There is this large debate in the country over the question of whether we should allow school children to leave school during school hours to go get an abortion or receive treatment for STDs without the school being obligated or even permitted to inform the parents.
This is a rather odd debate. Why the children cannot go to these free clinics or Planned Parenthood after school is beyond me. Why does this have to be done on school time? Is this a new way to get out of school?
But independent of that, there is a really important issue at stake.
After the various atrocities of the Nazis during WWII were revealed the field of medical ethics arose. That is, after we saw the sorts of experiments that went on in places like Dachau where Jews and other prisoners were used as part of medical experiments, the medical and academic communities took note. Prisoners were the subject of drowning, disease, and pressure experiments that amounted to little more than torture and death for most of them.
What emerged from this was a concept that was to become the cornerstone of medical ethics: informed consent. One can only perform a procedure on a patient when and only when there was informed consent given for that procedure. That means that if there was no consent, or it was not a consent that was given by someone who was able to give consent in an informed way, then there is a major breach of accepted medical ethics.
There are some classes of people who are incapable of giving informed consent. Individuals who are very mentally handicapped are generally taken to be unable to give informed consent. Children too are unable to do this. That is why one is not allowed to have sex with minors, or sell or give liquor to minors. They cannot vote or smoke. We say this because they cannot give informed consent for these sorts of things because they are judged not to have the maturity to make certain decisions.
Parents are charged with these responsibilities. Parents can make the decisions for the children. Parents must make the decision for the students. Parents are taken to have the best interest of the children and thus the capability and the right to make the decision for the children.
Now there are certain criterion where we do want to allow the children to make the decision for themselves. This happens when we believe the child to have the maturity and intellectual maturity to make an informed decision. But if this is the case we should also give the children the responsibilities of an adult. For example, we often refer to emancipated minors who are not accountable to their parents. We sometimes try children as adults in courts of law. We ought to make those analogies. In a case where we can say that had the child committed some crime, we would have tried him or her as an adult, then we can say that we should allow the child to make medical decisions. Of course the responsibility is also on the doctors who perform these procedures that they are performing them on people who can make informed decisions.
If we just allow children the "right" to leave school and make decisions that they are incapable of making correctly we have thrown away 50 years of progress in medical ethics.
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Monday, September 15, 2003
Good Slogan. . .don't care for the message
Yesterday I was walking down first ave and I saw some graffiti stenciled on the sidewalk that said "Drop panties not bombs."
(sigh). . . If only. . . .
It was the great theorist of war Martin Van Creveld who suggested that war might disapear if only women were full fledged participants. (In his The Transformation of War, p223.)
(sigh). . . If only. . . .
It was the great theorist of war Martin Van Creveld who suggested that war might disapear if only women were full fledged participants. (In his The Transformation of War, p223.)
Sunday, September 14, 2003
Israel, The Palestinians and the Geneva Conventions
There are a number of interesting issues raised with regards to Israel, the Palestinians and the Geneva Conventions. Recently in an AP story related the following odd sounding claim: "One contentious issue in the draft [resulution regarding the expusion of Yassir Arafat] is a call for the protection under the Geneva Convention of civilians during war or under occupation. Israel claims the convention does not apply to territory it seized in the 1967 Middle East war. It says the land is disputed, rather than occupied."
I am not sure what to make of this. This sounds very odd. While the land might certainly be disputed, in the interem it is certainly occupied as well. Moreover, I have no idea who the disputants are. If it is indeed Israel and the Palestinians, then according to Israel what is the status of the inhabitants? What is the exact status of each of the players here? Ido not understand the Israeli claim.
However, I nonetheless believe that the Isaelis happen to be right despite their flawed reasoning. They do seem to have a very important point. Why are the Geneva Conventions applicable to the Palestinians? Now you might naturally say that the Geneva accords were signed by Israel, and therefore binding on Israel. That is not exactly the case. The geneva conventions provide for morally symmetric warfare. That means that the convention is only binding when both sides agree to follow the accord. Have the Palestinians? It is a bit hard to get a clear answer to this. (I can't find it on the web) Moreover, who speaks for the palestinians, and if we do find someone who does, say the PLO, it only applies to the forces which that body controlls, which would exclude all the non-PLO groups. That is to say that Hamas, and Islamic Jihad is exempt, and there are no provisions execpt whining by Amnesty International which governs their treatment. It also only applies when there is a real distinction between combatant and non-combatant. This is non-existant in Palestine as there is little relation between the various militias and the people carrying weapons and carrying out authorized attacks. Furthermore, the lists of atrocitises (namey those which would fall under "treatcherous tactics") which various groups from Fatah to IJ to Hamas have claimed credit for is extremely lengthy. Utilizing ambulances, the enemy's uniforms, and civilians are all illegal, and would seem to deny intent to comly with the Geneva conventions. Without an explanation is would assure us that this is what is happenning.
There is also a rather interesting note appended to the signatures of various Arab (esp Kuait) countries specifically expressing the sentiment that their signature of various international treaties excludes Israel, and does not imply recognition of or a treaty with Israel. It is unclear how this would apply to Lebanon (and the various things Israel has been accused of there) too, but that is another matter.
I am not sure what to make of this. This sounds very odd. While the land might certainly be disputed, in the interem it is certainly occupied as well. Moreover, I have no idea who the disputants are. If it is indeed Israel and the Palestinians, then according to Israel what is the status of the inhabitants? What is the exact status of each of the players here? Ido not understand the Israeli claim.
However, I nonetheless believe that the Isaelis happen to be right despite their flawed reasoning. They do seem to have a very important point. Why are the Geneva Conventions applicable to the Palestinians? Now you might naturally say that the Geneva accords were signed by Israel, and therefore binding on Israel. That is not exactly the case. The geneva conventions provide for morally symmetric warfare. That means that the convention is only binding when both sides agree to follow the accord. Have the Palestinians? It is a bit hard to get a clear answer to this. (I can't find it on the web) Moreover, who speaks for the palestinians, and if we do find someone who does, say the PLO, it only applies to the forces which that body controlls, which would exclude all the non-PLO groups. That is to say that Hamas, and Islamic Jihad is exempt, and there are no provisions execpt whining by Amnesty International which governs their treatment. It also only applies when there is a real distinction between combatant and non-combatant. This is non-existant in Palestine as there is little relation between the various militias and the people carrying weapons and carrying out authorized attacks. Furthermore, the lists of atrocitises (namey those which would fall under "treatcherous tactics") which various groups from Fatah to IJ to Hamas have claimed credit for is extremely lengthy. Utilizing ambulances, the enemy's uniforms, and civilians are all illegal, and would seem to deny intent to comly with the Geneva conventions. Without an explanation is would assure us that this is what is happenning.
There is also a rather interesting note appended to the signatures of various Arab (esp Kuait) countries specifically expressing the sentiment that their signature of various international treaties excludes Israel, and does not imply recognition of or a treaty with Israel. It is unclear how this would apply to Lebanon (and the various things Israel has been accused of there) too, but that is another matter.
Thursday, September 11, 2003
My 9/11/03
Today was a busy day. I checked in with my Army unit in the nether-reaches of Queens. It was a real schlep. The base (Fort Totten) is now mostly overrun by the Fire dept and EMS which were holding a small memorial service there, which I watched for a while.
I then met "B" for lunch back in manhattan at Odessa on Ave A. Then I wandered a bit around Lower Manhattan. I noticed the scientologists out in full force in Union Square, just liek they were in the immediate aftermath of 9/11/01. I then wandered in to the B&N right there and later on, met "L" and "S" for dinner at Kosher Delight on Broadway. We then went to the Twin Tower light thingy. They were really cool light towers. I heard you can see them from space, but I could not find any pictures of them on the web.
I wondered: if there was a new moon, and we shined the lights on it, would we have a full moon?
I then met "B" for lunch back in manhattan at Odessa on Ave A. Then I wandered a bit around Lower Manhattan. I noticed the scientologists out in full force in Union Square, just liek they were in the immediate aftermath of 9/11/01. I then wandered in to the B&N right there and later on, met "L" and "S" for dinner at Kosher Delight on Broadway. We then went to the Twin Tower light thingy. They were really cool light towers. I heard you can see them from space, but I could not find any pictures of them on the web.
I wondered: if there was a new moon, and we shined the lights on it, would we have a full moon?
Sunday, September 07, 2003
Rereading Machiavelli's The Prince
I just finished rereading Machiavelli's The Prince. I last read it about 12 years ago. It made a real impression on me then, but I thought I have a slightly different take on the world now, and I had forgotten most of it. Wooton's introduction is pretty good.
This is the book that introduced the world, systematically, to power politics. There is much in the book to consider and take seriously, and no doubt millions of people over the past 500 years have. I think that it might be a good exercise to rewrite The Prince using modern examples. The examples are not really necessary for the book to make its point, but almost every chapter has some examples. They serve to make the book a more interesting read, and also to support the conclusions. It would be instructive to use examples from the last 50 years of history to see how applicable. I suspect that it would be informative to see that there are some places where he was wrong. It would also demonstrate the amazing relevance the book still does have, despite the radically different natures of governments, warfare and religion. Perhaps some enterprising history teacher might want to try this?
This is the book that introduced the world, systematically, to power politics. There is much in the book to consider and take seriously, and no doubt millions of people over the past 500 years have. I think that it might be a good exercise to rewrite The Prince using modern examples. The examples are not really necessary for the book to make its point, but almost every chapter has some examples. They serve to make the book a more interesting read, and also to support the conclusions. It would be instructive to use examples from the last 50 years of history to see how applicable. I suspect that it would be informative to see that there are some places where he was wrong. It would also demonstrate the amazing relevance the book still does have, despite the radically different natures of governments, warfare and religion. Perhaps some enterprising history teacher might want to try this?
Saturday, September 06, 2003
Camo Fad
When I was in Basic Combat Training this summer they told me that when I returned to the civilian world, I would be annoyed if I saw some civilian wearing camoflauge. After all, it is occassionally worn, and after all we "earned" that uniform, and you have to expect that it would be annnoying to see some lazy hippy wearing it. We were punished to no end if our uniform was not in perfect shape. It is annoying when it is worn sloppily.
Anyway. . .
I came bacck from basic, and the first few times I saw people wearing camo, I was a bit annoyed, but not enough to really bother me.
But what I realized after a few days is that EVERYONE is wearing it. It isn't just a few people who like to shop in Army surplus stores, but it is like all over. I am certain that the world did not start a trend in support of me, but it is nice to imagine.
Either way, I thought it was an interesting coincidence.
Anyway. . .
I came bacck from basic, and the first few times I saw people wearing camo, I was a bit annoyed, but not enough to really bother me.
But what I realized after a few days is that EVERYONE is wearing it. It isn't just a few people who like to shop in Army surplus stores, but it is like all over. I am certain that the world did not start a trend in support of me, but it is nice to imagine.
Either way, I thought it was an interesting coincidence.
Friday, September 05, 2003
An Ethics Question for Suspicious Professors
When you teach, you do not always get to know all the names of all your students. Generally I have about 100 new students each semester. This semester I have about 75, and I hope that by the time it is over I will know the names of 50 of them. But despite this, when you walk in to your class, unless it is one of those large lecture hall classes, you will recognize everyone. If someone is there who does not belong, you will notice. If there is a person who has never shown up, certainly by the third week you will know it.
So when you give an exam, it is not likely that someone will try to get their friend to sit in and take the exam for them. If they do, you will know it right away. If you have a large class, or you are particularly untrusting, you can ask your students for a photo ID to prove that the person registered is the person taking the exam.
Now what do you do when you have a female Muslim student in your class who wears a veil that covers her entire face except her eyes. You will never know if it is her, her sister, or her friend in your class at any given time.
Should a professor in that position just let it slide? I would not want my teaching suspicions to interfere with her religious right to wear whatever she wants, I just want to have some way of verifying that I am teaching the same person who I am testing.
Addendum:People have apparently taken advantage of the anonymity of veils for illegal activities before.
So when you give an exam, it is not likely that someone will try to get their friend to sit in and take the exam for them. If they do, you will know it right away. If you have a large class, or you are particularly untrusting, you can ask your students for a photo ID to prove that the person registered is the person taking the exam.
Now what do you do when you have a female Muslim student in your class who wears a veil that covers her entire face except her eyes. You will never know if it is her, her sister, or her friend in your class at any given time.
Should a professor in that position just let it slide? I would not want my teaching suspicions to interfere with her religious right to wear whatever she wants, I just want to have some way of verifying that I am teaching the same person who I am testing.
Addendum:People have apparently taken advantage of the anonymity of veils for illegal activities before.
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Friends and enemies
When it comes to choosing friends, the US could probably use some advice. Here is mine. We should have friends. Everyone knows that. Everyone is saying that. But who should our friends be? I suspect that the answers are not simple.
First, we should keep the friends we have. England likes us. Cultivate that. Make them like us more. Canada has to like us. Make them want to like us. Israel likes us. Don’t change a thing. Etc.
Second, ignore the countries who are not going to like us no matter what we do. Say kaddish for our friendship with France. Screw Iran. We have no need to appease China. Etc.
Third, invest in the start-up countries. There are a whole slew of countries who were once worth something and show promise of making a comeback. Or they are just new countries with spunk. There is all of Eastern Europe who like us, and want to be our friends. Get them before the EU does. Make them owe us before they owe Europe. It will pay off when they start producing something. With our help it can be soon.
Fourth, there are all these neutral countries which seem to have little opinion about us. Court them. Invite Iceland to all the cool parties. Be nice to New Zealand. Don’t spend too much on them, but compliment them on their shoes and stuff. Make them feel like big players. They will then want to hang out with the biggest - us.
Fifth, if we have extra money in the budget throw it at the third world. Not the crappy terrorist countries like Pakistan, but like all of middle Africa and things like that. Zaire, India, Malawi, Bolivia, Zanzibar. . . We want to look like we are doing more than all of the EU together. We want to help the world, and not spend too much.
Sixth, enemies. They are a bigger problem. A) Isolate the country. The works, trade sanctions, cold diplomatic relations. . . 2) Regime change, if it is the last resort. Help the pro-democracy troops there. Don’t make any promises, but give lots of money. Don’t make the mistake of funding the psychos this time. Pinochet and the Taliban were our best bets at the time, but we should know better. 3) We need to start bringing the worst of them here for study. Have the CIA open and fund a few universities. Spread the word in Saudi Arabia that they are very Islamic-friendly places. Bring people from the fundamentalist ghettoes. Ignore all the princes’ children who pay a fortune, and come out figuring how to get more out of us. Get them for a short time, and figure out what propaganda works. 4) Educate our college students about the politics of these countries. Until 9/11, I suspect 1% of college grads could find Afghanistan on a map. We need university graduates who speak Pashtun, Arabic, Swahili, and whatever they speak in the Sudan. There are plenty of students who waste away taking years of Spanish in high school or college. This gets them no where. It just makes life harder for immigrants from Mexico, who have even fewer incentives to learn English. Let them learn a language that makes them valuable if we need them. Also integrate language study in to the military. We have two and a half million people in the military. Why are there only a few hands-full in the Defense Language Institute? Why is there not more education about foreign counties there as well? The more they know, the more effective they will be when the time comes.
First, we should keep the friends we have. England likes us. Cultivate that. Make them like us more. Canada has to like us. Make them want to like us. Israel likes us. Don’t change a thing. Etc.
Second, ignore the countries who are not going to like us no matter what we do. Say kaddish for our friendship with France. Screw Iran. We have no need to appease China. Etc.
Third, invest in the start-up countries. There are a whole slew of countries who were once worth something and show promise of making a comeback. Or they are just new countries with spunk. There is all of Eastern Europe who like us, and want to be our friends. Get them before the EU does. Make them owe us before they owe Europe. It will pay off when they start producing something. With our help it can be soon.
Fourth, there are all these neutral countries which seem to have little opinion about us. Court them. Invite Iceland to all the cool parties. Be nice to New Zealand. Don’t spend too much on them, but compliment them on their shoes and stuff. Make them feel like big players. They will then want to hang out with the biggest - us.
Fifth, if we have extra money in the budget throw it at the third world. Not the crappy terrorist countries like Pakistan, but like all of middle Africa and things like that. Zaire, India, Malawi, Bolivia, Zanzibar. . . We want to look like we are doing more than all of the EU together. We want to help the world, and not spend too much.
Sixth, enemies. They are a bigger problem. A) Isolate the country. The works, trade sanctions, cold diplomatic relations. . . 2) Regime change, if it is the last resort. Help the pro-democracy troops there. Don’t make any promises, but give lots of money. Don’t make the mistake of funding the psychos this time. Pinochet and the Taliban were our best bets at the time, but we should know better. 3) We need to start bringing the worst of them here for study. Have the CIA open and fund a few universities. Spread the word in Saudi Arabia that they are very Islamic-friendly places. Bring people from the fundamentalist ghettoes. Ignore all the princes’ children who pay a fortune, and come out figuring how to get more out of us. Get them for a short time, and figure out what propaganda works. 4) Educate our college students about the politics of these countries. Until 9/11, I suspect 1% of college grads could find Afghanistan on a map. We need university graduates who speak Pashtun, Arabic, Swahili, and whatever they speak in the Sudan. There are plenty of students who waste away taking years of Spanish in high school or college. This gets them no where. It just makes life harder for immigrants from Mexico, who have even fewer incentives to learn English. Let them learn a language that makes them valuable if we need them. Also integrate language study in to the military. We have two and a half million people in the military. Why are there only a few hands-full in the Defense Language Institute? Why is there not more education about foreign counties there as well? The more they know, the more effective they will be when the time comes.
Friday, August 29, 2003
Esperanto Excitement
Here is the excitement for tonight. Apparently tomorrow night (Friday night) there will be a boycott of Esperanto (the Cafe, not the language). The details are not entirely clear, and it is not well known who started this thing, but it has been in the hopper for a long time. Esperanto, in the west village of Manhattan used to be a real cool place to hang out. It still is actually, but it used to be cooler. Then a couple of years ago they got waitresses. The waitresses were all nice, but they changed the ambiance. Now when you come in you have a seat and someone serves you instead of going to the counter and just ordering and taking it to your table and enjoying your coffee. It is now a whole thing. Then a while back they started to enforce this policy that required ou to be consuming $5 worth of stuff per hour in order to stay there. Now peopel used to stay there all night, especially when there was no one else there, as they are one of the few places open 24/7. They did not really push this policy too much. It was just something they brought up every now and then.
Apparently the owner started to manage the place, and it turns out he is a real jerk, and business on that block (like in the rest of the city) has gone down lately. Last week he screamed at some of customers who were apparently not downing enough decaf. He also harassed the staff about this. And this went on until one (or more) of the customers decided there will be a boycott of the regulars at the store this friday (today, actually). The people there are all pretty friendly, and so they started this thing where they hung up signs on McDoogle Street, and changed the background on the computer to a boycott sign. The owner has been removing these signs ever since.
Those who know who started this are not talking.
If the owner has the balls to apologize, he can still salvage his regular customers.
Apparently the owner started to manage the place, and it turns out he is a real jerk, and business on that block (like in the rest of the city) has gone down lately. Last week he screamed at some of customers who were apparently not downing enough decaf. He also harassed the staff about this. And this went on until one (or more) of the customers decided there will be a boycott of the regulars at the store this friday (today, actually). The people there are all pretty friendly, and so they started this thing where they hung up signs on McDoogle Street, and changed the background on the computer to a boycott sign. The owner has been removing these signs ever since.
Those who know who started this are not talking.
If the owner has the balls to apologize, he can still salvage his regular customers.
Thursday, August 28, 2003
King's Dream - 40 years later
It is the 40th anniversary of MLK's famous "I have a Dream" speech. It is a piece of writing that has had a lot of influence on my life. (I never heard the speech in MLK's voice till a few years ago, when I caught it on the radio.)
It is normal that we overly glamorize the lfe of MLK. He was human, and he made the mistakes of humans. His "Letter from Birmingham" was not the brilliant philosophical system that it is made out to be. His PhD was mostly plagarized. And yes, he really liked white women (which were not his wife). So he shoud be no role model for anyone. But we idolize him nonetheless.
But nonetheless the speech was profoundly significant. It always saddened me that the speech which was meant for everyone had way more impact on whites then on blacks. It was a dream "deeply rooted in the American dream". That is true. It was a dream that "we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood". It is a dream that "one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood." This is something that whites have worked very hard for. It was a dream of true integration. I think it is sad that the black community has not fought as hard for this. Blacks want rights for minorities. Whites want rights for everyone. At a certain point in history this might have been understandable. But the time for that has passed. Certainly there is nothing wrong with "black culture" whatever that might amount to, but to grant special rights (despite their special persecuted history) is a dream not deeply rooted int he American dream. It is a dream rooted somewhwere else.
I think racism has not ended in this country. I do think that institutionalized racism is mostly gone, and that is all we really want the government to promote. The rest is about community marketing. Racism will not end as long as the races act differently. And they will never really be the same. And there will always be people who do not like each other. That is human nature.
But MLK's speech does not ask that we all like each other. He wants us to have a forum to sit down in a spirit of brotherhood. He wants our children to be able to school together, dine together, and (gasp) to marry. That is all nice.
I hope that we all take a good look at the speech, and try to live the dream. I hope that the speech will start to resonate with blacks too. Sure they want racism to end, but are they prepared for brotherhood with whites, Or are they stuck on brothahood?
It is normal that we overly glamorize the lfe of MLK. He was human, and he made the mistakes of humans. His "Letter from Birmingham" was not the brilliant philosophical system that it is made out to be. His PhD was mostly plagarized. And yes, he really liked white women (which were not his wife). So he shoud be no role model for anyone. But we idolize him nonetheless.
But nonetheless the speech was profoundly significant. It always saddened me that the speech which was meant for everyone had way more impact on whites then on blacks. It was a dream "deeply rooted in the American dream". That is true. It was a dream that "we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood". It is a dream that "one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood." This is something that whites have worked very hard for. It was a dream of true integration. I think it is sad that the black community has not fought as hard for this. Blacks want rights for minorities. Whites want rights for everyone. At a certain point in history this might have been understandable. But the time for that has passed. Certainly there is nothing wrong with "black culture" whatever that might amount to, but to grant special rights (despite their special persecuted history) is a dream not deeply rooted int he American dream. It is a dream rooted somewhwere else.
I think racism has not ended in this country. I do think that institutionalized racism is mostly gone, and that is all we really want the government to promote. The rest is about community marketing. Racism will not end as long as the races act differently. And they will never really be the same. And there will always be people who do not like each other. That is human nature.
But MLK's speech does not ask that we all like each other. He wants us to have a forum to sit down in a spirit of brotherhood. He wants our children to be able to school together, dine together, and (gasp) to marry. That is all nice.
I hope that we all take a good look at the speech, and try to live the dream. I hope that the speech will start to resonate with blacks too. Sure they want racism to end, but are they prepared for brotherhood with whites, Or are they stuck on brothahood?
The 10 Commandments
I am so glad that this 10 commandment things looks over. These pseudo-Americans fighting for the reintegration of church and state! Alabamans are pretty stupid people, even if you make it to judge. What is up with this? This is a constitutional no-brainer. The large number of people who support having the ten commandments in a federal building are simply showing their preference for God over country. They are no better than the Anglicans who forced the early American colonists to leave England. Frankly they are - in principle - no better than the Taliban who pulled this same thing, execpt the Americans are civilized enough to not violently follow through.
I am greatful for high courts with common sense.
I am greatful for high courts with common sense.
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Review of Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars
Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations is by now a classic in the theory of just and unjust war. There is a lot in the book that can be agreed with and disagreed with, and I will not trouble here to go in to a lengthy discussion of the book right now, the book has been reviewed over and over again already. The book covers a lot of the things you would want to address when talking about wars and morality. There is ample discussion of when a war is just, and what are just and unjust methods of fighting a war. There is a discussion of nuclear deterrence, emergencies, and terrorism, among many other things.
There is only one thing that would hold me back from recommending this as a good place to start if you want a presentation of a relatively modern academic discussion (from 1977) of what the issues in Just War Theory are - the presentation is a bit hard to follow. The historical illustrations are really helpful, but the discussions are often a bit prolix, and somewhat dense. The book could use to loose a few pages.
It really is a well thought out book, and despite the massive amount of literature that has already built up around it, both favorable and critical, it deserves to be widely read - especially these days when there is so much talk about justice and war, and so little corresponding thought.
There is only one thing that would hold me back from recommending this as a good place to start if you want a presentation of a relatively modern academic discussion (from 1977) of what the issues in Just War Theory are - the presentation is a bit hard to follow. The historical illustrations are really helpful, but the discussions are often a bit prolix, and somewhat dense. The book could use to loose a few pages.
It really is a well thought out book, and despite the massive amount of literature that has already built up around it, both favorable and critical, it deserves to be widely read - especially these days when there is so much talk about justice and war, and so little corresponding thought.
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Spotted at the UN
Today I ran to the UN where there was a silent demonstration in front of the building, inside the complex. It was a memorial of sorts for the people who were killed in the recent bombing in Iraq. I saw Kofi Anan marching there with about 200 other people.
2001 in Bryant Park
Movie in Bryant Park
Last night I saw 2001: A Space Oddesy in Bryant Park (Thanks to the sponser HBO). I love those free shows in the park. I try to take in at least one each summer. 2001 was a great movie, and it was great seeing it on the big screen. If I were in a more philosophical mood I could ramble on about the movie for pages, but I am not quite in the mood for that now. There were a few annoying people there, but overall it was nice. To see one you have to get there early, though I think last night was the last one for the season.
Monday, August 25, 2003
Review of Rushkoff's Nothing Sacred
Review of Douglas Rushkoff's Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism
As a general rule, one should always worry when someone tells you they are going to tell you the truth - even when that someone is Douglas Rushkoff. Rushkoff is one of the modern geniuses of the study of the media and our relation to it. His earlier works were not just books, but events in the study of society. So when he writes a book about Judaism, even one with such a suspicious title, it behooves us to take notice.
The book starts out giving us Rushkoff's view of what Judaism is. For him, it can be boiled down to three, and only three things: 1) iconoclasm 2) monotheism, and 3) social justice. He demonstrates this by giving us selective examples of all three from the bible and Jewish literature and history. Then, in chapter two, he goes on to ask how Judaism "lost it", or lost our focus on the above three goals. He is especially concerned about loosing Judaisms iconoclasm which was a product of open, free, and supported rational inquiry. Basically he blames contemporary Jewish practice for stifling this inquiry. He claims that we have replaced openness (and pluralism) with dogma and insularity.
Chapter three then claims that there is a long history of improvements as the process of renaissances. Moreover, he integrates this well inside of the Jewish tradition. The book then argues for an "open source Judaism" which will allow us to see things more multi-dimensionally. He then advocates a sort of abandonment of tradition such as to allow the important stuff in Judaism, ie, social justice and iconoclasm, to flourish, even at the expense of everything else.
There is then a sort of digression to stave off the objection that Judaism is a race and therefore ought to be preserved as one. The chapter claims it is not a race, but something else. Therefore he concludes that it is then OK to share Judaism's core values with others, even if it means we all become the same (ie, we assimilate ourselves and our values for the sake of perpetuating Judaism's core memes of iconoclasm and social justice.)
The fifth chapter is more normative. It enjoins us to establish a collective narrative. It insists on open exchanges and constant critical dialogue. The chapter asserts that everything is open to reinterpretation. The idea is that we should strive to reinterpret the old narratives as openly as possible. Rushkoff goes on to then say that to do this we need access to the original texts and their original contexts. Instead of seeing our places in Judaism as a link in the long process of Judaism, what we need to do is to take the original Judaism and imagine we are the first interpreters, and ours is the generation that it ought to be interpreted for. Then we will be able to take the original vales and apply it to today and it will be meaningful to us, and will promote Judaism's true values.
My problems with the book are many, and I will state a few of them here. (1) First, and this is a pet peeve of mine - one should not think they can successfully get away with reverse engineering Judaism to discover its core values. It is both the book's premise and its conclusion, that there are core values and that they were figured out. The task is always dangerous because there is no way to be right and no way to be wrong. Generally people know what they want the answer to be and find the examples they need to get to it. If I had every book whose opening chapter told me what the author thought the real "essence" of Judaism was, I would have an enormous Judaica collection. For some it is saving the whales, for other the ecology, for others it is serving God, for some it is about bring the messiah, honoring your ancestors, voting democrat, entertaining the world, singing, or smoking marihuana. I have never bought in to any of those and I don't buy it now. The three core values for Rushkoff iconoclasm, monotheism, and social justice are interesting choices, but sound very agenda-laden especially since monotheism (all theism, actually) seems to get lost over the course of the book. Moreover, iconoclasm seems like it was a good stepping stone for monotheism. Monotheism does seem important and probably was one of the main goes somewhere along the line. And, social justice is clearly anachronistic. There is certainly an ancient idea of making the world better for the Jews, and even of making the world better (though that must have come later). But it seems odd to put that as a main goal. There are enough references to "l'takin olam bemalchut shaddai" (to fix the world within the kingdom of heaven) to suggest that there is an idealist conception of a Jewish reaching out to spread word and practice of our God to the world, and this is taken up by some, but this cannot be generalized to social justice. Moreover the name itself is very anachronistic. The term "social justice" congers up images of Jewish-lefty-bundist-arbiter-ring-style social thought. This could hardly have been the intension of whoever first uttered "tikkun olam".
(2) Why stick with social justice any more than anything else? Perhaps we should stick with the kosher laws, or the family purity laws, or the holiday laws. Maybe we should make up our own laws, call that Judaism, in the "very Jewish tradition of free inquiry" and promote those? Under the books understanding of Judaism anything can really be construed as Judaism. And if we are allowing that what does Judaism really have to do with this. If we happen to like a value, what is the point of talking about its authentically Jewish nature? If it is to convince Jews that this is authentic Judaism then you are only going to interest those who are interested in Judaism's original message and those who are interested in your message. Those who are interested in yours do not need Judaism, and those who are interested in the authentic message do not need to be Jews if the message is worthwhile enough.
(3) There have been many trinities in Judaism, by the way. Many look like good candidates. The book's is just as arbitrary as many of the others, it seems. Is there an argument to suggest one over the other? Here are a few: Rav Kook: Jewish Torah, Jewish State, and Jewish people. Big three prohibitions: Idolatry, adultry, murder. Rosh Hashana: Repentance, Prayer, Charity. Jewish Characteristics: modesty, mercifulness, kindness. The pillars of the world: Torah, avoda (service), kindness.
(4) I am very bothered by the book's tone with regard to tradition. Personally I am not a believer in anything. I am barely a practicer of anything, nor am I secretly pleased that there are some out there who carry on "authentic" feeling Judaism. I do things within Judaism that I feel like, and that please me. That's about it. However, it seems like, by sounding so hostile towards tradition, the book disregards one of its own messages of open inquiry. Open inquiry does not mean something that is open only to those who already have the right answer. It is like an open democracy where they only allow one candidate to run, or at the very least, they outlaw some of the candidates. Inquiry, or at least its promotion, is not present if you assert a priori, which answers you will not allow to turn up at the end.
(5) There is an assumption that seems to lurk in the pages that IF one is Jewish, THEN they feel as if they must support Israel. I personally do, but I do not think that one must to be Jewish, or that it is necessary or important for one's Judaism. Judaism has allowed for a multitude of voices on this since the times of Herzl.
(6) Much of the information from this book seems like it was gleaned from the pages of modern new age pop-culture books with trendy titles, and authors who appear on Oprah. (Like Drosnin et al) There seems to be little first-hand familiarity with the workings of the Jewish canon. The corpus of Jewish writing is extensive. To call it multi-faceted would be a massive understatement. Traditional Orthodox interpretation and reinterpretation allows a very wide latitude in reading of the text, especially the kind that Rushkoff seems to innovate here. Few Orthodox Jews would find it hard to look at the 10 plagues and see it as casting off 10 idols. Biblical criticism is at least two millennia older that Spinoza. And Spinoza knew it. Spinoza was following a well worn methodology and style, only his answer was radically different - not his questions. (Hobbes actually got the jump on Spinoza on the biblical criticism question anyway.)
There is a much more obvious reading of Maimonides' Mishne Torah that Rushkoff misses, which makes the exact opposite point that the book is making. Maimonides on one very important level strove to CLOSE discussion on Jewish law. The talmud is a work with lots of stuff in it. There are stories, legends, parables, discussions, gossip, textual analysis, philosophy, and discussions about Jewish law. The discussions have ambiguities, open questions, many more points of view then actually get full treatment, and their inclusion is conscious on the part of the editors of the Talmud. So much was deliberately left open ended to allow for a reinterpretation. Moreover, those familiar with the story of the oven of Achnai, know that the rabbis made sure that the law is not fixed in heaven, but rather open to their constant revisions and reinterpretations. The Talmud is VERY clear about the living nature of the law. There are also few final pronouncements thus allowing for many possible loopholes and interpretations, and directions that can be taken from the text itself.
One can even argue that in that way the talmud is very philosophical rather than dogmatic. It records all the arguments and reasons, rather then the law itself. What is important for the editors of the Talmud, what they needed to preserve for eternity is the debate - regardless of what the outcome or practice is.
Maimonides sought to replace all that with a simple, closed, and fixed text from which you can get all law. Gone was the discussion. Gone was the idea that critical inquiry was valuable. Now all one needed was to see what Maimonides said the final ruling was and you had Jewish law. Maimonides goal was to replace dialogue with dogma. This was done for the masses as well as the intellectual. However for the intellectual there was an elaborate and sophisticated justification of this in the Guide for the Perplexed where obstacles to the first project were removed.
(7) There are a few places where the book makes assertions about Jews that reflect only on those Jews least in need of the program it is advocating (ie the educated and practicing). There are pronouncements for example that the Shabetai Zevi story was "erased from our history". This is preposterous. Everyone with a halfway decent Jewish education knows this. Certainly anyone who spent enough years in Hebrew school or read a few Jewish books in her life. It was a central part of Jewish history. The only way you could not know about him is 1) if you spent too few years in Hebrew School, 2) you do not remember what you were taught in Hebrew school, 3) you went to a Hebrew school where the teachers were not more educated then the students, or 4) you read zero books on Jewish history.
(8) The issue of race comes up a lot in the book, as if for some reason it came as a big revelation to the author that Jews do not see themselves as a product of a race. Israeli society is plagued with racism (discovering this was actually one of the biggest disillusiong moments of my life). WASPs (White Ashkenazi Sabras with Protectsia) are higher up on the social ladder than the Arab or north African Jews, and they both see themselves as higher than the Yemenite, or black Ethiopian Jews. But they all see each other as Jews. Jews of different races, yes, but Jews nonetheless. (Initially there was much debate of their Ethiopian Jews, but what was at issue was their linage as Jews, not their race. Everyone, except for a bunch of anti-Semites knows that Jews are not a race, the existence of race itself is hotly debated among those in the know, but it is not clear why so much time is spent debunking this.
The reason why he deals with race at all is that he makes the dubious claim that only Jews, ie the Jewish race should feel so special such that they should share their religion with others. It is not like anyone thinks that having non-Jews do some Jewish things is wrong. What is wrong if non-Jews give charity, or celebrate the Passover or whatever?
(9) I really do like the final chapter of the book. That is the chapter that recommends a fresh approach to looking at Judaism. I believe that it is not original in the sense that there are long traditions of modifying services and rituals, and textual interpretation to accommodate the times. The Orthodox do it, as do the unaffiliated and everyone in between, but it does promote a large awareness of what is going on, which I like.
It would be nice to see a more tolerance for different voices, not just the "correct" one. The correct voice, if there is one, that is the voice that is most appropriate for the time, will, as Rushkoff puts it, naturally emerge from the multitude of voices that speak out on every topic. Beyond that it is hard to imagine what the correct voice is. It cannot be the original intention in the original context, because we do not share their world, so their world view is useless. We also do not share their priorities, and you would have to make a good case for why we should before you do. So it has to just be the interpretation that works best for us here and now. But there is nothing that says that there is a unique correct interpretation. A central principle of Talmudic hermeneutics is "eilu v'eilu divrei elohim chaim". "Both these and those are the words are the living God." There are lots of things that count as the right interpretation. It behooves us to find them all, no doubt.
There are also numerous smaller problems in the book most of which I shall not deal with. However the problems range from the factual like Napolean's death had little to do with the status of the Jews, and the last Czar was incorrect in the book, and the Russians wrote The Protocols not the French - To the very strange misrepresentations of the Hebrew language (YHWH and avoda, for examples). Also, while "oz" does indeed mean "strength" in Hebrew, the Uzi was named after its inventor Uziel Gal (nicknamed "Uzi"). And there is an annoying caveat pertaining to nomenclature, but I feel a need to point it out: Shabetai Zevi is never referred to as Zevi in the scholarly or Jewish literature. Nor is Rabbi Nathan of Gaza referred to simply as "Rabbi Nathan".
In closing, it is not clear what in the book is supposed to be innovative. The theology and scholarly methodology is used in everywhere in the Jewish world from the hassidic yeshiva, to the secular university, where everything from source-critical apparatus to mystical interpretations are employed, often side-by side. Sometimes the goal is to find the original intent of the author, sometimes the intent is to translate it in to modern lessons. Sometimes it is filtered through the lens of scores of generations, sometimes it is brand new commentary straight from the original. The book's values are nice, though they seem more to try to fit social justice and iconoclasm in to a Jewish mold rather than to take them out of one. There are equally plausible cases that could be made for Judaism's conservative nature than its iconoclastic one. There are also easily made cases that Jews were more interested in themselves than saving nations that they were planning on being a light to.
But, on a more positive note, I really do love the "open source" metaphor for Jewish inquiry. The open source philosophy blurrs the boundary between creator and user which was, by the way the original reason that the oral law was oral - so as not to become rigidified on a text. Traditional software generally has one creator, and the program is static. The user then has to deal with whatever software she is given. Open source allows the user to modify the software as she needs to. There is nothing sacred about the source code. The source code is not copy protected with all the security and legal apparatus that usually comes with it. Open source Judaism also encourages each individual to make any contribution that he wants. Popular tweaks will be picke up by others and catch on. Of course it is innately difficult to modify the source code. To do so you must first have a good understanding of the original intent and language of the source. You can't modify the code if you don't understand the program. With Judaism you can only make a change if you are perceived as understanding it. Illiterate Jews cannot really impact the religion. Who would listen? (Though there have been a few possible exceptions.)
While this is a wonderful metaphor, it is hardly a new concept. Judaism, like other religions can be well described by the open source terminology and can be modeled within the rubric of open source philosophy. There was an initial program. This Kernel (a core of the program protected by some administrator that is accepted as cannonical) was a general program (whatever that was). The "protector" of the kernel was pretty conservative. Each generation adds its own features and changes and modifies it, and the popular ones are picked up by all and the unpopular ones are discarded. The whole process has being going on in Jewish law since the beginning, and even those who think that strictly Orthodox Judaism has never done that would do well to read the historians of Halacha (say Jacob Katz's Divine Law in Human Hands or The Shabbos Goy or more importantly the Soloveitchik "Rupture and reconstruction" paper of a few years ago). On a larger scale, Diaspora Judaism itself has fractured in to three major groups, and Israeli Judaism has taken up Zionism and other "denominations". Each rift can be easily modeled as a new step in the evolution of the Judaism program. There are many ways to use the open source concept to describe these.
But either way, the book is a fresh reminder of the value of a Jewish education and the benefits of a healthy debate in Jewish practice and theology. Debate is vital to the tradition, and Rushkoff should be commended for taking such a decisive stand in it.
As a general rule, one should always worry when someone tells you they are going to tell you the truth - even when that someone is Douglas Rushkoff. Rushkoff is one of the modern geniuses of the study of the media and our relation to it. His earlier works were not just books, but events in the study of society. So when he writes a book about Judaism, even one with such a suspicious title, it behooves us to take notice.
The book starts out giving us Rushkoff's view of what Judaism is. For him, it can be boiled down to three, and only three things: 1) iconoclasm 2) monotheism, and 3) social justice. He demonstrates this by giving us selective examples of all three from the bible and Jewish literature and history. Then, in chapter two, he goes on to ask how Judaism "lost it", or lost our focus on the above three goals. He is especially concerned about loosing Judaisms iconoclasm which was a product of open, free, and supported rational inquiry. Basically he blames contemporary Jewish practice for stifling this inquiry. He claims that we have replaced openness (and pluralism) with dogma and insularity.
Chapter three then claims that there is a long history of improvements as the process of renaissances. Moreover, he integrates this well inside of the Jewish tradition. The book then argues for an "open source Judaism" which will allow us to see things more multi-dimensionally. He then advocates a sort of abandonment of tradition such as to allow the important stuff in Judaism, ie, social justice and iconoclasm, to flourish, even at the expense of everything else.
There is then a sort of digression to stave off the objection that Judaism is a race and therefore ought to be preserved as one. The chapter claims it is not a race, but something else. Therefore he concludes that it is then OK to share Judaism's core values with others, even if it means we all become the same (ie, we assimilate ourselves and our values for the sake of perpetuating Judaism's core memes of iconoclasm and social justice.)
The fifth chapter is more normative. It enjoins us to establish a collective narrative. It insists on open exchanges and constant critical dialogue. The chapter asserts that everything is open to reinterpretation. The idea is that we should strive to reinterpret the old narratives as openly as possible. Rushkoff goes on to then say that to do this we need access to the original texts and their original contexts. Instead of seeing our places in Judaism as a link in the long process of Judaism, what we need to do is to take the original Judaism and imagine we are the first interpreters, and ours is the generation that it ought to be interpreted for. Then we will be able to take the original vales and apply it to today and it will be meaningful to us, and will promote Judaism's true values.
My problems with the book are many, and I will state a few of them here. (1) First, and this is a pet peeve of mine - one should not think they can successfully get away with reverse engineering Judaism to discover its core values. It is both the book's premise and its conclusion, that there are core values and that they were figured out. The task is always dangerous because there is no way to be right and no way to be wrong. Generally people know what they want the answer to be and find the examples they need to get to it. If I had every book whose opening chapter told me what the author thought the real "essence" of Judaism was, I would have an enormous Judaica collection. For some it is saving the whales, for other the ecology, for others it is serving God, for some it is about bring the messiah, honoring your ancestors, voting democrat, entertaining the world, singing, or smoking marihuana. I have never bought in to any of those and I don't buy it now. The three core values for Rushkoff iconoclasm, monotheism, and social justice are interesting choices, but sound very agenda-laden especially since monotheism (all theism, actually) seems to get lost over the course of the book. Moreover, iconoclasm seems like it was a good stepping stone for monotheism. Monotheism does seem important and probably was one of the main goes somewhere along the line. And, social justice is clearly anachronistic. There is certainly an ancient idea of making the world better for the Jews, and even of making the world better (though that must have come later). But it seems odd to put that as a main goal. There are enough references to "l'takin olam bemalchut shaddai" (to fix the world within the kingdom of heaven) to suggest that there is an idealist conception of a Jewish reaching out to spread word and practice of our God to the world, and this is taken up by some, but this cannot be generalized to social justice. Moreover the name itself is very anachronistic. The term "social justice" congers up images of Jewish-lefty-bundist-arbiter-ring-style social thought. This could hardly have been the intension of whoever first uttered "tikkun olam".
(2) Why stick with social justice any more than anything else? Perhaps we should stick with the kosher laws, or the family purity laws, or the holiday laws. Maybe we should make up our own laws, call that Judaism, in the "very Jewish tradition of free inquiry" and promote those? Under the books understanding of Judaism anything can really be construed as Judaism. And if we are allowing that what does Judaism really have to do with this. If we happen to like a value, what is the point of talking about its authentically Jewish nature? If it is to convince Jews that this is authentic Judaism then you are only going to interest those who are interested in Judaism's original message and those who are interested in your message. Those who are interested in yours do not need Judaism, and those who are interested in the authentic message do not need to be Jews if the message is worthwhile enough.
(3) There have been many trinities in Judaism, by the way. Many look like good candidates. The book's is just as arbitrary as many of the others, it seems. Is there an argument to suggest one over the other? Here are a few: Rav Kook: Jewish Torah, Jewish State, and Jewish people. Big three prohibitions: Idolatry, adultry, murder. Rosh Hashana: Repentance, Prayer, Charity. Jewish Characteristics: modesty, mercifulness, kindness. The pillars of the world: Torah, avoda (service), kindness.
(4) I am very bothered by the book's tone with regard to tradition. Personally I am not a believer in anything. I am barely a practicer of anything, nor am I secretly pleased that there are some out there who carry on "authentic" feeling Judaism. I do things within Judaism that I feel like, and that please me. That's about it. However, it seems like, by sounding so hostile towards tradition, the book disregards one of its own messages of open inquiry. Open inquiry does not mean something that is open only to those who already have the right answer. It is like an open democracy where they only allow one candidate to run, or at the very least, they outlaw some of the candidates. Inquiry, or at least its promotion, is not present if you assert a priori, which answers you will not allow to turn up at the end.
(5) There is an assumption that seems to lurk in the pages that IF one is Jewish, THEN they feel as if they must support Israel. I personally do, but I do not think that one must to be Jewish, or that it is necessary or important for one's Judaism. Judaism has allowed for a multitude of voices on this since the times of Herzl.
(6) Much of the information from this book seems like it was gleaned from the pages of modern new age pop-culture books with trendy titles, and authors who appear on Oprah. (Like Drosnin et al) There seems to be little first-hand familiarity with the workings of the Jewish canon. The corpus of Jewish writing is extensive. To call it multi-faceted would be a massive understatement. Traditional Orthodox interpretation and reinterpretation allows a very wide latitude in reading of the text, especially the kind that Rushkoff seems to innovate here. Few Orthodox Jews would find it hard to look at the 10 plagues and see it as casting off 10 idols. Biblical criticism is at least two millennia older that Spinoza. And Spinoza knew it. Spinoza was following a well worn methodology and style, only his answer was radically different - not his questions. (Hobbes actually got the jump on Spinoza on the biblical criticism question anyway.)
There is a much more obvious reading of Maimonides' Mishne Torah that Rushkoff misses, which makes the exact opposite point that the book is making. Maimonides on one very important level strove to CLOSE discussion on Jewish law. The talmud is a work with lots of stuff in it. There are stories, legends, parables, discussions, gossip, textual analysis, philosophy, and discussions about Jewish law. The discussions have ambiguities, open questions, many more points of view then actually get full treatment, and their inclusion is conscious on the part of the editors of the Talmud. So much was deliberately left open ended to allow for a reinterpretation. Moreover, those familiar with the story of the oven of Achnai, know that the rabbis made sure that the law is not fixed in heaven, but rather open to their constant revisions and reinterpretations. The Talmud is VERY clear about the living nature of the law. There are also few final pronouncements thus allowing for many possible loopholes and interpretations, and directions that can be taken from the text itself.
One can even argue that in that way the talmud is very philosophical rather than dogmatic. It records all the arguments and reasons, rather then the law itself. What is important for the editors of the Talmud, what they needed to preserve for eternity is the debate - regardless of what the outcome or practice is.
Maimonides sought to replace all that with a simple, closed, and fixed text from which you can get all law. Gone was the discussion. Gone was the idea that critical inquiry was valuable. Now all one needed was to see what Maimonides said the final ruling was and you had Jewish law. Maimonides goal was to replace dialogue with dogma. This was done for the masses as well as the intellectual. However for the intellectual there was an elaborate and sophisticated justification of this in the Guide for the Perplexed where obstacles to the first project were removed.
(7) There are a few places where the book makes assertions about Jews that reflect only on those Jews least in need of the program it is advocating (ie the educated and practicing). There are pronouncements for example that the Shabetai Zevi story was "erased from our history". This is preposterous. Everyone with a halfway decent Jewish education knows this. Certainly anyone who spent enough years in Hebrew school or read a few Jewish books in her life. It was a central part of Jewish history. The only way you could not know about him is 1) if you spent too few years in Hebrew School, 2) you do not remember what you were taught in Hebrew school, 3) you went to a Hebrew school where the teachers were not more educated then the students, or 4) you read zero books on Jewish history.
(8) The issue of race comes up a lot in the book, as if for some reason it came as a big revelation to the author that Jews do not see themselves as a product of a race. Israeli society is plagued with racism (discovering this was actually one of the biggest disillusiong moments of my life). WASPs (White Ashkenazi Sabras with Protectsia) are higher up on the social ladder than the Arab or north African Jews, and they both see themselves as higher than the Yemenite, or black Ethiopian Jews. But they all see each other as Jews. Jews of different races, yes, but Jews nonetheless. (Initially there was much debate of their Ethiopian Jews, but what was at issue was their linage as Jews, not their race. Everyone, except for a bunch of anti-Semites knows that Jews are not a race, the existence of race itself is hotly debated among those in the know, but it is not clear why so much time is spent debunking this.
The reason why he deals with race at all is that he makes the dubious claim that only Jews, ie the Jewish race should feel so special such that they should share their religion with others. It is not like anyone thinks that having non-Jews do some Jewish things is wrong. What is wrong if non-Jews give charity, or celebrate the Passover or whatever?
(9) I really do like the final chapter of the book. That is the chapter that recommends a fresh approach to looking at Judaism. I believe that it is not original in the sense that there are long traditions of modifying services and rituals, and textual interpretation to accommodate the times. The Orthodox do it, as do the unaffiliated and everyone in between, but it does promote a large awareness of what is going on, which I like.
It would be nice to see a more tolerance for different voices, not just the "correct" one. The correct voice, if there is one, that is the voice that is most appropriate for the time, will, as Rushkoff puts it, naturally emerge from the multitude of voices that speak out on every topic. Beyond that it is hard to imagine what the correct voice is. It cannot be the original intention in the original context, because we do not share their world, so their world view is useless. We also do not share their priorities, and you would have to make a good case for why we should before you do. So it has to just be the interpretation that works best for us here and now. But there is nothing that says that there is a unique correct interpretation. A central principle of Talmudic hermeneutics is "eilu v'eilu divrei elohim chaim". "Both these and those are the words are the living God." There are lots of things that count as the right interpretation. It behooves us to find them all, no doubt.
There are also numerous smaller problems in the book most of which I shall not deal with. However the problems range from the factual like Napolean's death had little to do with the status of the Jews, and the last Czar was incorrect in the book, and the Russians wrote The Protocols not the French - To the very strange misrepresentations of the Hebrew language (YHWH and avoda, for examples). Also, while "oz" does indeed mean "strength" in Hebrew, the Uzi was named after its inventor Uziel Gal (nicknamed "Uzi"). And there is an annoying caveat pertaining to nomenclature, but I feel a need to point it out: Shabetai Zevi is never referred to as Zevi in the scholarly or Jewish literature. Nor is Rabbi Nathan of Gaza referred to simply as "Rabbi Nathan".
In closing, it is not clear what in the book is supposed to be innovative. The theology and scholarly methodology is used in everywhere in the Jewish world from the hassidic yeshiva, to the secular university, where everything from source-critical apparatus to mystical interpretations are employed, often side-by side. Sometimes the goal is to find the original intent of the author, sometimes the intent is to translate it in to modern lessons. Sometimes it is filtered through the lens of scores of generations, sometimes it is brand new commentary straight from the original. The book's values are nice, though they seem more to try to fit social justice and iconoclasm in to a Jewish mold rather than to take them out of one. There are equally plausible cases that could be made for Judaism's conservative nature than its iconoclastic one. There are also easily made cases that Jews were more interested in themselves than saving nations that they were planning on being a light to.
But, on a more positive note, I really do love the "open source" metaphor for Jewish inquiry. The open source philosophy blurrs the boundary between creator and user which was, by the way the original reason that the oral law was oral - so as not to become rigidified on a text. Traditional software generally has one creator, and the program is static. The user then has to deal with whatever software she is given. Open source allows the user to modify the software as she needs to. There is nothing sacred about the source code. The source code is not copy protected with all the security and legal apparatus that usually comes with it. Open source Judaism also encourages each individual to make any contribution that he wants. Popular tweaks will be picke up by others and catch on. Of course it is innately difficult to modify the source code. To do so you must first have a good understanding of the original intent and language of the source. You can't modify the code if you don't understand the program. With Judaism you can only make a change if you are perceived as understanding it. Illiterate Jews cannot really impact the religion. Who would listen? (Though there have been a few possible exceptions.)
While this is a wonderful metaphor, it is hardly a new concept. Judaism, like other religions can be well described by the open source terminology and can be modeled within the rubric of open source philosophy. There was an initial program. This Kernel (a core of the program protected by some administrator that is accepted as cannonical) was a general program (whatever that was). The "protector" of the kernel was pretty conservative. Each generation adds its own features and changes and modifies it, and the popular ones are picked up by all and the unpopular ones are discarded. The whole process has being going on in Jewish law since the beginning, and even those who think that strictly Orthodox Judaism has never done that would do well to read the historians of Halacha (say Jacob Katz's Divine Law in Human Hands or The Shabbos Goy or more importantly the Soloveitchik "Rupture and reconstruction" paper of a few years ago). On a larger scale, Diaspora Judaism itself has fractured in to three major groups, and Israeli Judaism has taken up Zionism and other "denominations". Each rift can be easily modeled as a new step in the evolution of the Judaism program. There are many ways to use the open source concept to describe these.
But either way, the book is a fresh reminder of the value of a Jewish education and the benefits of a healthy debate in Jewish practice and theology. Debate is vital to the tradition, and Rushkoff should be commended for taking such a decisive stand in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
