Civil Religion in Israel - Essay Example

?Civil Religion in Israel Introduction The Jewish religion represents one of the most complex and richly varied traditions in the Western spiritual tradition. As embodied in Biblical storytelling, and experienced in the nearly 2,000 years of exile, the Judaic religious trajectory is such that in attempting to articulate and examine a researcher can only hope to capture a small element. Indeed, De Lange argues that, “Jews today are more deeply divided than at any time in the past on the theory and practice of their religion. The divisions are visible in the existence of a multiplicity of synagogues in some towns, all proclaiming that they hold the key to true Judaism” (De Lange, pg. 67). In recent history one of the crucial periods of the Judaic tradition was the time immediately surrounding the pre-state and post-state periods. During this period in Jewish history the religion experienced tremendous internal strife and influence from political elements within Judaism that sought that co-opt the traditional Jewish religion for a civil religion that would promote and eventually realize the development of a Jewish state, Israel. This essay argues that during this period the Jewish religion, later civil religion, went through a series of evolutionary patterns in terms of influence and change. The essay explores this evolutionary development from the pre-state period, wherein Zionist elements shifted elements of the religious structure to emphasize statehood; it then considers the statism period wherein Judaism was fully co-opted by the state; and finally, the post-statism period where in a struggle for legitimacy the civil religion was forced to shift back to more traditional values. Throughout this examination of the shifting nature of the civil religion, a number of observations are made, with the overarching contention being that Jewish leaders consciously re-interpreted scripture in accord with political aims. Background One of the primary elements in the evolution of the Jewish religion considers it in relation to the emancipatory movements of the 18th and 19th centuries. In these regards, it’s been indicated that these movements presented a great amount of pressure of Jewish collective identity, having a corresponding effect on Jewish religious practices. In these regards, emphasis on balaka changed considerably, with the emancipation process deemphasizing many of these aspects of Jewish law (Dowty 2001). The main point in these concerns regards was the extent that the Jewish religion in Israel should conform to Western culture and values. In terms of altering Jewish religious practices, the main changes proposed related to whether the Jewish religion should be changed to conform to national standards, or if Judaism should continue to follow its standard tradition. While this had been a long-standing element of concern within Judaism the emancipation movement constituted a pivotal element in this regard. In consider essential elements related to Judaism in the 20th century, this essay argues that one of the primary thematic elements is the dynamic relation between political concerns and religious identity, resulting in philosophic fluctuations regarding Jewish spiritual practices. Early thinkers considered the questions that would later play pivotal roles in terms of the Jewish religion in Israel. In these regards, it’s noted that Haim Yosef Brenner, “denied that Judaism was defined by specific patterns of life or values, or that the Jewish people had any special mission. He refused to recognize secular nationalism as a legitimate transformation of the Jewish traditional and eschewed ‘any ideology offering itself as equivalent to religious belief” (Liebman, pg. 27). This is a view of Judaism that ran counter to Zionist beliefs in a sort of secular nationalism. One must consider the intentions of the Zionist movement in regards to that of traditional Judaism when understanding the divergent patterns. It’s argued that the Zionist concern with attracting supporters and adherents necessitated that it take a more liberal approach to civil religion in what would eventually become the new Jewish state. It was out of this context that Zionist-Socialism emerged as one of the fundamental structural components of civil religion in Israel. For instance, Liebman argues that Zionist-socialism, “provided meaning and purpose to individual existence by mobilizing the individual in the collective effort to establish in the Land of Israel an ideal society based on social equality, social justice, and productive labor” (Liebman, pg. 30). In these regards, the movement worked in terms of oftentimes contrary signification patterns in opposing traditional Judaism. One such element was the envisioning of labor in terms of Judaic values. While it’s easy to simply believe that Zionism function to liberalize traditional Judaism, it’s clear that in ways the striving for a national state, contributed to the firming and redefining of Jewish religious ideals. In these regards, traditional Jewish values that presented the religion as one of exile were reemphasized to demonstrate the centrality of working the land. Liebman writes, “The return to nature was appropriate to a people returning to its own land…the ideal of the land was described as ‘a sense of duty, persistence, endurance, love for the permanent, the real and the firmly rooted’” (Liebman, pg. 32). In other Zionist elements, recurring metaphors of the plant returning to soil. This is an understanding of Zionism not as negating traditional Judaic values, but instead emphasizing values that can function to strengthen the religion and bring it to the forefront of political viability. Other such shifts in signification moved the interpretive emphasis on the sanctity of land from one concerned with heaven to one concerned with the Zionist religion in Israel. Here Zionism does not have perverting effect on Judaism, but instead worked within the religion to develop its civil elements for political viability in the 20th century. Still the irony of this shift in emphasis must be considered as it indicates there is no transcendental signifier or firmly rooted Judaic religious tradition, but rather a series of shifts in linguistic emphasis. While Zionism makes for a clear example of this, it also raises the question of whether their even exists a traditional Judaic religion to which it can be contrasted against, or if new linguistic divisions must be considered in terms of civil religion in Israel. Civil Religion in the New Jewish State While Zionist-Socialism and revisionist trends were foundational in shaping civil religion in Israel, these movements ultimately declined and gave way to new forms of religious evolution. In these regards, statism took over as the central element surrounding civil religion in Israel. While prior to the establishment of the Jewish state a variety of subgroups could exist in cooperation, it’s argued that as the Jewish state was established it necessitated shifts in the nature of the civil religion. Liebman states, The creation of Israel and the tripling of its population in three years led state leaders to feel that the country must be completely integrated; that the value-belief-symbol systems separating the various camps must be abolished and replaced by a unified symbol system uniting the entire Jewish population in support of the state and its institutions (Liebman, pg. 82) While it’s no surprise that the development of a Jewish state should enact similar changes in its civil religion, this shift is notable for a number of reasons. This essay argues that with the development of the Jewish state the major concern with Judaism became less traditional Judaic values being influenced by Zionist trends, than Judaism functioning and conforming to the values of the news state. This is a complex shift within the religious process. While traditional values still were important elements for a number of Jewish practitioners, ultimately the religion had succumbed to the necessity of conforming to state standards, or rather the state succeeding in coopting Zionist standards to the extent that it became a viable civil religion. From this point on the focus would shift from one of competing religious standards, to one of conforming to state practices. It’s this interaction that would now constitute the predominant philosophical concerns of the Jewish civil religion in the 20th century. The next crucial element in the evolution of the Jewish religion is the reworking of signification patterns to reach out to the newly arrived immigrant populations. In unifying these characteristics, Liebman states, “socializing these immigrants to the values and symbols of one subculture or another there was a danger that they might miss the sense of underlying unity that had characterized the yishuv…in order to build on the immigrants’ identification with Israel and socialize them to the values of the state, an appropriate symbol system was required” (Liebman, pg. 83). One of the notable points in these regards, is the continued threat Jewish leaders considered in relation to a Jewish identity. While previously the concern had been that moving towards a Zionist Judaic religious standard would disrupt Jewish identity, the concern with civil religion now became how to build on the religion in ways that would unite Jewish identity. This is an interesting element of Judaism as the intermeshing of various ethnic groups resulted in the religion being reimagined under a multi-cultural context. Statism In considering religious aspects, one also must consider the nature of the political movements that reflected their changing nature. One of the important features in these regards is the promotion of statism as a movement distinct from prior socialist movements. Ben Gurion was a pivotal thinker in these early state periods, outlining a number of key structural dimensions of the Jewish religion. Some of the core ideas he contributed to were the establishment of new values regarding the Jewish religion. In these regards, he looked to the past to develop a number of crucial elements. Rather than emphasizing the aspects of Judaism as experiencing tremendous exile, Gurion considered the period of Jewish history wherein the Jews possessed their own land. This is keeping with Zionist trends that emphasized interpretive elements of the scripture, including thematic symbols, that considered the nature of Judaism as a religion of stability and lasting peace. Ben Gurion believed that the very nature of Judaism as lacking any cultural identity or place could be harnessed as a means of promoting Israel as a nation of destiny and Judaism as an entirely viable civil religion. Liebman states, “An important operative implication of this last belief was that the only ally on whom the State of Isreal could rely completely and unconditionally was the Jewish people. Israel’s attachment to world Jewry was ‘a central and determining factor in its policy’ (Liebman, pg. 90). Despite the cultural tradition in large part containing elements of Jewish exile, in large part these aspects were deemphasized to promote the elements of Jewish history that embraced a Jewish state. While this had been an approach advanced by Zionists well before the establishment of the new Jewish state, with statism the civil religion became more highly centered on these elements. The exilic period in Judaism itself became marginalized by this new movement with individuals arguing that it came to demonstrate remove Jews from their own cultural expression found in the Bible. This become problematic when one considers that Jewish exile constituted the majority of the Jewish existence. The problem then became how to establish a new Jewish civil religion that would support the state while paying heed to Jewish tradition. Speaking of this in regards to Gurion, Liebman writes, “His solution was the formation of an Israeli culture to which the youth would be socialized. The new culture would contain elements of continuity as well as change. It would draw upon both traditional Judaism and world culture” (Liebman, pg. 91). In large part then, immigrants to the new Israel were treated as a blank cultural slate towards which a new civil religion could be developed and marketed towards. In these regards, prior conflicts between traditional and contemporary religious patterns re-emerged. Traditional Jewish religion more and more became viewed as a sort of oppressive mechanism, towards which the new civil religion must reimagine as a means of reestablishing Jewish culture as one of stability. Still, not all theorists understood the Jewish tradition as advancing long these progressive lines. Dowty argues quoting Benyamin Neuberger, “Israel’s political tradition is a mix of democratic and nondemocratic traditions because its major components such as the Jewish religion and the Judaic historical traditions, but also the modern ideologies of socialism and nationalism, contain both liberal-democratic and authoritarian elements” (Dowty, pg. 7). While this passage is referring to the nature of Jewish identity, it is relevant for the discussion, as it represents a line of thinking that places the Jewish religion, even during the Zionist-Socialist and statist periods as somewhat independent from state influences. While it should go without saying, it’s worth noting here that during this period Judaism and Israel were not entirely synonymous, with a number of sects of the religion retaining traditional values; still, it’s clear that the mainstream thought of the Judaic tradition had been coopted by the political elements that had sought to implement Judaism as a tool in achieving sovereign territory. Thematic through the development of this new civil religion was the recurrent implementation of new forms of signification for past religious images. Rather than attempting to rewrite or redefine religion, statism functioned through these re-interprative mechanisms, wherein past signs were coopted for the new movement. Liebman states, “statist spokesmen adopted biblical phrases and aphorisms to evoke a sense of the ceremonial, the festive, and the sacred. The statists in particular did so to express their identification with the bible and the biblical period” (Liebman, pg. 93). It’s worth considering the ramifications of such cooptation. In some regards it seems that such methods of melding Jewish tradition to fit new patterns of existence held within it somewhat sinister connotations. At the same time the functions of this approach worked highly effectively as it allowed the sanctity and spiritual esteem of traditional Judaism to be harnessed, while at the same time implementing the religion to advance state goals. To an extent one must question if this is one of the underlining characteristics of a Christian tradition as well. That is, even as the Christian tradition is unanimously adherent to New Testament Biblical standards, there exists within this a wide variety of interpretive sects. In examining the means by which statism co-opted traditional Judaism and reimagined it to promote the new Israeli state, it is no difficult to extend this process to argue that the splintering of the Christian tradition has been motivated by similar political ends. The point in both regards is that the differences in opinion in terms of scriptural interpretation, rather than functioning as a viable means of disagreement, actually represents a means of implementing religious ends to achieve political aims through restructuring religious signification. Whether this is a conscious effort on the part of religious leaders is of no consequence, as unconsciously the thrust of the practice holds as much critical force as a conscious reworking does; the later seems to be the case in terms of the Jewish civil religion. While previously the question had been concern with traditional Judaism and a liberalization of this form for state ends, at this point the Jewish religion, rather than embodying these traditional values came to be a vehicle for state ends. It’s interesting to consider the nature of the religion during the exile period, as perhaps embodying somehow a more pure or transcendent form of belief, as it was largely unencumbered by this heavy state influence and interpretive malleability towards political ends. When considering the Jewish civil religion it’s worth examining ways traditional imagery was coopted towards achieving these statist goals. Liebman writes, The transformation of biblical phrases to make them accord with statist values was striking. Generally, some sacred object of statism – the nation, the land, the state or its institutions, especially the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) – were substituted for the biblical reference to God. A huge banner carried by soldiers in a Haifa parade transformed the biblical phrae ‘Israel trust the Lord, He is your help and defender,’ to ‘Israel trust the IDF, it is your help and defender…Statists also used traditional terms, such as commandment or covenant, to express their loyalty and commitment to the state and its institutios (Liebman, pg. 93) Here one witnesses statism not only coopting traditional Jewish imagery in de-emphasizing Jewish exile, but it also functions to implement this imagery to overtly propagandize statism. These are further examples wherein rather than functioning as a viable moral solution, the Jewish religion was implemented towards political ends. Still, this is not to say that statism did not reinterpret textual elements to aid political aims. Liebman writes, “The statists also reinterpreted biblical terms. For example, the word komemiut (literally: erect of upright) was redefined to mean sovereign and independent; the War of Independence was called the war of komemiut” (Liebman, pg. 93). It seems in large part this is the break that was made between traditional forms of Judaism and this new Zionist/statist imagined form of civil religion; namely, the new dimensions of Judaism represented a state utilized apparatus. When considering the political ends of civil religion, the means of its implementation is powerful for its strength of imagery. In establishing the Israeli state, the Jewish leaders had at their disposal one of the most time-tested and mythological political platforms in the Western philosophical and spiritual tradition, and they made great use of this new civil religion. For the statists, the Bible came to represent a crucial element in developing the state message. In these regards, it seems that the Bible represented a sort of established order that could be interpreted in ways functional for state politics. While the Zionists emphasized the protest elements of the Biblical tradition, religious leaders such as Ben Gurion emphasized leaders such as Joshua who embodied a more modern day tradition. The statists went a step farther and envisioned modern day leaders on a level parallel to those of Jewish antiquity. Post-statism Like Zionist-Socialism before it, statism would eventually decline. Liebman gives a number of possible reasons for this decline stating, “As time passed the existence of the state no longer evoked such wonder, Arab threats no longer aroused such fear…as the great waves of immigration receded…statism, whose symbol system had pointed to the primary goals of defending the state and ingathering the exiles, necessarily lost resonance” (Liebman, pg. 123). In these regards, it seems that the general consensus is that statism declined as the Israeli state took more firm shape. While large-scale movements have been emphasized as crucial to Judaism, including Zionist-Socialism, revisionism, and statism, it’s important to note that these movements and their relation to the civil religion have advanced in a progressive way. While it’s argued that clear divisions exist between such movements, it would be more accurate to indicate that there are no clear delineating features. Instead the alterations reflect more generalized shifts in-terms of the political order, with Zionism generally reflected the pre-state period and statism reflecting the immediate period after the establishment of the Israeli state. Of course, the evolving nature of the civil religion is a corresponding aspect of these political shifts, as traditional Judaism, or what can even be termed ‘exilic’ Judaism, gave way to increasing state influence. While it’s been argued that statism was ultimately a failure, it could just as easily be read that the political and religious zeal was no longer necessary as the state took a more firm hold. In either regards, many of the state appropriated symbols experienced a shift towards more traditional Judaic scripture in the period of civil religion following statism. It’s notable that during this period rather than developing a symbol system that stretched meaning patterns, the civil religion moved back to traditional forms of signification as a means of achieving increased authenticity. Within this new form of symbol identification, the Holocaust became a prevalent symbol structure explored in terms of civil religion. Still, the new civil religion retained much of the political ardor that had helped unite its people under this new Jewish state. It’s worth noting that the establishment of the Jewish state, in these regards, represents one of the most significant changes in the religion’s history, as it would henceforth be considered in direct connection with state aims. While traditional aspects of the religion functioned in these regards, rather than existing on their own, they were implemented to ground the new civil religion in a sort of transcendent moral order that could function as a cornerstone element of state politics. In these regards, Liebman writes, “The new civil religion seeks to integrate and mobilize Israeli Jewish society and legitimate the primary values of the political system by grounding them in a transcendent order of which the Jewish people and the Jewish tradition are basic components” (Liebman, pg. 131). While it would require an exhaustive account to trace the newfound means by which the civil religion has implemented these elements in the development of Israel, it’s clear that the crucial point to consider in terms of post-statism civil religion is this interaction between state aims and traditional religious values. Conclusion In conclusion, it’s clear that during the immediate period surrounding the pre-state and post-state movements, Judaic civil religion experienced a wide variety of structural changes. This essay has argued that the structural changes demonstrated in the Jewish religion are indicative of political influences steming from a striving for an Israeli state. Beginning with Zionism, Judaism experienced a complex interaction between political force wanting to co-opt the religion for state aims and traditional elements fearing the less of a strong Jewish identity if this became common practice. During the statism period Judaism experienced these influences in a more direct and systematic way as the new Israeli state radically co-opted Jewish scripture for contemporary political messages. Finally, during the post-statism period, this interaction between the state and religious tradition was eased, as the Jewish civil religion found itself in a crisis of authenticity. The essay has also demonstrated that during this progressive path, the Jewish leaders retained historical Jewish scripture but reinterpreted their signification for political aims that supported the development of a Jewish state. This portion of Jewish history is highly enlightening not simply for the Jewish tradition, but also for the insight it supplies towards the interaction of religious interpretive mechanisms and conscious or unconscious political aims. Ultimately, it’s clear that rather than the Judaic religious scripture influencing Jewish political progress, state leaders re-signified the religious tradition to fit state political goals. References De Lange, Nicholas. (2010) An Introduction to Judaism. Cambridge University Press. Dowty, Alan. (2001) The Jewish State. University of California Press. Liebman, Charles. (1983) Civil Religion in Israel. University of California Press. Read More