Strengthening Reform 13: Mordechai Kaplan and Reform
September 14, 2008
Defining Reform | Jewish Living
(12 comments)
By William Berkson In the last post in this series, I looked at the ideas of one important thinker who has had an important influence on Reform Judaism: Martin Buber. Here I will look at another big influence on Reform in the 20th century, Mordechai Kaplan. Here are three key views of Kaplan.
1. Kaplan's religious naturalism.
Classical Reform had been highly theistic, making a traditionally personal God and ethics almost the whole of Judaism. By contrast, Kaplan made God a personal sum of processes in Man that make for salvation, where 'salvation' means a better life both personally and socially--and 'better' means ethically and emotionally.
The problem with Kaplan's conception of God is, as Reform theologian Rabbi Eugene Borowitz has pointed out, that it lacks the unity expressed in the Shema. The feeling of unity with other people, with nature, and with God, is at the core of religious experience. Kaplan recognized that we need the emotional experience of the Presence of God to inspire us to be specifically religious, which is more than being devoted to high ideals. However, Kaplan's fragmented concept of God just does not promote or inspire that feeling of Presence. I think Reform was right not to follow his naturalism.
2. Judaism as a civilization.
Kaplan's overarching idea was that Judaism shouldn't be considered just as a religion, but as a whole civilization, of which religion is but one dimension. There is some truth in this, of course. Judaism is not only a religion, but also the customs of an ethic group that has also traditions outside religious ones, such as in Jewish humor. And traditionally Jews had a sense of belonging to a common nation, and now there is a Jewish state. Classical Reform wanted to reject this idea of common nationality, and Kaplan wanted to re-assert it. And so, for example, he was pro-Zionist at a time when most Reform were anti-Zionist.
However, there is a serious problem with viewing Judaism as a civilization, which is that it's not. Judaism has never been a civilization on its own, but from Abraham on interacted with Western civilization as a whole. Judaism is a sub-culture or tradition within Western civilization, and has been strongly influenced by the larger Western civilization (and influenced it in return) throughout its history.
This is unfortunately not just an academic point, but a very consequential one. The reason is that Kaplan's approach emphasizes 'Jewish identity' as the foundation of Jewish religion, which is a profound mistake. His student Emanuel Gamoran set up Reform Jewish education after WWI, and decided to teach what was ethnically 'distinctive' in his view. So he designed the curriculum on teaching the customs of the holidays, some Hebrew for the prayers, a bit about the land of Israel. (I don't know if Kaplan himself approved of this.) While the curriculum did contain Tzedakah and social action, cut out were any teaching of Jewish views of God and Jewish ethics. This was a largely hollow curriculum, which taught a fragment of the external customs of Judaism, and largely left out the soul. Only in the past twenty five years has this disastrous mistake begun to be corrected, and it has a long way to go.
Religion is the most distinctive and unifying feature of Jews as a people, and to treat it as secondary to 'folk customs' or incidental to a larger 'Jewish civilization' is a huge mistake--a mistake that Reform unfortunately followed.
3. Judaism as a group process.
Kaplan was strongly influenced by sociologist Emil Durkheim, and by American philosopher John Dewey. From sociology, Kaplan viewed Judaism as a group phenomenon. The difference of the group orientation is summarized by a statement of sociologist Erving Goffman: "Not men and their moments, but moments and their men."
Goffman was speaking of the interaction of a group of people in a room, and his point was that everybody was reacting and acting on the group, and that their was not a rigid 'self', but an interaction between the self and the group, which changed both. The whole, in this case the group, is more than the sum of the parts, the individual selves.
From Dewey, Kaplan got the idea of a democratic process in which ideas and decisions evolve from the group process. Kaplan saw the power of this idea, and advocated the future development of Judaism as a democratic group process. This idea has, I think, been wrongly neglected by Reform Judaism, which has been too obsessed with ideal of personal autonomy.
I'll consider Reform's problems with autonomy next post.
Comments
Post a comment
|
All well said as always, William. It's always good to point out that the differences between Reform and Reconstructionism is more than liturgical. That is not to say anything negative about them. I'm glad that the Recon movement exists. It's just not for me.