Rachel T., on the other hand, seemed to propose a continuum, in which some approaches might be totally essentialist or totally constructivist, but where there is also space for approaches that mix these two elements in different ways/proportions. I especially liked Rachel's perception that the larger the share of constructivisim in any given approach, the smaller the core (i.e. the part identified by the essentialist approach) can be. (Among many others, a good thing of having Rachel in our group is that she can correct me if I did not understand it right.) I liked Rachel's approach and I think Baeck's distinction between Law (created by human beings) and Commandment (given by God, essentially ethical commandments, immutable) was his way of expressing that same understanding.
But this would bring us to the second aspect of Dr. Adler's lecture: if the commandments are ethic-based and universal and they are the essence of Judaism, is there any space for particularism? I think the way Baeck would answer that challenge would be by recurring to the dialectics between Mystery and Commandment. Commandments are universal ethical values, but Mystery reflects the different understanding of the divine and our different approaches to connect with God. Therefore, all the particularistic elements of Judaism would derive from our unique understanding of God. I think the next step connects Mystery not only to Liturgy (where I think the link is more clear) but also to Jewish traditional daily life-style:
In Judaism the attempt has been made to give life its style by causing religion to invade every day and penetrate the whole of everyday. Everything is in a sense divine service and has its mood and its dignity. (M&C, 201)So, I guess Baeck would somehow justify Jewish particularism, as a specific form of Mystery. I'd love to hear your thoughts on these issues and how Dr. Adler's lecture challenged your previous understanding of Baeck.
3 comments:
I too liked Rachel's spectrum analysis for the difference between essentialism and constructivism. However, really breaking it down, I am wondering if buying into constructivism at all precludes one from being essentialist? Perhaps there might be a fine-line drawn between the two in which we may have tendencies in various threads of thought that lie upon a spectrum, but that in the final analysis, our outlook is one or the other (how essentialist of me). I don't think Constructivist thought does not deny the existence of essences, rather I think it points to larger movements that are based on a mixing of essences - that one can remove a certain essence and change the mixture.
Perhaps the difference between the two methods of thought is just perspective. For example, if you have salt water, what is its essence? Wet? Savory? Life-giving to fish? However, if you boil off the water, you can separate the components into water and salt - two completely different essences. One of your piles is still wet, one is still savory, but neither can give life to fish (who live in salt-water). Now if you started with salt-water, you see it constructed of salt and water - two essences that can be broken-down further.
HOWEVER, if you look at this from the perspective of salt - it always had the essence of being savory. Other things changed when it got mixed with water - its color, its visibility, its state of matter; but the savory nature of salt remained, which must then be its essence.
I don't know if this example really holds water (ba-dum-psssshhh), but I would love to hear your thoughts on this. . .
Now that I posted on essentialism vs. constructivism, I want to respond to Rogerio's question that Dr. Adler posed in class - if the commandments are ethic-based and universal and they are the essence of Judaism, is there any space for particularism?
Baeck seems as though he was an essentialist thinker, regardless of whether or not we see essentialism and particularism as opposites or on a spectrum, it is where he placed his thought, I believe.
That being said, I want to bring back one thing I had said in a previous post. Perhaps in his view, ethics is the perfect balance between command and mystery. A command does not take into account nuances very well, but mystery fails to deal with specifics. Ethics is more than command in that it ideally provides responses for all situations, nuanced or unspecific. If ethics is this balance, it is indeed universal. And if it was what Baeck viewed as the essence of Judaism, then it is also what is particular about Judaism, because Judaism is the system that attempts to realize that perfect balance between commandment and history.
This is why proselytization must have been so core to his vision - making everyone Jewish is the way we all strive for reaching this ethical essence that represents life in its fullest regard - taking in the elements of command and of mystery in what God provides. Thus, logically, Judaism is particular only in that others haven't embraced such an ethical code.
A note on essentialism vs constructivism
I also resonated with Rachel’s comments. Using Ari’s salt water example and Dr. Adler’s boiled down stew (if you boil it down too much you get the true essence but its not anything you would want to eat), we can see that even if the essence can be broken down (or boiled) further, maybe it shouldn’t be. Just as we would no longer want to eat the mushy stew, the salt and water separately do nothing for the fish- who thrives on salt water. Maybe the essence does not have to be the smallest particle, but the smallest useful particle. Just a thought.
Post a Comment