Evaluation and Definition: Comments on Wafa Sultan
Recently
a clip of Arab-American Psychologist Wafa Sultans
appearance on Al-Jazeera TV was sent around the Internet
from one e-mail address to another. Many members of the
Jewish world were enthralled with her presentation
here was an Arab-American academic finally telling it how
it is. Her praise of the Jewish People was warmly
welcomed and appreciated. Her declaration that this
modern outburst of violence and terrorism cannot be
simply portrayed as a clash of civilizations was
applauded. Yet, upon hearing her comments, I wondered if
many of these individuals singing her praises were a bit
too enthusiastic. Her words also revealed her frame of
reference and, while in terms of this specific statement
there was much to cheer, I could see a potential for
concern in different circumstances
and I wondered
why others could not see that this very same person,
based on her frame of reference, could also make other
statements which many of us would find problematic. Most people tend to look only at the bottom line, but often that is not sufficient. While there may be a point of intersection, between two differing perspectives, in one specific instance, these viewpoints may still be vastly apart on many other issues. By only looking at the point of intersection and, furthermore, wrongly assuming that agreement on this particular conclusion means agreement on basic principles -- one loses sight of, or ignores, the continuing areas of disagreement. The result can be support for a view with which one ultimately disagrees and a backing of and an advocacy for a group or individual whom one ultimately opposes. The sole issue cannot only be the final conclusion that is uttered in a specific instance. The theory that leads to the conclusion must always be considered. It is not enough to just look at Wafa Sultans conclusions on specific issues, although these conclusions in themselves may still be praiseworthy. It is also important to map out how she arrived at these conclusions and to consider the assumptions and analysis that she undertook to arrive at these conclusions. It is important to recognize her underlying perspective and be aware of not only the points of agreement but also the potential points of disagreement. It is important not just to evaluate a statement but also to truly define a statement. An
example may clarify this point. In her presentation, Wafa
Sultan declared that she is a secular human being who
does not believe in the supernatural. It is clear that
her views of religious tolerance are built upon this
perspective and much of her attack on the
prejudiced treatment of Jews flows from these views. This
perspective, though, would also find difficulty with an
argument that the Jewish right to the There
are those who would, actually, further advocate that,
notwithstanding the positive nature of any one statement,
if this statement is predicated upon a frame of reference
that is contrary to ones personal theological
perspective, such as Torah mi Sinai, it must be
discarded or in a case like this one, maintained
at a proper distance. I remember reading a story of Rabbi
Shimshon Raphael Hirsch that indicated that he was a
strong advocate of such a realization and implementation.
There was a situation during Rabbi Hirschs lifetime
when the German Parliament was considering outlawing shechita,
ritual slaughter, in Of
course, Rabbi Hirschs position is an extreme
position to which not everyone would agree. In fact, in
the story I read, people physically restrained him from
going to the Member of Parliament precisely because they
recognized the political value of the Reform Rabbis
letter in the battle for shechita and felt
that points of intersection must still be recognized and
given value. Nonetheless, Rabbi Hirschs actions
inform us that we must also always be aware of underlying
value constructs and consider them (and not just the
conclusions or the points of intersections) in our
analysis and responses to events, positions and
statements. It is for this reason that there are many who
do not wish to create a political bond, even to benefit Too often, we lose sight of the large picture and concentrate only on details thereby losing sight of the full issue. There are times that traditional Conservative individuals have approached me to tell me how they are holding the fort in their Conservative synagogue expecting me to praise them for their efforts. What these individuals are specifically referring to is the role of women in their synagogue. Against the general trend towards egalitarianism in the Conservative movement, these individuals continue to fight for a limited role for women and they expect the Orthodox rabbi to laud their efforts: after all isnt Orthodoxy on the same side? The response they receive from me is not exactly what they expected. Sometimes, I may give a muted response of thats nice depending on who is making this statement and whether or not I have a chance to get into the matter. This is still shocking for they are somewhat upset that the Orthodox rabbi is not enthusiastic about this alliance. What is still more shocking to them, when appropriate and I have the opportunity, is my full response. It is then that I indicate that really we have no point of intersection. My position on the role of women is totally dependent upon my belief in Torah mi Sinai as such I do not really understand those within the Conservative movement who wish to continue to limit the role of women. My position emerges from my specific frame of reference. Their position emerges from theirs. In reality there really is no point of intersection for, if I happened to share their frame of reference, I would actually be against their position. The result is that these individuals actually receive a brief lesson in the essence of the distinction between Orthodox and Conservative Judaism which is not simply that we have a mechitza and they dont. What happens, to their dismay, is that they actually have to confront theology and a serious approach to Jewish belief. This is really only possible if we go beyond the details, including the details of action, and consider thought and the broader realm of ideas. This still does not necessarily mean that there is no value in recognizing and sharing points of intersection. There is a side of me that still is glad that Wafa Sultan said what she did notwithstanding her different frame of reference. Interestingly, in the realm of halachic decision making, point of intersection actually plays a great role notwithstanding the different approaches of various poskim. In gathering together variant positions to determine the view of the majority, we may just look at the final psak, even though each posek achieved this conclusion through different methods. In the end, we still have the greater number rendering a specific decision and that may carry the day. There is value in the micro-conclusion that may be stated. But there is also value in knowing the underlying macro-theology that is the basis for the conclusion. We must not mistake the detail for the whole; we must see the whole. Our call cannot be to simply evaluate whether we like or dislike a particular statement. Our call must also be to define the full nature of a statement by identifying the principles upon which it stands and responding accordingly. To go beyond the temptations of temptation is a perfectly adult effort. (Emmanuel Levinas) |
©
2006 NISHMA