On reading about the hot water
Rabbi Dweck has found himself in after expressing his views candidly, I
couldn’t help but see parallels with the extreme reactions Spinoza experienced.
So I thought I’d use this example to illustrate what I have in mind when
interpreting Spinoza as remaining an Orthodox Jew throughout his life.1
Both Spinoza and Rabbi Dweck put
forward what people take to be a “reinterpretation of traditional teachings” in
Judaism2. Both incurred the wrath of the Orthodox Jewish world they
were in and both are labelled “heretics” with “false and misguided” views3.
Given that rabbi Dweck is an orthodox rabbi, his views would hardly be out of a
disrespect for or ignorance of Judaism or any latent atheistic leanings. They
are his genuine, heartfelt interpretation of how he feels and believes that Orthodox
Judaism should be applied to the era he lives in. So why should we assume any
less of Spinoza?
Interestingly, the language used
against Rabbi Dweck echos that used against Spinoza. The Guardian newspaper4
sums up some of the main reactions against Rabbi Dweck:
‘Bassous said: “When is it
dangerous? When you have someone who comes in front of you with two hats. He’s
got the hat of an Orthodox [rabbi] and the hat of a Reform [rabbi]. From the
outside, he’s Orthodox, but his mouth spouts Reform.
‘Bassous said the London Beth Din
should rule on Dweck’s views, “and if, in their view, [Dweck] is not an
Orthodox rabbi, doesn’t spout Orthodox views … his Orthodox hat should be
removed from him.”’
‘Since the lecture, Dweck’s views
and teachings on a range of issues have been called into question, with some
critics saying he had abandoned orthodoxy for liberalism.’
Indeed, even Rabbi Dweck’s
suggested explanations for this controversy express the same concerns as Spinoza
is often thought to have felt, including that representations of his views were
“an exaggeration”. The Guardian5 summarises his response:
‘Dweck claimed his words had been
“misunderstood and misinterpreted”
These sentiments are seconded by
Sabah Zubaida, who mostly put it down to “misunderstandings, some deliberate
and some not”6. Some have also viewed the backlash as being
influenced by political agendas. Rabbi Dweck himself considers the possibility that
the controversy is politically motivated. This is something Spinoza is
explicitly worried about in his TTP7. He argues for a demarcation
between clerical and political roles and that no one should hold positions in
both fields8. I wonder whether this view came out of his experiences
of synagogue politics rather than being something he always thought.
As can be seen by Rabbi Dweck,
Spinoza could have had an excellent, full rabbinic education and the social
status of a rabbi within his community yet still have received the same sort of
backlash against him anyway. Rabbi Dweck certainly is not wishing to
disassociate himself from his Jewish identity and considers himself to be just
as orthodox Jewish as he always was. It is the institutional structure which
expresses a desire to strip him of his Jewish identity, not Rabbi Dweck
himself. So I think one must not conflate religious authorities’ labelling and
treatment of an individual as indicative of the intentions and identity of that
individual. Indeed, if anything should be treated with great suspicion, it is
the use of social isolation rather than the exploration of religious interpretation.
Exclusion, ostracism and isolation are known to cause harm so, I think, should
never be used as a recourse in societal disputes9. So, having
experienced the dark side of religious institutions, and especially as a young
adult, Spinoza was bound to have some reservations and scepticism about, in
particular, religious authority. So I think this cannot be read as being
symptomatic of an outright rejection of his heritage and Jewish identity. At
the very least, I think we should give Spinoza the benefit of the doubt and
look for an unbiased, benevolent reading of his texts rather than continue to
impose assumptions and labels onto him and his philosophy.
It also begs the question: what
is heresy? In Judaism, unlike Christianity, this is a difficult concept to
define because dissent, having differing views, is part and parcel of the
religion. What do boys and men learn at Yeshiva10 but to argue about
The Torah, The Talmud and other central religious texts. These are skills
which, incidentally, Jewish orthodox women never have the chance to develop. Therefore,
they are always at a disadvantage when it comes to intricacies of the religion
and Judaism, which is a highly complex and intellectual religion that gives reason
a high status, as Spinoza does in his works. Is heresy, therefore, just a label
applied to people whose views are seen as liberal or simply applied to those
whose opinions are different from the prevailing ones at the time, especially
of those in authority? Is it used as a type of pressure to make people with
different views conform to the dominant views? If we look at the case of Rabbi
Dweck we can easily see that it is a way of condemning so-called liberal views.
Hence, Rabbi Dweck is accused of wearing ‘the hat of a Reform rabbi’11
when, indeed, he is doing nothing of the sort. Besides, Chief Rabbi Mirvis had
already declared that gays were to be welcomed into the orthodox community exactly
a year previously, in 2016, after the tragic shooting incident in a gay club in
Orlando, America12. So, just as Spinoza saw nothing wrong in taking
on the views of a more liberal-minded rabbi who was one of his main influences
in the synagogue he attended, so Rabbi Dweck probably thought it was perfectly
acceptable to say what he did because it was along the lines of what the Chief
Rabbi had already expressed. So, I think, this clearly shows that Spinoza was
unlikely to be a heretic just as Rabbi Dweck is not a heretic.
1However, I am not
attempting to do this in a teleological way, a method that Susan James argues
against, (James, S., “Why Should We Read Spinoza?” (07/11/2014) Royal Institute
of Philosophy Talk (RIP), available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5cAxJCz1Xk
), for instance, projecting modern circumstances onto a past philosopher or by
using a past philosopher to establish a view about the contemporary world. I am
merely drawing parallels for pedagogical aims to help clarify what I have in
mind when I say that Spinoza was and remained an orthodox Jew at heart,
especially since it involves holding apparent contradictions in one’s head.
2Harriet Sherwood,
18/06/17,
3ibid
4ibid
5ibid
6ibid
7“Spinoza, Benedict de., ‘A Theologico-Political
Treatise and A Political Treatise’, translated by Elwes, R. H. M., Dover
Philosophical Classics, Dover Publications Inc Mineola New York (2004)
8ibid
9See Kimberley
Brownlee’s work on the harm done by social exclusion and the ethics of being
treated as a valuable social contributor.
10 Yeshiva: Orthodox
Jewish institution focusing on the study of religious texts using an unique
style of learning, involving debating in pairs, called Havruta
11Harriet Sherwood,
18/06/17,
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.