mentalblog.com comments:
Sadly, this is a very predictable response from a YU reviewer. First of all, it is intellectually dishonest. The book never proports to be a "guide to hassidism in America" and the author is very explicit in her introduction that the "rebels" might constitute a minority, but an important one nonetheless. Further, while the reviewer tries hard (to what effect, one wonders) to demonstrate his own postmodern credentials by employing terms like "script," "text" and "unpack," his review does little to illuminate or address the actual issues raised by the book: namely why people "rebel," what the experience is like, and the treatment some receive by their families and communities for doing so. The reviewer seems to willfully misrepresent the author's intentions and experiences--by claiming, for example, without any evidence, that she was "exhausted by her impotence" and "browbeaten by her travails photogrpahing bridges" (where on earth did he get this? And the comparison to terrorists is equally silly and melodramatic). And when he says that "Leah can step in and account for the rampant sexual molestation who (as Winston claims, as opposed to Modern Orthodox people) keep the archaic sexual laws of Niddah" he is writing fiction. Nowhere is this statement made about the Modern Orthodox and Niddah, and in no way does Leah, or anyone else in the book, tie sexual molestation to the observance of those laws. It is almost as if the reviewer is anticipating and responding to an argument that is never actally made by the author. If the reviewer's quarrel with the book is that it fails to present the findings in a positivisitic, scientistic way, this is something that can be debated. But let's not confuse presentation with substance. And to try to discredit people's experience by claiming that they are insane is a tactic that betrays nothing more than the reviewer's unwillingness to confront some of the more serious issues raised by these people's stories. What of the intense pressure to conform, the confusion, rejection, and the abuse described by these people? Are these unworthy of mention? Or is it just more convenient to belittle them (and the author, for that matter) as "misfits" whose experiences have absolutely nothing to do with the context in which they were raised. It would have been nice to see something different, but again, this may be too much to ask.
I am not sure what's up with the YU Commentator subscription but here is the full text of Josh Harrison review:
The picture on the cover of Hella Winston's new book shows a Hassid traveling across the Brooklyn Bridge, a bag of street clothes in hand. His walk seems to spur the walk of the brave ethnographer. If the Hassid can cross the chasm into Manhattan, can not the graduate student cross the same chasm into the recondite realm of Hassidic Williamsburg?
Hella Winston begins her journey with this image and its beckoning power fresh in mind. Eschewing relationships with easy to reach Lubavitchers, she goes into the deepest darkest Boro Park, Tzniusdikke clothes in hand, a backwards reflection of the ever beckoning and ever leaving Brooklyn Bridge Hassid.
This is a promising start, and yet, uneasiness grabs us even here. Subtle disorientation at the beginning of the journey multiplies into a web of confusions. For instance, the (staged) photo shows the Hassid crossing the Brooklyn Bridge and not the Williamsburg. One would expect the less iconic and more likely. Indeed, the Williamsburg Bridge pierces the heart of the pulsating Satmar community, slicing right to the Marcy houses and mere blocks from the competing battlements of Rodney and Hooper. Compared to this convenient crossing, the Brooklyn Bridge seems positively a schlep. This subtle geographic and marketing ruse begins the sideways journey of Hella Winston.
Hella Winston never wanted to talk to all those highly marketed and highly accessible Lubavitchers. Unfortunately, she could not yet decipher the all-too-difficult script of Satmar. We can only imagine her confusion with the Yiddish idiom and the subtle differences between the old Rabbis of Williamsburg; leaders who, despite their sometimes different views, must have looked all too similar to Winston. The "text" of Satmar would not give even from the angle she initially specialized in, that of the women. As Winston notes in her first chapter, many of the Satmar women even seemed content in their lives. Now, understanding such a phenomenon as happy Satmar women in 21st century America could prove a daunting task, reminiscent of the famous "I am a Parrot" debates that so plague the field of rationality and religion. Winston, neither a multicolored parrot, nor a monochromatic Satmar woman, didn't seem able to unpack this difficult, if promising topic.
Back in Manhattan, Hella Winston found Yossi, and Yossi gets to be the central character of the book. Yossi went to Manhattan across some bridge (I refuse to speculate) and cut off his peyos. As his sidelocks dangled to the floor, so did his friendship with the secular Yiddishists who had begun to bring him into their Upper West Side conclaves. Shorn of his distinctive garb and changed from his peyos, he no longer appealed to their desire for novelty and absurdity.
Enter the graduate student, browbeaten from her travails photographing bridges (something terrorists also seem wont to do, we are meant to believe). Exasperated from her impotence in cracking the mysterious code that somehow distinguishes Montevideo from Munkatch, she found in the peyos shorn Yossi a savior.
Indeed, from the moment she met Yossi, Hella began working on a new kind of true fiction novel. In this plot, she would counsel and help her ex-Hassidic "friend" in his illogical travels over the Brooklyn Bridge. In return, he would act as a sort of Rosetta stone, deciphering the hieroglyphs of Hassidism.
Slightly wrong directions are only slightly incorrect for a short time. Eventually, errors accrue, confusion accumulates, and we begin to describe ourselves as lost. In Hella Winston's case, meeting Yossi was the wrong turn. She decided to use someone who consciously rejected Hassidism as her guide to Hassidism in America. Indeed, as if to make her findings more impressionistic, Hella eventually teamed up with Malkie Schwartz, a woman who helps Hassidim who have strayed integrate into American society. Eventually, Malkie and Hella engage in a series of capers to "save" a seemingly insane Yossi from possibly killing himself.
When the story doesn't focus on the crazy adventures of Yossi and Malkie, it seems to zero in on similarly eclectic characters. For instance, one chapter of the book focuses on "repeatedly molested" Leah who grew up in Satmar and left to become Modern Orthodox. Another chapter is the story of a Yitzchak who also refused to believe and embraced Modern Orthodoxy.
Going back and forth between Yossi and Malkie and Leah and Yitzchak, what the book omits is the rest of the Hassidic community. While it might be a non-sequitor to say that whoever is not included is excluded, it is important to point out glaring and unbelievable omissions on the part of an author that excludes what by all rights should be included. Indeed, Winston goes as far as to begin her book by telling us that most Satmar women looked happy before giving up on this line of inquiry altogether. Her selection focuses in on the dysfunctional rejects of the community without dealing with the vast majority of rank and file followers. The experience of someone who has to be committed to a mental ward in the middle of the book should not be labeled "the Hasidic experience" or the "Hasidic rebel experience." Yet, this seems close to the claim that Winston makes for Yossi. Yossi, who has a drink named after him, is the model for everyone who is cynical of their religious weltanschauung. If this model isn't wide enough, Leah can step in, and account for the rampant sexual molestation that those Haredim who (Winston claims, as opposed to Modern Orthodox people) keep the archaic sexual laws of Niddah.
Perhaps the problem I have with Winston's approach and with her focus on Yossi is the transformation of the counterintuitive to the intuitive. After all, even if our common humanity and foibles sometimes constitute a valuable starting point, the ending point of the researcher's endeavor is separation, categorization and taxonomy and Yossi and his ilk do not tell us as much difference as sameness. It is as if Winston is seriously endeavoring to prove that shtreimels don't prevent someone from being human.
-Josh Harrison
"It is as if Winston is seriously endeavoring to prove that shtreimels don't prevent someone from being human."
The irony in this statement is that most of the people who would view themselves as "rebels" want desperately to be seen and understood as "human," with all that implies.
If you take a look at (the famous) Hasidic Rebel's recently resurrected blog (www.hasidicrebel.blogspot.com) this is precisely the point he makes in response to the book.
Nu, so were you at the Bostoner chasunah last night (in Willy)?
I did not read the book.
Frankly in a community numbering over 100,000 people and most of them young, the fact that some of the youth are in a rebellion is of little interest to me.(Exactly how amny is unclear too)
Unless the author can prove or seeks to prove some underlying cause or causes for disatisfaction in the Chasidic community, we are only treated to some interesting vignettes of Chassidic youth in rebellion.
Don't get me wrong I think there are serious issues that could have been raised (the death of the 1st generation of post War rebbes , economic prosperity reaching many Chasidim , loss of faith in anti Zionism (Satmar) or Messiah (Chabad ) etc.
But from the reviews I read it seems she is out to show that "boys will be boys". So what else is new ?
Maybe you should read the book before making pronouncements/conclusions, which are based on the writings of others. That would be a good idea, no?
Quick factual note.
Josh Harrison makes a big deal about the fact that the photo is of a Chossid on the Brooklyn Bridge. He finds this to be incredibly improbable, as he thinks a real Chossid would only take the Williamsburg Bridge. When I worked in lower Manhattan, I used to walk across the bridge all the time during lunch or after work. For the record, a Chossid on the Brooklyn Bridge is not an uncommon sight.
Schneur--Do you really think you can "prove" an underlying cause of dissatisfaction? Human beings are a little too complicated to be reduced in this way. Some reasons for dissatisfaction (raised in the book): oppressive social control; denial or stifling of individuality; limited intellectual opportunity; a desire to interact with other kinds of people and cultures; the messianism of Lubavitch; abuse--just to name a few.
Emotionally sad passage of life…
Schneur;
You list anti-Zionism and meshiachism as failed "beliefs". The full list of failed ideologies is long. Secular Jews are also languishing with the failed "isms": Zionism, socialism, post-Zionism, materialism...
It looks as if we live in an age where comfortable ideologies are fading for everyone.
Since I didn't read the book either, I can only comment on the cover photo. Walking over the Brooklyn Bridge to Manhattan is not likely to lead to happiness.
Pmh, in a long list of Jewish travels was there a destination that brought "happiness"? It all depends on individual luck.
Pmh--Quite the contrary. If the weather is agreeable, such an expedition will afford the pedestrian majestic views of lower Manhattan and the harbor, which, in my experience, can inspire great pleasure, and even something like happiness.
Everything HRfan lists can be said about other Jewish groups like the Yeshiva world,(perhaos even about the right wing of the MO world) the world of Baale teshuva and about many "fundamentalsit" Christian groups . I dare ask what makes Chassidim different ?If that is true then why do we need a special book about Chassidc Jews lets write a book about dissent in fundamentalsit religious groups in the USA !
I can write that youths have drug issues in Ritzy areas of Los Angeles and that Chassidim have drug issues but the causes are different.
I suspect (again based on reviews and Fluff pieces which heralded this book as showing a SIGNIFICANT amount of dissent in the Chassidic commuity, again I do not know if this really is the author's goal)) that the author spent several years working on this book and thus became an instant expert on the community. I doubt she can tell me the distinction between Satmar and the NK, or who the Vishnitzer Mordim are , or the relationship of Skwira to Satmar .Perhaps she is the exception. I hope so.
My past experiences with academic researchers in Hasidim especially from a sociological and anthropological vantage point has been that these "scholars" know little of the intricacies of the Chasidic community.They do good methodological work , but can hardly be depended on as being canaries in detecting behavior swings in that community.
As far as reading the book I wish I had time to read everything I am interested in. Halevai !!!
But I think many people will tell you that I know a bit about the chassidic condition in the States , so I chose to comment.
I just want to add this. I do not live in Brooklyn nor am I a Non-Chabad chasid, but have many Chassidic friends in Bobov, Satmar, Skver, Belz and Klausenberg. I enjoy intimate friendships with several of these people.
Of course many young people have interests that are not in line in community norms.And given the growth in the commuity , that group has increased as well.
But let me add I have met many many young chassidim who are so knowledgeable of Chassiduth - customs history , philosophy and of East Europe that I am floored. In addition many are "great" talmide chachomim" They know more than their parents and are more committd into the outward manifestations than their elders too.
So its a double edged sword.
Finally no where do I criticize the book per se as I have not read it.
All I ask is lets not draw any conclusions about the state of Chassiidm based on a sociological account of a small group of dissenters. If this is not the case than the book may be interesting reading.
Schneur--you are correct to say that one should not make conclusions about the state of Chassidism based on a small group of dissenters. If you did read the book, however, I think you would see that this is not what it claims to do. In fact, its claims are quite modest: to give voice to those whose voices have been left out of the literature, to paraphrase the introduction. That is the book's goal. Perhaps you think these voices are not "worthy" of being heard, and this is where, I suspect, we might disagree. If I am correct, I would ask you respectfully to explain why you think this is the case--is it just because there are dissenters everywhere? Hardly a compelling argument.
As so eloquently clarified by hrfan the book is not claiming to be a definitive description or study on the totality of the contemporary Chassidic experience. Clearly though it has raised the hackles of many pro Chasidists who feel insecure about the perception of Chassidus as something that has no relevance or staying power for our youth.
To them I tell this story,
Once there was a lion that had three cubs. The father lion always told his cubs, "lions are the king of all beasts - everyone trembles before us". The cubs believed their wise and mighty father with trusting and proud hearts. As the cubs grew older and explored further away from their den, they came once to the edge of the forest. Before their eyes there rose up a great wall, the wall of a city of humans. To their utter shock and dismay there painted on the wall were frightful images of big, strong men killing lions with their bare hands.
The foundations of their belief was shaken, they were humbled and just plain scared. They ran home to their father the lion king. "Father!" they cried, "what you told us is not true, Lions are truly the weakest of all, for on the wall of the city we saw only lions being torn alive by the humans." "My sons," said the wise and powerful king as he thoughtfully stroked his great mane, "don't you see, these images serve only to prove our strength. Out of all the inhabitants of the forest these sons of man could prove their strength only by beating us. For what greater achievement is there than to best the greatest and most mighty of all creatures."
Schneur, "who the Vishnitzer Mordim are" and what is "the relationship of Skwira to Satmar"?
It's too bad that one cannot comment at the source. This is a very
obviously biased attack by someone who wouldn't care if he distorted
the facts to make his dogmatic view look straight.
Claiming you at fault for not talking to Lubavitchers is as decrying a
book on Bin Laden for not talking to some moderate Muslim out of
London. The book specifically notes that Lubavitch is different in
many aspects of Satmar and it's Satmar the the book is dealing with.
Also, the book is titled "the hidden lives of Hasidic rebels" and is
in no way a "guide to Hassidism in America".
Could it be that the author didn't even read the book? Did he like
some other Chassidic idiots online base his critique on samples or
other critiques?
HRfan: Your're right. I have done that walk in both directions and remember admiring the view entering Manhattan more than leaving. But as for the nimshal, for most people, there is a poor coorelation between individual wellbeing and what Manhattan offers.
The main indicator that the writer operates from a postmodern persepective is the magic word "narrative". This trumps "script," "text" and "unpack". Postmodernism can only be revealed in coded phrases otherwise the listener would just translate it to reality and reply, "yeah well, that's just your OPINION, man".
I think you are too kind, Pmh, in your assessment of postmodern literary theory.
TA has not defended the book, but merely used this blog as a forum to discuss it. I, however, do know the author. Have you read the book, ygmepis? Because if you had, you would see that the reviewer completely misrepresents it.
Pmh: I don't agree that Zionism is a failed ideology--is the self-consciously classical Labor Zionism of the yishuv era the same Zionism that motivates support of Israel from millions of Jews? No. But Zionism, or overlapping Zionisms, is very healthy.
Nothing to do with anything, but I couldn't help cracking up at seeing this Google ad (third on this site):
Rebbe Sale
New & used Rebbe. aff Check out the deals now!
www.eBay.com
I'm one of the people in Hella's book, I'm not surprised to read some of the very ignorant comments made, seems to me most of you have not even read the book.
I'm not gonna get into this all conversation to prove my self or the context of the book, Plenty of you do a great job here with better writing skills than me, I personaliy do appricaite your aknowledgments - Thank you !!
This book does have allot of negative experience's of people who unfortunately suffered a great deal of emotional and mental/sexual abuse, bringing them to a breakdown in some cases, it is true that allot of those who leave the folds, with there lack of knowledge what it takes to live a different life, end up making some very unhealthy choices, like drinking drugging etc.(read my blog) some seem to miss the point here, its not only about airing dirty laundry, I see it has bringing awareness out in the open and give those of us a voice to be heard, for the communities to wake up and hopefully make some changes,
Its ridicules to say that this book is only about making chassidim look bad and portraying a bad picture on there communities,
This stories are real to us and to many who still live it, Its experiences of human beings who suffered/suffer a great deal, It happens to be they are from those communities, Hella could have well written about Muslims oppression. Duhhh..
"UNCHOSEN" happens to be a book about hasidic rebels.
Paul Freedman; Zionism is not train wreck like socialism in the USSR. But it is not the driving force that it was 1948-1985. Anecdotal evidence? During the intifada, I saw :
1. Many Jews in public life in chutz l'aretz do not speak for or act for Israel. Even worse, they claim they are "brave" by taking an anti-Israel line even thought it is a career enhancing move.
2. Many "little people" feel that Israel is treated unfairly in the media but can't or won't do anything about it.
3. Israeli left-wing intellectuals have committed to Oslowism like the old-style lefties committing to Stalinism. I'm thinking of Beilin as the ring leader.
4. Sharon's abandonment of Gaza and of Likud leaves a sense of bewilderment.
5. The secular machers are timid and evasive about the centrality of Israel.
This list could go on. I can't imagine that the Rebbe would have regarded these developments with indifference.
HRfan; Fear not my kindness in attacking the postmodernism. Postmodern "moral equivalence" is a nihilist, amoral belief system that proclaims nothing matters. It is the foremost "idea so stupid that only an intellectual could believe", to quote Orwell.
ygmepis, do you have any substance to contribute?
Tzemach; the message is the ideological statement. There is not much point in speculatating about "individual luck" because it's unrepeatable. It's not a secret that Chassidic life can be petty and infuriating. But these problems don't prove that the secularism symbolised by the Brooklyn Bridge photoo is a superior alternative.
what is "unrepeatable" is it as english as "unchosen"?
Paul Freedman, most of your points are good although I disagree with the centrality of Israel, this is a modern NCSY invention. But get a load of eHUD Olmert said just this past summer:
"We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies. We want them to be our friends, our partners, our good neighbors."
http://www.ipforum.org/display.c...10&Sub=58&
dis=5
that country is going to the dogs and fast, Sec. Zio. has spent itself out and there's not a even a glimmer of a hope for any type of ideology. Dibs just want to be left alone and arabs just want to slaghter, chas ve'chalila.
"Unrepeatable" simply means that just because one person's individual luck allows him to win a poker game does not mean that you can get the same results. Ergo, luck is not useful for statistics or extrapolation methods.
Pmh, Como Alumosi: objections noted: an easy f'rinstance: Reform Judaism is, supposedly, numerically the largest organized congregational branch of Judaism in the United States and, as far as I can tell, it's leadership thinks the main crises facing Jews today are: 1. fundamentalist Christian intolerance of gay marriage, 2. the moral injustice of the Iraq war.
i get your point, of course, but, to be fair, these concerns stem from Reform's stated commitment to tikkun olam. the Reform Movement has also recently become much more interested in traditional ritual practice and Jewish learning, which some view negstively as a concession to the right, and others a positive step.
HRfan--wellll, I don't know that tikkun olam, before Michael Lerner's reinterpretation, ever meant social rectification--I don't think it was a "prophetic" concept naturally susceptible to Classical Reform-ulation. This phrase, unless I am mistaken, derives from the mystical concept of "tikkun" popularized by students of Isaac Luria--a heartfelt call for "Moshiach now" might well be a more logical extension of the concept than the recent campaigns of Reform leadership--whose emphases and targets continue to baffle me.
Paul F; I find it difficult to accept the notion that modern day Reform has anything to do with normative Judaism. The perversion of "tikkun olam" from Alaynu's "letaken olam bemalchus sh-dei" should be regarded as chutzpah or ignorance. Reform is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Orthodoxy's Responsibility to Perfect God's World by Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth:
http://www.ou.org/public/publib/...blib/
tikkun.htm
Pmh--While you may regard some of the ways in which it is currently being invoked as a perversion of the concept, it is in fact the case that "mipnei tikkun ha-olam" is used in the Mishnah in a way that refers to social policy legislation to provide extra protection to those potentially at a disadvantage (governing, for example, just conditions for the writing of divorce decrees and for the freeing of slaves.) The concept has a different meaning within Jewish mysticism, where it deals with religious acts. The former would seem to provide some justification for social action--the question is, what kind of social action?
HRfan; Good point. But the mishna does not misplace ikkar and toful. Reform does. I didn't go into the Lurianic tikkun. Aleyenu is quite sufficient to point our that the tikun is human activity to repair human problems in order to prepare the world for rulership of the Creator. It may seem a bit odd to the modern reader but this is an ancient and universally accepted statement.
yes, i see your point.
what's this world coming to?
a book review of the Unchosen by KatleKanye on the Algemeiner site!
http://www.algemeiner.com/generi...ric.asp?
id=1005
whatever the merits of the review, KatleKanye’s usage of pesukim and maamorei hazal in framing a humorous phrase is unmatched.
Who took that picture?
Commenting by HaloScan
