What we need.

This is an outline of an article that was NOT accepted. It was to be a discussion on R.Shimshon Raphael Hirsch as a paradigm changer and what he can teach us about how to deal with the pressing challenges of or own age. Far from being a conservative figure, as he is now commonly prtrayed, R. Hirsch was a courageous and revolutionary thinker, from whom we, I believe, can learn much.

I sumbitted it by invitation to a well-known Jewish journal, that apparently disagreed with the argument or deemed it not appropriate for its audience.  So here I present the outline as it is.

If anyone knows a pbulication that will be willing to consider such an article for publication, plese let me know.

Outline: Hirsch as Paradigm Changer

 Introduction

1.RSRSH left a rich legacy, contributing in many fields of Torah learning. He also presented a way of life, a philosophy and an ideology, “Torah IM Derech Eretz”. This approach (describe approach) sparked debate from the very beginning.

2.Many, including those who claim to wear R. Hirsch’s mantle,  contend that TIDE is “a horaas shaa”, that it has limited relevance and no application in our current circumstances. This essay will examine this premise and contend that while much of R. Hirsch’s specific solutions to the problems of his age are no longer directly relevant, we remain indebted to him for his methodology and his vision..

I.Judiasm in the 19^th and 20^th century

1.Time of great dislocation

2.Loss or relevance and widespread apostasy

3.Concept of Paradigm Shift

a.   It was not that “niskatnu hadoros”, it was rather than Judaism no longer spoke to the new paradigm of the emerging modern age - values of universalism, progress, scientific positivism (define) and rejection of the religious mores.

b.   Finding relevance in Judaism within the new paradigm occupied every thinking Jew

b.    Many have chosen the path of reinterpretation, leading to various shades of reform

a.   Examples of reinterpretation: Wissenschaft vom Yudentum, Reform, Breslau, Jewish nationalism/Yiddishism

c.    Definition of reinterpretation, example

d.    The alternative route, the path of RSHRS, R. E. Hildersheimer and others was the path of translation, not reinterpretation

e.   Expanded explanation of how translation from culture to culture differs from reinterpretation: old wine in new vessels, vs. new wine in old vessels.

f.      Why translation is acceptable to a Torah Jew while reinterpretation is not.

4.R. Hirsch pursued the policy of cultural translation

        a. The vision on the road to Manheim: polishing the walking sticks

b. Absolute commitment to halacha, strong ideological bend, Austritt, mitsva-symbolism, universality/ Mensch-Israel

c .Success of this approach in its relative cultural environment

II.                  Judaism at the turn of the 21^st century

1.Time of great dislocation; post-modernism, abandonment of the concepts of absolute truth, trans- nationalism, personal autonomy, Death of Honor, Duty,  Belonging

    a.Expression is not in ideas or words but in image, feeling, music, song. The inarticulate test-messaging generation, who, however, know exactly what they means to say – but their parents and grandparents do not understand them.

2.Adults who are ”Kalte Yidden”, adult children at risk – The new generation is losing the ability to understand the old paradigm.

3.TIDE is also losing relevance because its content is dated

a.   It is losing relevance faster than the “yeshiva velt” because its content is even more 19^th century culture specific.

b.     Arguably, the present day yeshiva and Chassidic environments have already incorporated large stretches of post-modern sensibility, whereas TIDE is still the same 19^th century philosophy

4.Distinction between content and expression

    a. The content of R. Hirsch’s TIDE is no longer relevant (except in its specific Torah material); however, the example of R. Hirsch’s undertaking is valid as “moreh derech”.

III.               What R. Hirsch can teach us

1.Torah is eternal, it can be expressed and has something to say in every cultural language

2.Absolute fidelity to Torah truth, eschewing re-interpretation - choose teh path of trans-cultural translation instead.

3.Looking around us to understand this age and what others are doing to translate Judaism into the new cultural paradigm, much as he did at this time.

        a. Popularity of mystical- emotional movements, ersatz-Kabbala, feeling above thought

        a. Objection: This is low culture; is low culture compatible with Torah at all?

        b. I don’t now. Some aspects of modern culture are clearly inimical and not reconcilable with the authoritarian religious model. However, Hashem is not only our Lord but also our father, friend and guide and this can serve as a basis for powerful and modern religious sensibility; a refuge in the dislocations of the modern age. It may be that a retreat from modern culture is the only possible response; however, it is an issue that should be discussed and ruled on by Torah scholars

        c. The evolving trans-cultural experiments of ecstatic hassidic groups, Carlebach and others should  be closely examined, not as deviations form the “standard” masorah but as attempts to reformulate Judaism in the language that speaks to all Jews, and even to all of humanity.

Conclusion

Where is R. Hirsch when we need him?

We need the emergence of a person who possesses the manifold talents of R. Hirsch: clear vision, boundless idealism and enthusiasm, deep Torah knowledge, ability to present Judaism as relevant and inspiring in the new age, talented publicist and polemicist, an inspirational figure.

In the long hidden testament of R. Nachman of Breslav it says that Moshciach  will sway the entire world to follow him through music. Music stands for the post-modern sensibility described above. The light of the Torah is waiting for a new expression that will be intelligible and move the hearts of our lost brothers and children who no longer speak the old language and be redemptive for all of humanity.

Comments

[editor]

From this outline- I think that it might have been rejected not because of content but because of form. The outline is not cohesive, there are sentences that are not English, and words are misspelled and misused. It does not seem to sustain the thesis and the historical references are too vague or mistaken. You might try it as an op-ed or start again and work to rewrite it. The act of writing for print is not like schmoozing or blogging.

[avakesh]

Thank you, I wellcome constructive criticism. I don't think that it was rejected because of the merits of the outline as I had written for this publication before. This is an outline and if it ever turns into an article, these steps will certainly be taken.

You are certainly correct that writing an article is different than blogging.

[joel rich]

that would be grounds for a request for rewrite if the journal thought the idea worthwhile, not rejection.
KT

[kurkevan]

Have you tried Hakirah? This is very much their style.

PS- Smithsonian Magazine had an article you would probably find interesting: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/34347399.html

Kol Tuv.