Tweet Debate: The Representational Dilemma
I normally would not jump into an internet debate between William Daroff and Daniel Sieradski, both of whom are more than capable of speaking for themselves, but the exchange they had the other day (via Twitter, of course, then posted on Daniel's website) is a critical one. (Jewschool also has most the conversation, as well as some additional comments from William.)
The dilemma reflected in the debate - how do large organizations legitimately claim to "represent" people? - is, of course, by no means unique to the United Jewish Communities (whose Washington office William quite ably runs). Every organization of any size, especially those with a diverse membership, faces the same challenge. That is true of UJC, of the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, of my own office for the Reform Movement, and, for that matter, of AARP, the AFL-CIO, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
It is true, as Daniel and others argue, that the Jewish community is a vibrant place, and that we are in the midst of what I hope is an era of innovation. There is, indeed, an impressive array of new organizations on the scene; they are doing important work, and, often, reaching Jews who are not being reached by the more established institutions. But the troubling notion that an umbrella organization should not claim to represent anyone unless it can represent everyone is a prescription for paralysis and on the part of these organizations.
When representing any constituency, all any organization can do is come up with the best and most democratic processes possible, and stick to those processes unwaveringly. Unanimity, ideal though it might be, is simply not a realistic option, but neither is foregoing the pressing and critical opportunity to be a strong voice for the consensus views of the people who our organizations do, indeed, represent. (I would note, for example, that the specific issue which drew Daniel's attention, economic sanctions against Iran, is one that enjoys a very broad consensus within the American Jewish community.) UJC (and JCPA, and the URJ, etc.) have extensive decision-making processes in place to make sure that our policy positions do, in fact, reflect (as best they can) the consensus views of our constituents.
When representing any constituency, all any organization can do is come up with the best and most democratic processes possible, and stick to those processes unwaveringly. Unanimity, ideal though it might be, is simply not a realistic option, but neither is foregoing the pressing and critical opportunity to be a strong voice for the consensus views of the people who our organizations do, indeed, represent. (I would note, for example, that the specific issue which drew Daniel's attention, economic sanctions against Iran, is one that enjoys a very broad consensus within the American Jewish community.) UJC (and JCPA, and the URJ, etc.) have extensive decision-making processes in place to make sure that our policy positions do, in fact, reflect (as best they can) the consensus views of our constituents.
Comments
The threat Reform Judaism faces is not that it will stultify should you embrace greater democracy, but that the tyranny of good intentions has already ossified it.
I will never forget when Eric Yoffie branded the indie minyan movement -- the one movement where I found meaning in prayer and community after a life-long search, one which empowers individuals and embraces direct democracy -- as "freeloaders." The arrogance of such entitlement is staggering.
(None of which is to say, by the way, that I have anything less than the utmost respect and appreciation for the work of the RAC.)
Furthermore, the broad consensus on Iran you speak of was a coup. When was there ever a broad public discussion within the Jewish community as to whether or not to promote economic sanctions against Iran? This was a policy position cooked up internally -- by the same neoconservative intellectuals responsible for the Iraq War, mind you -- and then promoted as a threat requiring immediate public action. There were no policy debates or referendums. There were no critical assessments offered by the Jewish press. This is an imperative instilled in the Jewish polity by men standing on podiums raving about an alleged existential threat to Israel, shouting down their critics and labeling them self-haters. If this is the best approximation of democracy you have to offer, I fear for the rigor of your democratic commitments.
Posted by: Daniel Sieradski | September 17, 2009 9:59 PM