Читать книгу The Essential Agus - Steven T. Katz - Страница 33

To what extent should ethnic and religious subgroups maintain their bonds of unity with their coreligionists or their respective national homelands? On the one hand, the subgroups should recognize the rightfulness of the overriding loyalties of the American nation. This is the context into which, as individuals, we assume our rights and obligations. On the other hand, all cultural values, feelings of kinships, and sentiments of philanthropy are worth-while in themselves; hence, their claim upon us is that of moral values, which, if possible, ought to be incorporated into our life.

In the event of a conflict between these parochial values and the interests or ideals of the American nation, the latter take precedence. Such is the implication of the moral-legal context of our day.

The emphasis on the sanctity of the individual in our tradition implies that it is for the individual to resolve such matters of cultural conflict as do not concern the nation as a whole. In turn, the choice by the individual is to be made on the basis of his moral obligation to sustain as many as possible of the positive values impinging upon his personality. On the one hand, he should familiarize himself with the constellation of values in his heritage, so that his choice will not be determined by ignorance; on the other, he should recognize that all historic clusters of ideas and sentiments are creations of contingent circumstances. Born in time past, inevitably they must change or be changed with the passage of time. The only enduring sources of value are living individual’s and universal ideals.

As a general rule, we may distinguish between the political legal context, in which there cannot be room for “nations within nations,” and the spiritual domain, containing religious values, historical associations, and philanthropic activities, where diversity of loyalties is creative rather than competitive. The more a man learns of other cultures, the more is he conditioned to appreciate his own; the more a person concerns himself with the needs of his own ethnic group, the more he is likely to be sensitive to the needs of his fellow citizens. Yet, these generalizations must be tested in practice, for we know only too well that ethnic loyalties can become constrictive and self-centered.

In this area, the world-wide experience of the Jewish people demonstrates the dangers as well as the potentialities of ethnic enclaves within a nation. On the whole, we can say that modern Jews have learned to effect a viable synthesis between their loyalties to the Jewish people as a whole and their bonds of unity with the respective nations among whom they have lived. They have confined their Jewish loyalties to the areas of religion, antidefamation, and philanthropy, while they have reserved their national loyalties for their respective states. This solution has been upset only in periods of extreme turbulence.

Now that the State of Israel is ready and willing to accept those who wish to be part of the Jewish national homeland, those who opt to remain in their native lands can return in good conscience to the normative pattern of adjustment in the Diaspora. To be sure, a twilight area of uncertainty remains—the host-nation might become narrowly zealous, succumbing to the “know-nothing” mentality which takes offense at the slightest resistance to full homogenization. Also, the Jewish group might so interpret its religious-ethnic heritage as to preempt the whole spectrum of national feelings, leaving only the outer shell of the overall legal-political context. Cultural subgroups might become so exclusively concerned with their own specific ethnic interests as to introduce the sword of ethnocentric warfare into the vitals of the nation. Needless to say, an ethnic group so minded and so constituted can hardly contribute to the promotion of those feelings of fraternity that every nation strives to attain.

If Jewish history teaches us anything at all, it is the need of actively cultivating feelings of fraternity with the host-nations, and the dire disasters that are sure to follow the failure to attain this consummation. This failure may derive from a narrowing of the vision of the hostnation, and it may also be due to the rigidity of the ethnic minorities. In any case, the ethical problem of an ethnic minority is affirmatively to develop its philanthropic activities in such a manner as to embrace the entire nation, thereby contributing to the creation of a fraternal society. As the Talmud teaches, “We are obligated to feed the poor of other nations along with the poor of Israel, in order to improve the ways of peace.”²⁴ On the other hand, the host-nation must raise the sights of national unity to the plane of cultural-moral values, so that its resident minorities may be embraced by its cultural and social dimensions, as well as by its political boundaries. Both groups must recognize that they are in a transitional context, between the existing pattern and the vision of the future.

Within the Jewish community, the debate on this issue is still being formulated in terms of the choice between survivalism and assimilation. The proponents of both alternatives seek to impose a vision of their own upon the protean reality. In the actual situation, the living community at any one time can hardly do more than take a few steps in either direction. It cannot envision all contingencies and it cannot pretend to “guarantee” the end that it seeks. Inevitably the debate degenerates into a contest between competing pseudo-Messianic frenzies.

In the perspective of our analysis, the actual issue is on the plane of the contemporary Way, rather than on the futuristic plane of the Vision. Naturally, the cherished Vision, either of the perpetual endurance of the Jewish identity or of its total dissipation, exerts its proper pull upon the complex of values in the present. But we must not presume to play the part of God, who alone knows the End. In the contemporary situation, we face the issue of incorporating as many creative values as possible in our life and in the lives of our children. We focus attention on the living individuals, here and now; it is their happiness and their moral growth that should determine our decision. There will be no unanimity on this score either, but then the alternatives are clear and concrete. As to the future, it will grow out of our actions and the actions of our successors; hence we are called upon to act so as to hasten the Messiahs advent, but not “to force the end.” Thus, the Midrash comments on the verse, “Don’t touch my messiahs—these are the children of our schools.” ²⁵

The Golden Rule applies to social groupings as to individuals. While every group is entitled to preserve its own integrity, it must keep itself “open” to the ideals, values, and individual’s that impinge upon it. A “closed” society, barring its gates either against the coursing currents of doctrine or against people who might want to become part of it, is in standing violation of the elementary principles of good manners. “Good fences make good neighbors,” is an old adage; yet, as Robert Frost pointed out, the barriers must not be raised too high, and only where they are absolutely necessary.