (textually guided) unchanging ideals of behavior. I would argue that no one person is able to keep every single dictate of halacha perfectly (after all, humanity carries with it the stigma and reality of imperfection by definition) but that if as a whole one concerns him/herself with striving to follow as much halacha as possible for them, and reaches the community's lowest common denominator in this area, then they will be considered "frum." Of course, that is what this book is about - the shifting demographic that has seen the majority now keeping a higher "lowest common denominator" and thereby raising the bar for those who wish to qualify for the "frum" label. And those in that shrinking minority who take halacha less seriously in their actions and want to maintain this less halacha-based approach in their lives (and therefore, by way of attempting to eliminate any possible cognitive dissonance, these individuals also take halacha less seriously in their ideology as well) are resentful about having been pushed to the fringe, and perhaps out of the "frum" in-group by way of this demographic shift. While this was a fascinating read, the author clearly has a strong bias (and a huge chip on his shoulder). I almost got the impression that he is bitter about being disincluded in the "frum" group and therefore has gone to his other camp, the "American" academic group, to point fingers at and discredit, the club he is now being excluded from. Some of the phenomenon he describes are genuinely interesting, and, "moreover"s aside, this was a well-written academic work. However, some of the author's premises and theories run so contrary to my own personal experiences as part of this demographic that I have to take the whole thing with a grain of salt. But then, he wouldn't care about my opinion anyway. I slid to the right.

Review # 2 was written on 2016-07-19 00:00:00 James Gribble I graded this down from a 5-star book because while interesting and well-written it bears the feeling of a bunch of long articles jammed together as chapters of a book, rather than of a book conceived as a whole. Heilman, as a decades-long observer of American Orthodoxy and in particular culture among the Hareidim and Hasidim, discusses many of the factors that have contributed to the sense (and, he documents, objective fact) that Modern Orthodoxy has moved rightward. One element of his analysis suggests inevitability -- that once MO culture opened the possibility of Jews, qua observant Jews, working within the professional economy (and achieving much, both professionally and economically) and in fact rewarded it in the sense that those who achieved in secular fields while remaining observant were pointed to in MO cultural institutions as "that's what MO is all about," that drove human capital into those remunerative fields rather than into Jewish education and the rabbinate. At the same time parent professionals left the Jewish education of their children to professionals, and the only place those professionals to staff day schools could come from was Hareidi groups-- where working in the secular world was not considered fully appropriate. Some of Heilman's analysis touches on, but doesn't fully examine, the sense that MO hasn't accomplished a full and coherent philosophy. Why allow this, but disallow that? How can we acknowledge academic analyses of text as reflective of the culture and mores that produce it, but then deny that all-male cultures would inevitably claim exclusion of women from certain activities as the Will of G-d? Heilman notes that the development, and evolution of a truly coherent MO philosophy is difficult because while the best and brightest of the postwar era were available within Jewish education and the pulpit rabbinate to create Modern Orthodoxy, the siphoning off of the brilliant to more remunerative professions limits further development of a MO philosophy that continues to meet the challenges of American social change. He looks at the influence of Hareidi publishers' control of the English-language sefarim market and the Hareidi/Hasidic monopoly on kiruv. But he doesn't analyze the effect that incoherence has on children as they move between schooling at the hands of right-wing teachers and those who chose Jewish education by default (this by no means indicates that ALL day school teachers are like this: Heilman looks at TRENDS). Heilman's chapters on Jewish humor and on posters would be interesting in an academic journal but felt like off-topic add-ons in the book, as if he didn't have enough there for a full standalone book with any analysis and had to fill pages. What remains is how to take Heilman's analysis and how to use his data and identification of trends to stop the slide to the right and to recover a truly Modern Orthodox philosophy that's responsive to 21st century America.