Reflections on Practice

Response to Bethamie Horowitz Interview:

PROMPT: Are you convinced by Bethamie's assertion that Jewish identity cannot be effectively measured in normative terms? What are the implications for planning Jewish educational programming? Provided specific examples to substantiate your ideas.

For the most part, I truly appreciate Bethamie's shift from "How Jewish are American Jews?" to "How are American Jews Jewish?"  It acknowledges the evolutionary aspect that has always been a part of Jewish culture and religion and removes the judgmental theory that the further we get from the shtetl the less authentically Jewish we are.  (I mean, c'mon... 2nd Temple Jews hardly practiced like 1st Temple Jews; Rabbinic Jews do not define their identity as Torah-itic Jews would have; and the Jews of 16th century Poland certainly did not have to live up to the glory of the Jews of 11th century Spain!)

I also appreciate her theory that, if we are to evaluate someone's Jewish-ness with this meet them where they are stance, that we may need a more nuanced method of measuring their Jewish identity.  I love the fact that she conducted in-depth interviews with nearly 90 people in order to explore their "internal, subjective understanding of the content and meaning of being Jewish" and to create her framework for her more traditional survey of 1500 Jews.  

Ultimately, this is the lesson for Jewish education today.  For better or for worse, we cannot treat Jewish education today like it is a 5-point scale survey.  Rather, we have to meet our learners where they are by getting to know them in an in depth way and unpacking (or helping them unpack) their "internal, subjective understanding of the content and meaning of being Jewish".

There was a moment in her article where I was annoyed at her dismissiveness around "vicarious" Jewish identity and "conferred" Jewish identity.  While I understand why an "authentic" and fully integrated Jewish identity is preferable in America today, it is also predicated on the [very American] notion that personal identity is inherently stickier than communal identity.  I think it's sad that we don't have a stronger sense of "WE" in American culture and in Jewish American culture.  If we did, then, perhaps, vicarious and conferred identities wouldn't be as slippery to maintain through one's life.

History and Heritage: 

PROMPT: Is it possible to teach the history of a nation/land/people objectively? Why or why not?

Humans, by our very nature, are subject to our particular perspectives, opinions, and experiences. As the recorders of "history", our records are likewise subject to these perspectives, opinions, and experiences. Therefore, history cannot be objective as long as humans are writing it. Even in the act of choosing to write one story versus another, there is subjectivity. The Zerubavael article is a great example of how one event is written and rewritten to reflect the subjective perspectives of different generations. Trumpledore doesn't become less of a historical figure even as his story and "legendary" last words are debated, deemphasized, and, even by some, disavowed. Zerubavel points out how dependent history is on social construct and credibility - both derived from the subjectivity of the populous consuming the history before them.

The closest we can come to objective history is in the telling of multiple (inherently) subjective narratives from as many different perspectives as possible. Even in this method, if we don't confront the subjectivity of the authors, the narratives, AND the consumers themselves, we could continue to fall prey to the false lure of the notion of "objective history."

The Moral Classroom:

PROMPT: In this week’s reading, Chazan teaches us that, “Moral decision-making is about having to make a choice between conflicting core values and principles that force us to decide which is the right and wrong thing for us to do.” Considering the presentation of Emile Durkeim’s approach to moral education and John Wilson’s approach to moral education, as presented by Chazan, which style do you believe is more effective and why? Feel free to give personal examples of how you have utilized your chosen style as an educator. 

Regarding Durkheim's approach to moral education, Chazan writes, "The best pedagogic device for developing the social elements of moral education, according to Durkheim, is the utilization of the class as a social group for the nurturing of group pride, comradery, and loyalty." This approach can be highly effective during those developmental stages when children's primary attention is the group's theory of morality and on how they fit into the group; in particular, in the 5th-7th grade classrooms. I have certainly capitalized on my students' need, at these ages, to be part of the "in group" in encouraging them to be more moral.

Around 8th grade, however, when students begin to formulate a sense of personal authority - often by pushing back on the authorities around them (and sometimes outright rejecting said authorities) - Wilson's approach to moral education is often more effective. As Chazan explains, "Wilson’s model of moral education was based on a thinking process, which encompassed identifying the moral dilemma; verifying the relevant facts and moral issues involved; and applying principles of reasoning and consideration of other people’s interests to enable moral action." Even though, as Chazan points out, Wilson did believe that the teacher should offer their own moral stance as an example to the students, ultimately, his approach allows and even encourages students to become their own moral authority. In my experience, not only is this enticing to the 8th-10th graders, but it is also on par with where they are developmentally.