You are here

Share Share Share Share Share Share Share

The scary subtext of "rethinking egalitarianism"

Last week in the Forward, Jay Michaelson writes about the need to rethink egalitarianism.  Egalitarian synagogues, he says, tend to be egalitarian in only one way: everyone is equally bored.  (“Egalitarian” in American Jewish life has historically referred to prayer services where men and women can both participate fully and take on leadership roles.)  He talks about friends who attend Orthodox prayer services because they find more meaning in the service, and about how attempts at inclusiveness and egalitarianism often translate into long responsive readings in English where nobody really believes a word.

I know the phenomenon Michaelson is talking about.  It’s the one where you sit in shul, waiting for the brutally layned haftarah to end… until you realize that it will be followed by an equally monotonous musaf that moves at the pace of a funeral dirge.  The whole time, all you’re thinking to yourself is, “I should have slept in this morning.”  He has a point, too – egalitarian congregations often have this kind of service, helped along by a desire to ensure that all attendees find something in the service that is accessible to them.  But egalitarian congregations aren’t the only ones with this problem.  The synagogue I attended sporadically during my undergraduate education had exactly this kind of service, and it was nowhere near egalitarian.

At the end of his blog post, Michaelson suggests that we need to rethink what we mean by egalitarian.

“Now, as a progressive American Jew I don’t think gender should determine who’s in and who’s out. But I do think that if everybody’s in, nobody’s in. Let’s rethink what we mean by “egalitarianism.” What if it meant “open to all who bother to make the effort”?”

So Michaelson acknowledges that is concern isn’t gender-based – he’s actually concerned with creating meaningful and spiritual places for communal prayer.  Count me in for that mission.

What makes me uncomfortable with the article is the way Michaelson has used egalitarianism in its traditional sense as a “hook” to draw people in, and the implication that moving to an egalitarian prayer service and the inclusion of women in spiritual opportunities is somehow linked to a decrease in meaningful communal prayer overall.  Until Michaelson makes the statement that I just quoted (which comes in the last third of his blog post), this argument could have gone another direction entirely – where I was half-expecting it to go!  In that argument, including women in prayer somehow intimidates men, prevents them from taking on the responsibilities of prayer that they are halachically obligated to perform, and causes a failure to provide strong role models for young boys.  It may sound ridiculous, but arguments like this aren’t rare.  After all, (said my high school Talmud teacher,) women are already more spiritual than men.  They don’t need those extra obligations from prayer in order to feel close to God, nor should they take such an opportunity away from men.

Right.

So go for it, Jay Michaelson. Change what it means to have an egalitarian synagogue, and claim the term for congregations who welcome everyone equally to a meaningful service that empowers congregants with the agency to contribute to that meaning.  I’m on board and happy to help lead the charge. But don’t tell me that you weren’t challenging women’s hard-fought ability to participate in religious services with comments like “This got me wondering about what we mean when we talk about egalitarianism, and about our priorities in maintaining it.”  Because my drive to achieve your new egalitarianism hinges on maintaining “old-fashioned” egalitarianism.

Share Share Share Share Share Share Share
4 Comments

I have no idea who Michalson is. How terrible to go to synagogue and experience as he does.(did) May I suggest attending a service in a Reform or Progressive Jewish Temple(Synagogue). Maybe, Perhaps, I am certain - - - - - - "Is the Service finished already"?

Great post, Leora. Thanks for deconstructing Michaelson's arguments. Really interesting analysis.

I'm curious about what he means when he says "bothers to make the effort." I agree that services could be more meaningful if everyone was more engaged, but what kind of engagement are we talking about here? I'm not doing a very good job of articulating what it is I mean to say... I guess I'm just thinking about the implications of a more *exclusive* space. If it's inclusion ("if everybody's in, nobody's in") that's keeping services from being more meaningful, whose exclusion are we after here? Who should egalitarian services no longer cater to? Those who aren't totally familiar with Jewish practice or religious life? Those who have issues engaging with texts due to language? Etc., etc., etc. Is it the inclusion and accommodation of these folks and others that's keeping things slow and less meaningful...? Just some thoughts.

Hi Anonymous,

Yes, I did read the article, and as I pointed out in my post, I agreed with a lot of it. But "egalitarian," regardless of its dictionary definition, has come to mean something very specific in Jewish congregations. Michaelson's blog post draws on that definition before suggesting that we need to reconceptualize what it means to have an egalitarian congregation. My problem with his post is I think he diminishes the work women (and men) have done to build congregations where all genders can participate equally as a stepping stone to this new kind of egalitarianism, where everyone can access meaningful prayers. As I noted earlier, I think he's right to want to build better communities - but I also think he does something dangerous by asking whether or not maintaining egalitarianism in the Jewish-specific-sense should be a priority.

Also, as a side note - the JWA blog focuses on women and Jewish life. Gender isn't a hot-topic here, but the major topic and focus of most of our posts.

Leora

Wow, really? Did you read his article at all?

He is using the term egalitarian in a broad sense, (which is a totally acceptable use of the word) a sense that has nothing to do with gender, but with accessibility based on knowledge, experience and effort.

Or maybe you just wanted to publish an article and use the hot-topic of gender to get your name out there and beef up your resume?

Subscribe to Jewish Women, Amplified and get notifications sent to your email.

How to cite this page

Jackson, Leora. "The scary subtext of "rethinking egalitarianism"." 4 November 2010. Jewish Women's Archive. (Viewed on October 22, 2017) <https://jwa.org/blog/the-scary-subtext-of-rethinking-egalitarianism>.

Donate

Help us elevate the voices of Jewish women.

donate now

The JWA Podcast

listen now

Poll

Who is your favorite historical Jewish feminist named Emma?

Sign Up for JWA eNews

 

Twitter

2 days
"I believe that reading Jane Eyre as early as I did... made the experience a pivotal moment in my life."https://t.co/nw8f1JVDdq
3 days
Check out our two new Can We Talk? episodes, all about the Israeli group Women Wage Peace! https://t.co/0NdZkYDB9Zhttps://t.co/PSJD1x5Mek
3 days
A truly moving reflection from the editor of the Forward. https://t.co/hWcVnPmg7g