TIKKUN Editor: Michael Lerner Publisher: Nan Fink Associate Editor.- Peter Gabel Assistant Editor: Josh Henkin Production Manager/Editorial Assistant: Amy Editorial Assistant.- Andrea Siegel Contributing Editors: Lasch. Ruth Messinger, Anne Roiphe. Steve Wasserman, Milton Viorst, Eli Zaretsky Book Editor: Michael Kazin Associate Book Editor: Milton Mankoff Fiction Editors.- Rosellen Brown, Marvin Hoffman Poetry Editor: Marge Piercy Literary Editors: Phillip L0pate, Francine Prose Assistants to the Publisher: Laura Brill, Wolf Schweiger Israel Of?ce: Aaron Back, Beth Sandweiss Editorial Consultants: Margo Feeley. David Gewanter, Josh Weiner Interns: Peter Ephross, Peter Gordon, Marc Horwirz Production.- Ari Davidow, Bob Steiner Editorial Board Martha Rachel Adler, Leslie Alexander. Gar Alperovitz. Michael Bader. Michael Berenbaum. David Biale, Rachel Biale, Norman Birnbaum. Heather Booth, David Bromwich, Abraham Brum~ berg, Jay Cantor, David Cohen. Gerald Cromel'. Dorothy Dinnerstein, Ellior Dorff, Peter Edelman. Leslie Epstein. Sidra Ezrahi, Gordon Fellman. John Felstiner. Gordon Freeman, Maurice Friedman. Amos Funkenstein. Laura Geller, Herbert Gold. Davrd Gordis. Arthur Green. Colin Greer, Morton Halperin. David Hartman. Richard Healey, Robert Hellbroner, Burt Jacobson, Marc Kaminsky, Wolfe Kelman. Reuven Kimelman, Daniel Landes. Hillel Levrne, Irvmg M. Levine, Daniel Matt, Marshall Meyer, Jo Milgrom, JoAnn Mort, Raquel Newman, Ilana Pardes. Yoram Peri, Robert Pinsky, Judith Plaskow. Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Aviezer Ravitsky. Lillian Rubin, John Ruskay, David Saperstein. Zalman Sphachter-Shalomi, Howard Schwartz. Charm Seldler-Feller. Gerald Serotta. T. Drorah Setel, Gershon Shaked. Stanley Sheinbaum, Carol Ruth Silver. Uri Simon, Daniel Thursz, David Alvorspan. ArthurWaskow. TrudeWeiss- Rosmarin, Arnold Wolf. SethW l' Idith Zertal. Steve Zippersteihnz' A. E. M. Broner, Todd Gitlin, Christopher Letters Tikkun reserves the right to select, edit, and shorten all submissions to the Letters section. HIGHBROW SOFTWARE To the Editor: As a philosophy professor who also studies meteorology and does weather forecasting, I am well aware that it is fashionable among people in the liberal arts to denigrate the applied sciences. But I wonder just how Jackson Lears would justify his assumption that a student reading a book labeled PAS- CAL could not be engaged ?in the pur- suit of truth? if the student is studying the computer language rather than the philosopher. (Review of Lawrence W. Levine?s ?Highbrow/Lowbrow,? Tik- lean, Jan/Feb. 1989.) How much does Jackson Lears know about computer languages, anyway? Felicia Ackerman Associate Professor of Philosophy, Brown University Jackson Lears responds: I thought philosophers (and weather forecasters) were supposed to have a sense of the absurd. But since Professor Ackerman prefers literal-mindedness, I?ll proceed in that spirit. Of course there is a pursuit of truth involved in learning technical skills. No doubt these skills can even be taught in ways that raise ultimate questions of meaning and value. But my experi- ence and observation in various univer- sities has led me to conclude that in the teaching of the ?applied sciences? substantive issues are smothered by the managerial ethos?by an implicit but pervasive set of assumptions that ensures that the knowledge in question is harnessed unquestioningly to the needs of corporate and bureaucratic power. The liberal arts are not im- mune to this process, as any reader of scholarly journals knows. But I still believe that the liberal arts contain a residue of ?useless? tradition that renders them less easily assirnilable to managerial imperatives. No one who has paid any attention to her students could equate the cultural signi?cance of Pascal with that of PASCAL. 2 TIKKUN VOL. 4, No. 3 Tikkun (ISSN 0887-9982) is published by The Institute for Labor and Mental Health, a nonpro?t corporation. Editorial of?ces: 5100 Leona St., Oakland, CA 94619; (415)482-0805. Book reviews: Michael Kazin, 7103 Georgia St., Chevy Chase, MD, 20815 (301) 656-4863. Copyright ?1989 by The Institute for Labor and Mental Health. All rights reserved. Opinions expressed in Tikknn are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Editorial Board or those of the people listed on the masthead. Unsolicited manuscripts must be accompanied by a SASE, or they will not be returned. Subscriptions can be placed by calling 1-800-825-0061. $30 for 6 issues, $60 for 12 issues, $90 for 18 issues. Add $7 per year for all foreign subscriptions (including Canada and Latin America). Please pay for all orders in US. funds (including postal money orders) and with checks drawn from a US. bank only. Institutional subscriptions: $40 for 6 issues. Limited availability of back issues?inquire at editorial of?ce. All subscription problems can be dealt with by our subscription service: Tikkun, PO. Box 6406, Syracuse, NY 13217; (800)825-0061. Please allow 6-8 weeks for any subscription transaction, including receiving your ?rst issue, solving subscription problems, or changing your address. (You may get a bill or a renewal notice after you've already paid or renewed. Please disregard. Bills and payments cross in the mail.) Articles appearing in Tikknn have been indexed in Political Science Abstract, The Alternative Press Index, Book Review Index, Index to Jewish Periodicals, and Religion Index One: Periodicals in Magazine Index, Magazine Index Plus, Academic Index. and Public Information, all available from Information Access Co., (800)227-8431; and in The Left Index. Book reviews appearing in Tikknn have been indexed in Index to Book Reviews in Religion (IBBR). 16 mm and 35 mm micro?lm, 105 micro?che and article copies are available from UMI, 300 North Zeeb Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Selected articles are also available via Ti/ckun Online in the Jewish conference on the WELL. Audio-taped back issues of Tikkun are available free of charge for blind or visually impaired people. Contact the Library at the Jewish Braille Institute of America, Inc. (212-889-2525). A m' ?Hm WEST BANK PLEA To the Editor: About one year ago a group of faculty members at Tel Aviv University formed an association called AD KAN (which means ?Until Here! or ?No More! as an immediate response to the intifada? the Palestinian uprising against the oc- cupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Since its inception, AD KAN has been active in voicing our protest at current Israel policies in the occupied areas. Our activities include open symposia and meetings with Palestinian academ~ ics and public ?gures both in Israel and in the occupied territories, fact- ?nding visits to the West Bank and Gaza, petitions and protest demonstra- tions, and ongoing efforts on behalf of detainees arrested without trial. We ask you to join us in our present campaign to reopen the universities of the West Bank and Gaza. Since January 8,1988, all institutions of higher learn- ing in the occupied territories have been shut by the military authorities. Some eighteen thousand Palestinian students and twenty-?ve hundred fac- ulty members have been prevented from exercising their basic right to learn and to teach. As academics, we protest the harsh and unfair collective punishment of all students and lectur- ers in the West Bank and Gaza. We appeal to the Israeli government and the military authorities to reopen the universities immediately. We believe that promotion of higher education is essential for a constructive and intelli- gent dialogue, which will bene?t both peoples -?:Israeli and Palestinian. Please, send us your personal mes- sage of support by letter, telegram, or telex. Donations will be appreciated. Thank you! AD KAN PO. Box 39935 Tel Aviv 61397 Israel JACKSON AND THE JEws To the Editor: I found ?Current Debate: Jackson and the Jews? (Tile/tun, Jan/Feb. 1989) to be remarkably constricted in scope. Rather than a debate, Landauer and Berman?s articles were really a sort of friendly dialogue about the best way for the Jewish left to withhold support from Jackson. While criticizing Landauer for being disillusioned at ?nding anti-Semitism on the left in general, Berman states, ?The left is vast; there are no mem- bership requirements. Prejudices and blindnesses of every hue and persua- sion come pouring through the door.? So, what?s the deal here? Why should we expect to ?nd anti-Semitism within the American left?which numbers in the hundreds of thousands?but not in an emerging American Rainbow, which numbers in the millions? Why does Berman say that we must ?ght anti-Semitism in the left from within, but that we should ?ght anti-Semitism in the Rainbow from wit/rout? The central question cannot be whether anti-Semitism exists in the constituency of Reverend Jackson, or in the constituency of any other movement?because the answer will always be yes. The question must be whether anti-Semitism exists in the program of the Rainbow or the platform of the reverend. The answer to that question is no. Similarly, the question is not whether there is any racism in the contributors to Tikkun?because the answer to that question has to be yes. The ques- tion is whether there is racism in the policies of Tile/can. The answer to that question is no. We have a choice here. We can stand with the forces of change, or we can stand outside them. We can choose, as Jackson says, to turn to each other, not on each other. There is nothing to be gained by withholding progressive Jewish support (critical if need be) from the man and the movement that has taken an agenda of justice and peace to the center stage of American politics. Nothing to be gained from withholding Jewish sup- port from the electoral and activist movement that is the center for change in this period. In the last ?ve years, Jesse has begun the process of consolidating disparate forces into both a progressive national electoral movement and a progressive national organization. The coalition that developed around his candidacies arguably represents the most critical development in the realignment of political forces in recent United States history. This is indeed, Mr. Berman and Mr. Landauer, a movement to ?heal, repair and transform the world.? It is also a movement that strives to heal and re- pair and transform itself. The Rainbow Coalition welcomes us. Jesse Jackson welcomes us. No one has ?kicked us out.? The door is open. The door has always been open. There is really no reason to stand outside. Sabina Virgo Chair, Jewish Voters forJesse Jackson, 1984,1988 Los Angeles Member, National Board of Directors, Rainbow Coalition To the Editor: In a dialogue with Carl Landauer on the issues ofJews andJesse Jackson, Paul Berman?a man who, as does Mr. Landauer, I have also regarded as a thoughtful and interesting writer on the left?has resorted to the kind of intel. lectual cheap shots and demagoguery hardly be?tting a writer who seeks to defend nuances and complexities. In trying to make the argument that an all-or-nothing attitude leads neoconservatives to countenance anti- Semitism, Mr. Berman writes?in a paragraph that reeks of left-wing neo- McCarthyism?that ?Commentary?s sis- ter magazine New Criterion has brought the neoconservative view to a crazy extreme by publishing a Jewish his- torian who picks Hitler?s allies as the preferred victors in the Spanish Civil War. (True, the Axis had its flaws, but it was ?ghting Arguing that such neoconservatives are ?eeing toward anti-Semitism, Berman asserts that ?we on the left are going to have to rescue them from their own allies.? As a writer who himself has been charged by those he has recently termed ?Stalinist pigs? with being a defender of fascism, because he dared to tell the truth in the pages of the Village Voice about the dark side of the Lincoln Brigade, Berman should not be using that same kind of logic against those with whom he disagrees. Thanks, Paul, but I don?t need res- cuing. Moreover, as you well know, I ERRATUM In ?Criticism and Restitution? by Geoffrey Hartman (Vol. 4, No. 2) on page 30, bottom line, left column, ?Wolfe? should have read ?Woolf? (as in Virginia Woolf). LETTERS 3 am not a neoconservative, but a social democrat. But perhaps you need to learn to read. After all, I did make clear in my article that the Western embargo against the Republic should have been lifted, and that ?the main threat to the world in the thirties was that of aggressive Hitlerism.? In- deed, as H. R. TrevonRoper argued years ago, Hitler?s chances of achieving victory might have been strengthened had a Spanish Republic controlled by Stalin won. Friendly to Hitler and hos- tile to the West, Stalin might have provided the Germans with the transit through Spain that Franco refused, allowing them to cut off Britain?s vital access to the Mediterranean. The issues were not so simple, as Berman I think really knows. And those concerned with saving Jews might think twice about the result had Stalin won. What I actually said in my now much-debated article (?But Today the Struggle: Spain and the Intellectuals,? the New Criterion, October 1986) was not that Franco was the preferred vic- tor, but that ?by 1937, the Spanish ?Red? Republic had more in common with Franco?s territories in Spain, or with the authoritarian regime after his victory, than it did with the libertarian revolt of 1936 that had been heralded by the much quoted George Orwell.? I also cited Stanley G. Payne?s con- sidered judgment that there was little reason to assume that a Communist- dominated republic would have shown any tolerance for dissent; that ?there was nothing in Franco?s zone to equal the almost constant inner party murder that went on under the People?s Repub- lic.? Indeed, Payne argues it was just this situation that led to the ??nal collapse of morale? within Republican ranks. Does Berman really disagree with this? Or is his vulgarization of my argument just a way of showing that he is really of the left?and is fully capable of using the same kind of smear arguments favored by so many Old Leftists? Indeed, I suspect that had Berman lived in a successful Red- dominated Spain, he would not have been so happy. As Luis Araquistain, the intellectual adviser to Largo Caballero and an important left-wing Marxist, wrote to his daughter in January 1939, ?Whether we win or lose this war, the independent socialists will have to emigrate, because we shall be assas- sinated [either] by Franco or the Com- 4 TIKKUN VOL. 4, No. 3 munists.? The Communist tactic was to control the Republican army, and, while pretending to be organizers of a Popular Front army, to take it over in order to make Spain into a Soviet- dominated Republic. Does Paul Berman really want to argue that this was preferable to a Franco victory?because, after all, the Communists used the right rhetoric and claimed to be on the side of the people? I would have enjoyed seeing him tell the Red Army ?ring squad or torture brigade how he was on their side, and favored their victory. In a war in which both major parties (not the defeated anarcho-syndicalists and POUMists) were rotten moral equiva- lents, one can be saddened about the choices presented by historical reality. At least let us agree that the of the Stalinist left have been discredited by historical accounts. I think Paul Berman owes those of us who have raised these issues an apology, and that he should try to adhere to the high standards for which he is known? standards that do not usually involve trite vulgarization meant to score po- litical points. Ronald Radosh New York, New York Carl Landauer responds: Ronald Radosh has addressed his remarks to Paul Berman, so I will limit my response to Sabina Virgo?s letter. When I wrote my part of the debate with Berman, I was trying to say some- thing about the left and its responsibil- ities, but I assumed that some readers would focus on the presupposition of my argument?~that there is something objectionable to Jesse Jackson?s insen- sitivity to American Jews. SabinaVirgo has done just that. She argues that although one cannot deny the presence of a certain amount of anti-Semitism in Jackson?s constituency (on the theory that there is anti-Semitism everywhere), the program of the Rainbow Coalition is in no sense anti-Semitic. That, how- ever, is not an entirely genuine response to my comments because it seems to avoid Jesse Jackson?s own insensitivities. Her argument is part legerdemain, a quick slide from the matter-of-fact presence of anti-Semitism everywhere to the faultlessness of Jackson?s plat- form. But where is Jackson himself? What are his responsibilities? I do want to emphasize, however, that the real point of my cements was to suggest that the left should follow its own values and insist that the welcome mat Ms. Virgo offers not be pulled out from under anyone?s feet. Paul Berman responds: My reason for disagreeing with Sabina Virgo?s perspective appeared in two articles on Jackson (Tile/curt, July/Aug. 1988 and Jan/Feb. 1989). There is no point in rehearsing these arguments yet again. Ronald Radosh objects that, in a two-sentence throwaway comment in the latter of these articles, I have mis- characterized his own views on the Spanish Civil War of fifty years ago, which is not exactly a relevant theme, but is always interesting to debate. Let Ron?s letter stand, then, as a substitute for my two inadequate sentences. May I confess, though, to a lingering dif?culty in understanding his View? If Stalinists would have controlled a victorious Spanish Republic, and if Stalinist control would have bettered Hitler?s chances of winning the Second World War, isn?t Ron still saying that Franco?s victory was to be preferred? Ron?s talk of ?left-wing neo- McCarthyism? and ?smear arguments? isn?t nice. But he?s correct in suggest- ing that if I myself had been in the Spanish Civil War, somebody some- where would have lined me up against a wall. Something like that always seems to happen merely from mentioning that war ?fty years later. ADDICTIONS To the Editor: Michael Bader?s article on models of ?addiction? (Ti/ekun, Nov/Dec. 1988) is a thoughtful critique of the limita- tions of these popular theories. Yet Bader?s article repeats a fundamental mistake that has prevented the left intelligentsia from reaching large numbers of people. To put it simply, Bader fails to appreciate the power of these ?addiction models,? and fails to notice the dramatic social changes occurring that are positive. This is, of course, unfair criticism since Bader says that he is concerned mostly with the theories themselves and not with the uses to which they are put. waste?: Yet Bader himself is unable to refrain from denigrating ?addiction? models and associated treatments. Bader's main concerns are that, one, these addiction models ?block? the patient?s investigation into the deep, subtle dynamics that carry childhood pain and conflicr into adult life; and, two, these addiction mod- els ?block? an understanding of the sociohistorical conditions that create ?dysfunctional families? (which then produce adults with various ?addic- tions?). But could one say that Newton- ian physics ?blocked? the development of Einsteinian physics? Could we have arrived at Einsteinian physics without the theoretical and practical bene?ts of Newtonian physics? The ?rst model is not, theoretically, a block to deeper undersranding through the develop- ment of another theory. Similarly, can?t patients come to the subtle and power? ful insights of theory after first doing the healing work of- fered by addiction models? On a prac- tical level, if the Adult Child chooses not to go into is it fair to say he or she is blocked? Perhaps it is more accurate to see that as a choice an individual makes about how to allo- cate scarce resources (time, money, emotional investment) to gain certain rewards (the insights of or fun, or love, or accomplishment at work or at a hobby, and so on). And if, as Bader says, there is a block inside a collusion of patient and therapist in avoiding the investi- gation of deep but painful insights through the use of the convenient short- hand of the addiction model, is that the fault of the model or of the therapist?s lack of skill? As Max Weber taught, theories can be thought of as constructs that are neither right nor wrong, but rather useful or not in highlighting important aspecrs of reality. The questions be- come, What aspect are we interested in looking at? Who?s to do the looking? And for what purpose is one looking? Bader says the addiction models mystify important elements of a per- son?s past. For example, ?dysfunctional family? is used as a cover to avoid ex- plaining and confronting the roots of a mother?s depression. Yet Bader does not realize that, for a victim of abuse, focusing attention on the causes of a mother?s abuse may feel like another kind of abuse. The need of the patient is to move away from focusing on others in order to reorient the self and beCOme empowered, to feel and to express and heal feelings of shame, fear, and anger. The ?mysti?cation? of addic- tion models is rather a deliberate turn- ing away from certain phenomena not because these phenomena are irrele- vant, but because for the wounded 1361* son it is more helpful during much of the healing process to focus elsewhere. It is interesting to notice what the practice of often mysti- ?es. are not always eager to share with their clients an un- derstanding of their theoretical frame work. Professionals retain the power of ?expert? in a fee-for-service relation- ship that is pursued in the isolation of a private dyad. In that relationship, often ?mystify? their mistakes and inadequacies. At points when the patient?s childlike demands for absolute love are frustrated, when a patient?s sense of betrayal and suspi- cion is expressed, therapists often ig- nore their own failings in an eager attempt to focus the patient on his or her own feelings. Many therapeutic relationships do not weather these one- sided storms. \that is the casualty rate among patients? How many patients? victims of various kinds of abuse in childhood?move from therapist to therapist, looking for but not ?nding the help they seek because that help is ?mystified?? (Looking for help in all the wrong places. . . .) On the one hand, addiction-model self-help groups oper- ate on an open and accessible theoreti- cal basis. While there are dropouts from groups as well, the group pro cess encourages the development of what Tt'klemz has been calling for, the Three C?s: compassion, community, and connection. Bader has a good point?-the ad- diction models do not lead to insight- ful (or any) sociohistotical analyses? and I have two responses. First, how many patients develop insightful so- cial analyses in ses- sions? Second, are social theorists really ?blocked? from understanding socio? historical conditions by the addiction models? Aren't theorists able to use alternate theories, like theory, to aid them?I Can?t we have a plethora of models, each used for par- ticular ends, highlighting various im- portant features of reality? Need we denigrate one model because it doesn?t IUDAISM The Evolution of 3 Faith Phillip Sigal Revised by Lillian Sigal "Judaism: The Evolution of a Faith is the distillation of the late Rabbi Phillip Sigal's scholarship of a lifetime, evidencing the mastery of a literature which stretches over the millennia, and the ability to analyze and to SOme very complicated spiritual and intellectual phenomena in a manner which can be easily understood." ?]akob I. Petuchowski Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion 1e Evolution Qfa Faith "An enlightening study for laypersons and scholars alike.? ?Booklist "In eminently readable language Phillip Sigal has produced a concise, solid summary of the origin and evolution of Judaism and an informative review of its basic tenets and practices. . . . The book should have wide appeal, one heightened by Lillian Sigal?s timely appendix portraying feminine images of God and tracing the evolving role of women in Judaism.? ?Marilyn Schaub Duquesne University Paper, $14.95 Cloth, $21.95 At your bookstore, or call 1?300-633-9326 WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING CO. Grand Rapidt, Michigan LETTERS 5 help us in a particular direction? Hav- ing two kinds of screwdrivers allows a carpenter to approach many more projects than one screwdriver allows. The addiction model is, as Bader says, ?inadequate?-?but only for certain im- portant purposes; for other important purposes it does seem suf?cient. Bader makes a good case for show- ing how addiction models are limited. But our intellectual instinct (or condi- tioned re?ex?) lies all too often in showing how elements of popular cul- ture are super?cial and de?cient. Let us approach popular culture with an attitude of compassion, concern, and interest. I think that such an attitude w0uld lead us to realize that self-help groups?which is the form of treat- ment associated often with addiction models?represent one of the most seri- ous and startling movements in years. As feminists did years ago, large numbers of people are breaking through not only their own isolation, but also our culture?s taboos on discussing painful personal prob- lems (problems having to do with family, food, alcohol, self-abusive rela- tions with lovers, and so on). There is a new level of sharing and acceptance going on, which counteracts society?s strongest forti?cation of cultural op- pression: silence. Individuals, through group support and often in the ab- sence of a paid authority, are becom- ing empowered to reject abuse and internalized oppression. Of course, it is easy to criticize the self-help movement?s emphasis on per- sonal change, its ignoring of wider systemic issues. But it should also be noted that there are openings being created for more directed social change. First of all, personal change is now going on in a group, therefore social, context. One barrier to collective ac- tion is individualism; this barrier gets broken down as people become ac- customed to sharing and helping each other with pain and abuse. Further- more, individual change is important and necessary; in some ways it may be the groundwork for later social change. For example, a woman who stands up to her screwed-up, sexist, abusive male partner may then ?nd it easier to stand up to her screwed-up, sexist, abusive male employer. ?Addiction? patterns extend beyond personal spheres and have effects in the social, economic, and political spheres of society as well. 6 TIKKUN VOL. 4, N0. 3 Personally empowered individuals are more likely to see the possibility and need for political empowerment than those caught up in old patterns of abuse and internalized oppression. An understanding of the power of what is happening on the ground and an appreciation of the role of the addic- tion models allow us to move beyond a simple critique of the models? limita- tion. Remaining at that level of a simple critique leaves us intellectuals feeling aloof, superior, and detached from popular culture. From that point of isolation, we are unable to build bridges to popular culture and ful?ll what we have always assumed to be our role: the vanguard leading the progressive struggle. It is this dynamic among left~ wing intellectuals that helps account for our marginality in American politics (though there are other reasons). The left has been unable to challenge the Republican hold on the working class, achieved largely through the Repub- licans? symbolic appeals to ?ag and family. We must not only come up with better symbols, we must ?rst change our attitudes. Ronald Reagan seems to really believe in the common person: do we? Bader?s article does help one focus on the limitations of the models and self-help movements. Yet we should take stock of the limitations of popular culture not in the service of rejecting it (unless it is fascist and dangerous), but in the service of understanding it, forming a relation to it, looking for its progressive open- ings, and encouraging future movement through those openings. Bader?s article, like much of left-wing intellectual analy- sis, does not help us move forward. - And, eventually, one must ask why. Perhaps we are unable to move for- ward, and perhaps we actually enjoy the comfort of our detachment. But perhaps we are acting out of our own internalized oppression as intel- lectuals. In America (Tocqueville?s land of democracy and equality, where mass opinion dangerously threatens individual genius), there is a certain suspicion of intellectuals not found in all Western industrial societies. As children, many of us currently left- wing intellectuals may have been looked upon with resentment by other chil- dren. Were we socially marginalized, teased as the ?brain? of the class.> If so, it would make sense that we would internalize that oppression, coming to take a detached critical stand toward all that is popular and ?super?cial.? Can we heal ourselves now of these childhoods of marginality and isolation, ?nd a way to connect with popular culture (and popular people), and use our intelligence the way it was intended to operate, with compassion and hope? Mark Feinberg Boston, Massachusetts To the Editor: My quarrel with Michael Bader is this: the support/recovery groups are both more and less than Bader indi- cates. Yes, the groups and therapies aim to break the cycle of dysfunction. But nowhere is the blame placed on the ?dysfunctional family.? And nowhere is recovery predicated solely on ?taking care of yourself ?rst.? Especially in the ACA groups, there are twelve steps to recovery which, when integrated into the person?s life, will effect a ?person- ality change suf?cient to bring about recovery? (Alcoholics Anonymous, page 569, 2nd edition). Taking care of oneself ?rst is just the beginning. The goal is to become a fuller functioning member of society. These groups have never (and should never) claim to have the sole answer to the problems of their members. Their literature recommends conjunc. tive treatment and/or therapy for whom- ever needs that. They also never claim to discover the sociological etiology of the dysfunction/ disease. That is not their purpose. Their purpose is to break the cycle. Only after that is achieved can healing begin. And it is only after healing that the underlying problems can be solved. To do otherwise is akin to taking an active alcoholic and at- tempting to solve his or her social prob- lems without ?rst achieving sobriety. The person may come to see why they drink, but all that will do is make them a smart drunk. Rabbi Susan Stone Cleveland, Ohio Mic/me! Bader responds: Admitted, self-help groups help a lot of people and are sometimes more effective than in stop- ping self-abusive behavior. Having con- ceded this point for the second time (the ?rst being in my original article) I think it would only be fair for Mark Feinberg to admit that there is some- thing sick about our individual and social tendency to reduce complex and social processes to ?addictions.? By sick I mean that ad- diction theory offers our private and collective a defensive escape from various painful forms of respon- sibility that might otherwise be con- fronted and transcended. Of course, people also desire the connectedness found in twelve-step groups as an antidote to isolation. But just because therapy happens in a group doesn?t mean that it automati- cally becomes an opening? for political consciousness-raising. In this case, for instance, I believe that these groups 'can bring people relief precisely be- cause they clore openings for deeper insight into personal and social realities. And just because left intellectuals often prefer to be critics rather than practice what Feinberg clubs ?the three Tile/can C?s [compassion, community, connec- tion]? doesn?t mean that potentially retrograde movements in popular cul- ture shouldn?t be critically analyzed. The addiction movement has never been critiqued, from the right or the left. It is allied with a pseudoscienti?c movement to reduce mental illness to biology, to attribute causation to ab- stract processes like ?compulsions.? The left has mirrored the response of the popular culture rather than trying to understand it. Feinberg, for instance, imagines that these groups are much like feminist consciousness-raising groups were, empowering people to move out- ward and challenge other forms of abuse. Some people do, perhaps, much as some patients do. But the norm is more often a retreat from both the broader social world and the one. My essay was not intended to trash the movement but to look at how it functions ideo- logically, how it taps into the uncon- scious needs of people to make them feel better, even at the cost of a depth of thinking or an appreciation of reality. I don?t offer as the alternative; I particularly don?t propose that we substitute the kind of bad that Feinberg describes, even though bad fre- quently works to cure people of their (Actually, I suppose that Mr. Feinberg ought not to critically (Continued on p. 114) 0.0-4 f' 59% 9: 1 731.3313?: ?fth Jib After more than thirty centuries, Jews continue to debate this question. At stake is the integrity of millions of Jews who do not find their Jewish identity in religious beliefs or practices, but in the historic experience of the Jewish people. Judaism, as a culture, is more than a theological commitment. The authority to define \?ig is a belongs to all the Jewish people and cannot be usurped by any part of it. We affirm that a Jew is a person of Jewish descent or any person who declares himself or herself to be a Jew, and who identifies with the history, ethical values, culture, civilization, commu- nity and fate of the Jewish people. excerpt from resolution issued by the International Federation of Secular Humanistic Jews Yehuda Bauer President Brussels, Belgium, October 1, 1988 If you agree with our position, we urge you to send a tax deductible contribution today. Your direct involvement will help counter the efforts of those intent upon stifling this most essential Jewish freedom. And it will help establish an lsrael where all Jews can thrive. Your moral support is highly valued. Your finan- cial support enables us to take action. Society for Humanistic Judaism 28611 West Twelve Mile Road Pennington Hills, Michigan 48018 I fully support your convictions. Here is my contribution: $18 $36 550 El $100 El $500 $1000 El Other sesame: "11:96~11? 9) 0 5:9. cl Al ?o ity State Zip Contributors will receive a copy of the resolution. LETTERS 7 a family and make a living in imperfect circumstances) in the same kind of contempt that Lemisch makes no effort to hide. For these very reasons, it is politically important for liberals and progressives to dissociate themselves from the style of politics represented by Lemisch and others like him. Ti/ekun wants no part in Lemisch?s kind of left. We have sought (so far unsuccessfully) to ?nd a good word or phrase for our politics?a politics that emphasizes and validates the need of all people for mutual recognition and con?rmation, love and ethically centered community; a politics that focuses its critique of the estab- lished order on the ways that this order frustrates the ful?llment of these needs; a politics that emphasizes compassion and caring; a politics that addresses our responsibility to preserve and protect our physical environment while simul- taneously standing in awe and wonder at its grandeur; a politics that insists on the sanctity of human beings and the primacy of individual freedoms and human rights; a politics that repudiates the legacy of patriarchy and sexist prac- tices; a politics that opposes economic exploitation; a politics that seeks to reconstruct the world of work so that it promotes the development of our highest human capacities; and a politics that advocates a radical reconstruction and democratization of our economic and political systems based on prin- ciples that help to maximize our shared humanity, develop our ethical sensi- tivities, and undermine the coercive power of entrenched elites. This is hardly a conservative politics?but if it does not ?t as part of the left, so much the worse for such a left. All the more reason why we who seek to heal, repair, and transform the world need to build a very different kind of social change movement. El LETTERS (Continued from p. 7) analyze bad at all but instead should see its frequent success as another expression of people?s desire for connectedness. But thenbad therapists?) It was not my intention, nor am I (or anyone else) able, to propose some radically new vision of how to combine relief, restructuring, and social change. As for Rabbi Stone?s claim that ACAs don?t blame their ?dysfunctional families? or emphasize ?taking care of themselves ?rst,? I can only say that their books explicitly say these things over and over, and the dozens of friends, students, and patients that I?ve talked to who are involved in the movement say likewise. And the ?society,? within which they aim to function better, increasingly celebrates these very qualities. SOVIET JEWRY To the Editor: Robert Cullen has written a compel- ling argument for altering American policy on Soviet emigration. He has noted some of the recent changes that have resulted in the USSR as a result of perestroz'lea and glamost, including those relating to travel and emigration, and he argues in favor of a ?kinder and gentler? approach toward the Soviet Union as a reward for these changes. Essentially, the soft approach should consist of a more liberal trade policy and a benevolent attitude that would be expressed by a change in refugee 114 TIKKUN VOL. 4, No. 3 status for Soviet Jews because there is no longer a unilateral presumption of persecution and suffering in the way that there is in Central America and Southeast Asia. To be sure, any and all changes in the Soviet Union should be acknowledged and even rewarded by the US. and the Jewish community. To imply, however, that the Iron Curtain is on the verge of crumbling seems a bit farfetched. More important, Cullen has errone- ously assumed that the question of how the US. should respond to change in the USSR is identical to the ques- tion of how the Jewish community should respond. He has based his as- sumption on the notion that ?Jackson- Vanik" has the same meaning for the US. as it has for the Jewish community. For the U.S., Jackson-Vanik is a tactic within a larger geopolitical framework of East-West relationships. For the Jewish community, trade policy and Jackson-Vanik serve as a convenient and substantive tool in its arsenal of po- litical leverage to liberate Soviet Jews. The plight of Soviet Jewry is more than a human rights issue for the Jewish community. The effort to liberate Soviet Jews is a ?redemptive? movement. The mission, to paraphrase an eminent Jewish communal leader, is to save a signi?cant community from going down the memory hole of history and to enact the vital mitzvah of the redemption of captives. Twentieth-century Jewry has witnessed the devastation of one-third of the world?s Jewish population in the Holocaust during World War II. It has seen Jews die defending the newly created State of Israel, and there is great fear that more Jews will be lost to assimilation and, in the case of the Soviet Union, cultural genocide. The backdrop of one thousand years of popular, state-sanctioned anti-Semitism coupled with the reality of a seventy- year spiritual wasteland underlies the fundamental urgency of the movement to free Soviet Jews. Until the Yom Kippur War in 1973, more than 90 percent of the Jews who emigrated from the USSR went to Israel. Each year since then, greater numbers have chosen to go to countries other than Israel, mainly the US. Now more than 90 percent choose the US. It seems chutzpadi/e for American Jews to demand that others do what they won?t do (move to Israel) and as a consequence restrict the free movement of Soviet Jews . It is a sad commentary if the American Jewish community be- lieves that Soviet Jews will be ?lost? to the Jewish community if they come to America just because we offer greater economic opportunity and perhaps a more peaceful existence. We do believe that every effort should be made to en- courage alz'yab, but if Soviet Jews would rather come to America, we should not consider it a ?loss? to the Jewish people. The fact of the matter is that Soviet Jews are choosing America and may choose not to leave the USSR if that choice is all but eliminated. The American Jewish community must rise to the challenge of absorption and respond. Perhaps this new in?ux will spur our community toward self- examination so that we can not only ?nd a solution to help these new immi- grants identify, but also create innova- tive ways to strengthen our own Jewish identities. Soviet Jewish emigration could be for us what Eastern European Jewish emigration was for America in the twentieth century. Granted, Eastern European Jews came here with a strong identity and vitality, whereas Soviet Jews may not necessarily have that baggage. Nevertheless, in our efforts to welcome those Jews into our com- munity, we may find ourselves enriched and strengthened. The Jewish community?s perspec- tive should remain constant. We can not be romanced by adroitly choreo- graphed short-term geopolitical stra- tegic objectives. Our measurements must be different. To stay in power Gorbachev has also allowed the ugly face of anti- Semitism to show itself through anti- Semitic organizations like Pamyat and through the publication of anti-Semitic literature. With a thousand years of government-sponsored programs and popular anti-Semitism, the slate can not be wiped clean even though Gor- bachev?s intentions may be honorable. Moreover, with hard times persisting, Jews may become scapegoats once again, or Gorbachev may be replaced. Perhaps the best evidence of this possibility is what we can learn from our brothers and sisters in the Soviet Union. Despite the relaxation during the glamost period, our brethren have already reached a verdict by voting with their feet, as greater and greater numbers daily apply for exit visas. We must remain consistent in our objectives, utilizing meaningful prog- ress as the only barometer for political trade-offs. We should judge progress based on these issues: (1) free emigra- tion in signi?cant terms; (2) the right to freely practice religion; (3) free cul- tural opportunity and exchange. We know so bitterly from ?ve thou- sand years of experience how quickly clear windows of opportunity slam shut. Perhaps American foreign policy can take the gamble; we are not sure about the Jewish community. Gloria Blumenthal Joseph E. Langer To the Editor: Under glasnost, as the tide of state- sponsored anti-Semitism falls, there is a commensurate rise in popular anti- Semitism and threats of physical in- timidation. Organizations such as the viciously anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi Pamyat function with state toleration. One need hardly go back to the times of Stalin to identify persecution of Jews; there is ample evidence in the 19705 and 19805. Given the history of Russia, it is a cruel argument indeed to suggest that, at the very moment when a window for emigration has opened,Jews are to be told that their safe havens are being closed until pogroms return and the doors shut again. Now is precisely the time to liberate and harbor as many Soviet Jews as possible. It may indeed be a pragmatic policy to limit refugee status for Soviet Jews, but ?wise? or honorable it is not. Robert Cullen is in error when he claims that the State Department and the INS are not presently denying refugee status to Soviet Jews. Since October, hundreds have been refused? up to the alarming rate of 20 percent in January. He also erroneously suggests that Soviet emigration policies have never been better. In the late 19705, under Brezhnev, nearly 300,000 Jews were set free?over ?fty thousand in 1979 alone?before the Soviets invaded Af- ghanistan and cut the ?ow to nearly nothing. Nearly twenty thousand in 1988 under glasnost hardly compares. Cullen?s assertion is based wholly on Soviet assurances to reform the emigra- tion laws and practices. Unfortunately, the ful?llment of these promises con- tinues to be postponed. Cullen concedes that, ?as far as economic incentives are concerned, there is no doubt that the Soviets would like the Jackson~Vanik amendment re- pealed.? But in concluding that they have responded in the past only to arms agreements, he misses the central point. It is precisely in periods such as 1979, when the Soviets needed and sought improved relations, trade, and arms agreements with the West, that emigration levels rose under Jackson- Vanik. The Soviets respond to self- interest, and Mr. Gorbachev?s primary interest now is to rescue his economy. We do not have to assist his economy by relaxing our demands; he has all the incentives he needs. Changing our refugee policy regard- ing Soviet Jews is both improper and a non sequitur. And yet, we agree with many of Mr. Cullen?s recommenda- tions, insofar as they offer the Soviets measured concessions earned through emigration performance. Thus, we re- cently conceded that if Jewish emigra- tion reaches 30,000 to 35,000 in 1989, RABBI WANTED Small liberal conservative congregation Berkshire County, Massachusetts. Must read Torah, teach, etc. Beautiful synagogue/ adjacent residence, 40?s+ (part time negotiable). Search Committee, Congregation Beth Israel, 265 Church Street, North Adams, MA 01247. as predicted, and if the institutional reforms and emigration of all outstand- ing refusenik cases are accomplished, consistent with the Helsinki Final Act and Concluding Vienna Document, as promised, we would agree to a repeal of the Stevenson Amendment. And, if progress continues, and the annual emigration level reaches a sustained 50,000 to 60,000, we would recommend a one-year waiver of Jackson-Vanik. In a period when popular anti-Semitism is rising and hundreds of thousands of Jews seek emigration, such a test should present no problem if true reform has been accomplished. Beyond Jackson-Vanik, it is true that someday we will have to find other incentives to assure that the Soviets keep their doors open and improve the general conditions for Jews. But we hasten to note that Mr. Cullen?s suggestion that Soviet access to high technology is an appropriate bargain- ing chip is wrong. The Soviet Jewry movement has never advocated trading peace, arms control, or sensitive science and technology explicitly for human rights gains. Today?s signals demand careful ex- amination, monitoring, and veri?ca- tion of performance, not premature euphoria. Now ?is the time to watch, to measure, to verify that the assur- ances given at the United Nations in December and in Vienna in January are converted into high and sustained performance. A new American policy must be based on these premises. Pamela B. Cohen, National President Micah H. Naftalin, National Director The Union of Councils for Soviet Jews To the Editor: Gorby fever is infectious, and Robert Cullen?s gotten it, too. Transmitted by an American media tired of cold-war TIKKUN VOL. 4, No. 3 115 tensions, the fever glazes our eyes to continued Kremlin violations of hu- man rights. These rights have been repeatedly, cynically reaf?rmed by Moscow for the past forty years, most recently on January 17, 1989, at the Helsinki Agreement follow-up meeting in Vienna. To refuse to acknowledge that there?s a change in the USSR is as foolish as to believe that the change is fundamental and institutionalized. The Soviet body politic now appears schizophrenic. On one recent day, a breakthrough article appeared in the reformist Soviets/eaya Kaltura, daring to equate the ubiqui- tous of?cial ?anti-Zionist? campaign with anti-Semitism. A day or two later, Gen. David Dragunsky, chair of the Anti-Zionist Committee of the Soviet Public?which is very much alive de- spite solemn pledges that it has shut down?bitterly attacked the widely promoted opening of the of?cial, token Moscow Jewish Cultural Center as a Zionist subterfuge in ArgumentiI Paleti, also supposedly a glasnost periodical, but with close KGB ties. Then KGB boss Victor Chebrikov declared in a speech reprinted by Pravda, ?Inde- pendent, so-called informal organiza- tions pose great harm to our mighty, positive social movement.? The men in the trenchcoats aren?t yet pussycats. The threat to the network of unof?cial Jewish groups across the USSR tenta- tively spreading their wings is very real. Compared to previous years, Jewish identi?cation is slowly becoming more prevalent in Russia?a welcome change. But most of?cially sanctioned Jewish groups are controlled by the authori- ties, and the unof?cial ones are in?l- trated by them. The ?yi~dee-die? of a mediocre Tevya play is not serious, systematic Jewish education. The edge is off some of the worst excesses of of- ?cial anti-Semitism, but anti-Semitism in Russia is still alive and kicking. Three recent ?anti-Zionist? (read anti- Jewish) books to roll off Soviet presses are Zionism: Preacbing and Practice, Zionism: Enemy of Peace and Social Progress, and Palestine in the Grip of Zionism. One can hear almost daily attacks on Israeli ?atrocities? and ?con- centration camps for Arabs? on Radio Moscow?s English-language shortwave service. Glasnost has also given the green light to a witches? brew of anti- "Humane Semitic groups such as Pamyat to or- ganize around the USSR, with only scattered criticism in the press. Soviet street corners may not be swarming with evil KGB agents wait- ing to pounce on every Jew, but the lurking fear is there, spurring a large potential for Jewish emigration. A ?wise policy,? as Cullen puts it, would dictate prudence, giving some thanks for positive steps, reminding Gorbachev that his regime has yet to meet minimal human rights standards enumerated in the very accords the Kremlin has signed, then moving slowly toward decreasing blocks to nonstra- tegic U.S.-USSR trade. We must remem- ber that the Jackson-Vanik amendment is our trump card, given its highly symbolic importance to the Kremlin. Once a waiver ofJackson-Vanik is given, the horses are out of the barn, probably never to be rounded up again, given the well-funded muscle of the American business lobby. Glen Richter National Coordinator Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry \Amwm?w'uxe wuwm ngza'?n - 1; ED NEW YORK (Continued from p. 22) course, real estate, which is to New York City what oil is to Houston. Koch succored this boom enthusiastically with enormous tax abatements and exemptions, but instead of meeting basic human needs, the new indus- tries and their managers were parasitical and nonpro- ductive, consolidating the nation?s investment decisions in a few thousand big corporations. The boom certainly didn?t trickle down. Unlike the older Jewish and white ethnic entrepreneurial and pro~ fessional middle classes, which had come up from the tenements to build the culture of progressive institu- tions, the new managerial and investment classes seemed remarkably self-contained. Most of the new revenue that they paid the city went right back into services and amenities for themselves. Upscale New York experienced the consolidation not only of investment decisions but also of a style lubricated by expense accounts and tax breaks which further robbed the public sector of vitality. It was a hedonistic and not particularly creative style, corrosive of familial and neighborhood obligations. Luxury conversions of lofts and tenements administered the coup de grace to most of the remaining blue-collar jobs and lower-income communities in Manhattan. Koch refused to use scarce housing subsidies to keep lifelong 116 TIKKUN VOL. 4, N0. 3 residents in neighborhoods that were being gentri?ed, yet he also refused to recoup the millions of dollars in tax abatements and exemptions he had given to accel- erate the neighborhood conversions?tax dollars that could have helped house the homeless. So deepened an apartheid that presidential commis- sions had warned about?enclaves of af?uence amid seas of despair, an isolation of classes completed by segregated transit (limos, cabs, express buses) and segre- gated schools, which permitted upscale aspirants to ignore or even justify the suffering of those who, in their destitution and desperation, seemed to be members of a different species. Even before the October 1987 market crash put an end to the boom, a new wave of corporate departures was sweeping the city, with execu- tives blaming not high taxes but the precipitous decline in the ?quality of life.? i What is happening in the city now is almost unbeliev- able, and the numbers one can cite do no: begin to portray the disastrous situation. The chaos is boiling up in hospital emergency rooms jammed with the plague- stricken: as if AIDS and crack were not enough, tuber- culosis, all but wiped out in the 19505, is back, to the tune of some two thousand cases in 1988. One reason ?rms are leaving is that so few New Yorkers applying for six-dollar?an-hour jobs can pass drug tests. The ubiqui- tous drug economy, the collapse of the old criminal?s