Book Review: Samuel Heilman’s Sliding to the Right
It’s a topic we’ve spoken about quite a lot on here. Samuel Heilman’s Sliding to the Right: The Contest for the Future of American Jewish Orthodoxy is a book about what we more often call the “shift to the right” of Jewish Orthodoxy.
This is a review of a book we’ve already discussed a bit about. I was writing a review of the book in the summer for Commentary, but wedding plans got in the way and I never submitted a second draft.
Here goes:
There is no topic that more captivates contemporary Orthodox Judaism than the so-called “shift to the right,” an assumed development of a relatively novel stringency and conservatism in most elements of Jewish life.
The discussion of this supposed shift has taken place over the past couple decades, and has yet to develop consensus on the core elements: reasonable minds disagree on whether a shift has even occurred, as well as on what the parameters for measuring such change would be, and – most importantly – whether the alleged changes are good for the Orthodox and the Jewish people generally, or bad for them.
Orthodoxy is set to become the dominant element in American Jewry in the next two decades, if it hasn’t already. Boasting vastly higher rates for all the significant matrices of Jewish involvement, as well as higher birth rates and retention of constituency from both assimilation and intermarriage, there is a case to be made that the Orthodox have taken not simply the denominational lead over traditional powerhouses Reform and Conservative Judaism, but are ready to grab hold of even the non-denominational groups that represent the heart of Jewish giving and communal organization, such as the United Jewish Communities. If the Orthodox weren’t at the top of the ladder when the most recent National Jewish Population Survey was conducted in 2002, the numbers it presented assured that Orthodoxy’s ascent is a given.
And so, a study of not only what Orthodoxy is, but also what it is becoming and will be, is immensely valuable. In particular, one that would capture this key discussion in Orthodoxy of a shift to the right, and skillfully parse the competing arguments and disputed numbers, would tell us just where Judaism will be when today’s infants become adults.
A quality study would address the major concerns of today’s Orthodox leaders: whether universal observance of the most stringent of textual interpretations is a good thing; if and where a shift rightward can perhaps go too far, and even become its own heresy; why Orthodox Jews are appearing to become increasingly enclavist, and what the ramifications of that are; what the Modern Orthodox renaissance of the mid-20th century did for Judaism, and if it is fundamentally unsustainable; how Zionism is changing, too.
To be sure, those seeking answers to these questions are not the Orthodox alone. All of Jewish leadership is seeing the Orthodox ground appear to move before its eyes, and it is very much seeking out those who will provide an explanation of just what is going on.
In this task, the leading sociologist of Orthodox Judaism, Samuel Heilman, fails miserably. The best that can be said for this latest volume – the first work of book length to tackle the topic — is that at least it doesn’t get many arguments wrong about the shift to the right. However, the reason why Heilman doesn’t strike out is because, for the most part, he doesn’t even step up to the plate.
Of Heilman’s eight chapters (nine, including the introduction), it can charitably be said that at most two make any effort at all to quantify that a shift to the right is actually occurring and what such a shift could mean, and in these his efforts seem half-hearted.
Even when Heilman actually keeps to the book’s topic, he leads readers astray.
Heilman spends his second chapter trying to define the relative quantities of Modern Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and how those may have shifted in the past few decades. This is vital for understanding whether what we are seeing is a true ideological shift, or simply the result of relative birthrates. As Heilman notes, it’s quite difficult to come upon a clear dividing line between the one and the other. Certainly, working off of survey data available from the NJPS, the United States Census, and other publicly-available data, the variables are responses to questions far too broad to get an accurate reading.
This speaks to the key question: what makes a Jew Ultra-Orthodox? Heilman largely punts on this one, seeking to rely on “the criteria of large family, private education for their children, and proximity to Haredi institutions.” The first of these two criteria make it almost impossible to differentiate between the Modern Orthodox who populate Yeshiva University and represented a key movement towards what Heilman calls “contrapuntralism” – or willingness to engage in multiple cultures (i.e. Orthodox and American) simultaneously – and the Ultra-Orthodox, or Haredim, comprised of all forms of Hasidism and those non-Hasidim whose members occupy legendary American yeshivas like Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood, New Jersey, and Ner Israel Rabbinical Seminary in Baltimore, Maryland. Both groups produce larger families than the rest of the Jewish people – as well as America generally – and average family size among the two can often be quite similar, while private education in Orthodox schools is a hallmark of both.
While “proximity to Haredi institutions” would seem to be a clincher, given Orthodox Jews’ need to be within walking distance of an appropriate synagogue for Sabbath and holiday services, Heilman must have gotten something wrong in his calculations. Perhaps he simply failed to note the great quantity of small Ultra-Orthodox synagogues – shteiblach – that pepper these areas. We don’t know why he went wrong, but what’s quite clear is that he very much did. The most blatant example of this comes in his analysis of three major Orthodox neighborhoods in Brooklyn, New York.
Heilman asserts that of the 207,000 Orthodox Jews found by the NJPS to live in Williamsburg, Boro Park, and Flatbush/Midwood/Kensington, only 75,000 are Ultra-Orthodox. In contrast, many Jewish communal experts, called to estimate the proportion of Ultra-Orthodox in these areas off the top of their heads, would likely assume a proportion more or less the reverse of Heilman’s. And Heilman’s own statistics bear out the absurdity of his claim: he readily admits that pretty much all of Williamsburg’s 57,000 Jews are Ultra-Orthodox on page 73. Whether he simply forgot this in compiling his analysis on page 74 is unclear, but the close reader is left to wonder how at all Heilman expects those with any knowledge of the other two communities could believe that a mere 20,000 – an incredibly-low 13 percent of Orthodox Jews there – are Ultra-Orthodox, where they are widely assumed to comprise a super-majority. To entertain that the widely-assumed Ultra-Orthodox majority there is actually represented by so very few is the equivalent of believing that Ohio’s Republicans are actually an irrelevant, if noisy, fringe group.
Heilman’s assertion here is so odd that it alone calls into question his fitness to conduct this study.
It’s hard not to look at Heilman’s distortion of the numbers and wonder whether he is actually rooting against a shift to the right, and whether that colors the rest of his argument. To the degree that his book addresses a shift to the right, this appears so.
While apparently finding it too taxing to even do much exploration of what the shift to the right is, he devotes an entire chapter to describing what he perceives to be an Ultra-Orthodox turn leftward, because members of that community are seeking education at a specially-tailored vocational school and seeking jobs that don’t require them to compromise their practices or values. To the degree that this is a leftward turn for some extreme Ultra-Orthodox, its end result places the school’s graduates toward the middle of the Ultra-Orthodox spectrum, and nowhere near its left fringe. Inasmuch, this is largely irrelevant to a discussion of whether Orthodoxy as a whole is moving at all, even if to a man hoping for reversal of a rightward shift it is a Godsend. It is worth noting that this chapter is by far Heilman’s best, and in this regard it must be further noted that its strongest elements come from citations of two volumes by other authors.
To these twin episodes of trumped-up demographics and a starry-eyed glance toward a non-existent leftward shift, add the single moment in the book when Heilman actually has the courage to draw a specific line between left and right, one that can be challenged to really test whether Heilman knows what he is doing here. What this moment reveals is that he absolutely does not.
In an exhausting, wrongheaded, and creepily obsessive chapter on the Holocaust’s effects on 20th century American Orthodoxy, Heilman makes some small effort – almost his book’s only effort – to address whether an ideological shift is taking place that speaks to more than just birthrates. There’s no better place to look for a shift than Yeshiva University, the Modern Orthodox flagship that hosted the intellectual revolution of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, who synthesized Judaism with worldly philosophy like no one before or since. And there’s no better way to examine Yeshiva University than to look at its current pre-eminent scholar, Rabbi Hershel Schachter. This is where countless others in the debate over the rightward shift have looked, and Heilman goes there, too. But his analysis is so far afield from even the most basic understanding of how Judaism as a whole works that it is puzzling to consider that Heilman has spent a career studying it.
Heilman quotes at length an essay by Schachter discussing the prohibitions of engaging other religions, which Schachter asserts are paramount. Heilman says “it is a Haredi message, for it clearly resonates with the religious sectarianism, insularity, and sense of superiority that is taken for granted among the Haredi Orthodox.” Heilman goes on to describe this message: “The comments by Rabbi Hershel Schachter that the religious requirement to avoid ‘idol worship’ must be understood as a prohibition by Jews…to even learn about Christianity (including even watching a mass on television in the privacy of one’s home).”
That Heilman is surprised by this indicates he has no business writing a book about Judaism, or any religion. To begin with, there is the plain fact that Schachter’s words here in no way express a shift to the right from Soloveitchik’s attitudes that Heilman wants to tout, showing he doesn’t really understand Orthodoxy – left, right, or center. That he would choose watching a mass on television as an example of a lightweight self-education about Christianity, when such broadcasts are at their core a way to reach out to Catholic faithful and to proselytize others, shows that he doesn’t really understand how the interaction of religions works. But on the most basic level, that he is taken off guard by the suggestion that religion legislates conduct “in the privacy of one’s home” shows that he is an illegitimate candidate for telling readers anything at all about the topic.
There is much else in Heilman’s book that makes it even less worthy of serious consideration. In particular, the armchair speculation to which he seems quite prone leads him to absurd analyses of so much more, such as a mischaracterization of the dominance of a “yeshivish” way of speaking, by citing a call for educators to teach their students Hebrew terms for things like Saturday night, which is simply not what “yeshivish” really is. There’s some comedy in Heilman’s lack of comprehension, which comes particularly to the fore in his chapter-long analysis of humor site Bangitout.com, during which Heilman presents dry analyses of jokes he clearly doesn’t get.
And through it all, Heilman doesn’t even seem to try to present much of a thesis that there is a shift to the right going on, or to describe in any significant regard how Orthodoxy’s future has become a “contest,” as his subtitle promises. Beyond the rare engagements with these elements, the majority of his book comes across as an essentially random assemblage of vignettes about contemporary Orthodoxy stuffed into one volume with a jazzy title.
American Orthodoxy’s future is in many ways American Judaism’s future. And its shift to the right – which does more or less exist – will have a huge impact on American Jewry. These things are worthy of much study, but Heilman is ill-equipped to lead it.
January 30th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Notice that Sam Heilman reviewed his own book on Amazon under his own name to drive up the reader review stars. What does that say about his own self indulgent perspective that does not look outside itself? Do other authors review their own books on Amazon?
Anyone want to respond this his self-advertisment?
January 30th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
This seems a particularly mean spirited review that alas reflects many of the gratuitously self-serving comments earlier posted by you everytime I have been quoted in some publicaton. You seem to have decided that you will determine the canon and be the gatekeeper on who can or cannot properly analyze Orthodoxy. Like self-styled experts who apparently have not yet been recognized for the wisdom they can impart, you are rife with opinions presenting themselves as facts. This piece is filled with quite a few unsupported armchair assertions itself. For example: “there’s no better way to examine Yeshiva University than to look at its current pre-eminent scholar, Rabbi Hershel Schachter.” or ” Orthodoxy is set to become the dominant element in American Jewry in the next two decades, if it hasn’t already,” or “the Orthodox have taken not simply the denominational lead over traditional powerhouses Reform and Conservative Judaism.” What evidence is offred for these sweeping statements? Where are your numbers? Orthodoxy while having reversed its decline is still the smallest (outside of Reconstructionism) denomination in America, and its growth is less than the group that call themselves “just Jewish” or non-denominational (and smaller still than the growth among the Reform). Who determined that Yeshiva University is to be judged by Rabbi Schachter? These are opinions, but they are presented as facts in this review.
As for the numbers, there is not much debate that the toal number of Orthodox Jews in 2002 from most surveys is about 650,000 and that about a third are haredi, although I argue that the numbers are not the essence of the swing to the right. Rather, as I suggest it is a shift in worldview and ethos.
Finally, I am afraid your reading of my book is not quite as close as you suggest it is. You refer incorrectly and sloppily to the concept, which I call “contrapuntalism” as ‘“contrapuntralism” defining it as “willingness to engage in multiple cultures (i.e. Orthodox and American) simultaneously.” But that is not how the concept is defined. A careful reading, as you claim to have done, would add that [1] the contrapuntalist is given “some modicum of autonomy” to handle the “dissonant and competing loyalties” of these plural life worlds and institutions to which he belongs. That is something, asI define it, that is not part of the haredi definition. The haredi world does not allow for these competing and dissonant loyalties nor does it allow the same degree of autonomy. You seem to have missed this critical part of the definition. Your reduction of the definition of haredi to a series of indicators rather than the epistimelogical and conceptual differences is the particularly mendacious part of this review — mendacious because you assert that someone who has not chosen to base definitions in a reductionist way has no business even writing on the subject. It is worldview and ethos that I have argued help draw the line within the Orthodox world. As surely you and informed readers must know, shteiblach and other orthodox congregations often are mixed use and therefore the so-called objective demographic distinctions are far more difficult to make. The real lines are to be found in the field of Jewish education — a chapter you chose too conveniently not to review but in which the key elements of the shift to the right are both elucidated and defined.
As for the gratuitously self-serving comments that I have ” no business writing a book about Judaism, or any religion,” and that my book is “less worthy of serious consideration” makes me wonder why in fact you have given it so much attention. I can only assume that your attention is in fact not serious consideration.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I have to admit, I agree with Heilman’s comments on this - you come across as almost bitchy in your attack on his book. Makes you seem less credible, approaching catfight status.
Saucer of cholov yisroel milk, table two. Meow!
January 30th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Heilman - What a hilarious response. I’m amazed that this is what passes for debate in your circles. I guess I can safely assume you’ve conceded the larger argument when all you’ve got to put forward are tangential points and personal attacks.
I write that you only even engage the thesis of your book with 2 out of your total of 9 chapters, and you pipe up to say I missed the third!
Go ahead, beat up on my claims about the size and growth of the Orthodox; they’re absolutely irrelevant to the analysis of your book.
One side-point argument you make is particularly funny: even if I can’t prove that Schachter’s the best example for examining Yeshiva, there’s the reality that you use him as your best example for same. Indeed, as I say in the review, that example is the closest you ever come to defining what a shift to the right is and means, and you’re woefully off the mark.
Some of your other arguments are really funny, too.
You spend an entire chapter carefully crafting a methodology for examining the number of Haredim, plot out and explain your investigation, and share the results. When I show how that exacting methodology leads to a shockingly-low assessment of 13% ultra-Orthodox in key ultra-Orthodox areas, you fall back on “most surveys.” I guess your methodology isn’t even worth defending.
And despite your chapter-long attention to the numbers, with its deep investigation of maps and demographics, you now assert “the numbers are not the essence of the swing to the right…it is a shift in worldview and ethos.” No kidding; but in order for Orthodoxy to actually by shifting, that new “worldview and ethos” has to be picked up by sizeable “numbers” of adherents. It’s hard to believe you actually expect this claim to fly. Should we now judge Jewish political shifts to the right not by the proportional change in voting patterns, but by the fact that someone, somewhere, had a change in “worldview and ethos”?
You write that I missed the point on contrapuntalism because I didn’t write a longer sentence explaining it. Sure, I could have been more wordy. But how deeply absurd it is for you to then claim that my failed attempt at verbosity leads to a “reduction of the definition of haredi to a series of indicators rather than the epistimelogical and conceptual differences.” You, yourself define Haredim by three indicators for the purpose of your study, and certainly no matter how much the differences are epistemological and conceptual, we can arrive at certain indicators that show us who maintains which epistemologies and concepts. You make a ridiculously-shoddy attempt at doing so with your Schachter example. Clearly, you’re playing the same game, you’re just not very good at it.
I’ll try to take another look at your Jewish education chapter and see if it’s worth further note.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Sorry, but I cannot hear the word contrapuntal without breaking into a Tom Lehrer song called “So Long, Mom (A Song For World War III)”
“While we’re attacking frontally
Watch Brinkally and Huntalley
Describing contrapuntally
The cities we have lost …”
They just don’t write rhymes like that any more.
...
January 31st, 2007 at 10:20 am
This was an interesting analysis of Heilman’s work. I thought that one of the strongest parts of his book was the analysis of the day school movement, and the lack of Modern Orthodox educators in this field. Why no mention of the chapter devoted to exploring the meaning behind posters? I felt that this section was largely incomprehensible. The greatest weakness in his book was his almost exclusive focus on the New York metropolitan area. He completely ignored the fact that it is much easier today to live as a Haredi Jew in more cities throughout America.
You were right to note his inaccurate estimations of the Haredi population. In the latest issue of Contemporary Jewry there is a very interesting article on how to better estimate the size of religious groups using Hasidic Jews as an example.
See:
Comenetz, Joshua. Census-based Estimation of the Hasidic Jewish Population. Contemporary Jewry. 2006. ...
January 31st, 2007 at 10:26 am
My, My,
Since when do authors troll blogs to ward off critques? And why was the response ad-hominum and a cat fight? Why cant Heilman move on and just admit that this was not his best book?
Even his chapter on education was disputed by figures with vast knowledge of the education system.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:53 am
I think Steven’s main gripe is that Heilman has professed to be the authoritative scholar of orthodox jewry and when any publication, newspaper has any issue they contact Heilman. Heilman gets professorships, book deals, paid weekends and vacations at hotels, and newspaper coverage of this “expertise”.
Steven is showing from the book, that the expertise doesn’t really exist, and its just allot of PR to keep his “status” in the public.
Steven’s gripe seems accurate, expecialy since the author immediatly is writing on a blog to defend his book. Most PHD tenured professors who are the “expert” on any subject wouldn’t stoop to such a level unless they had either something to protect, or has to make sure the great aurora surrounding him.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:14 am
Jimmy:
I did not yet read the book, so I really have no comment about it. With that said, I do not see what is wrong with Heilman responding on a blog to a critic. I do not see why a tenured professor “wouldn’t stoop to such a level,” to use your terminology.
As to the Heilman post on Amazon, it would be embarrassing if that was really written by him. However, given other things I’ve read by him, and the fact that this Heilman lives in Israel, it is exceedingly unlikely that the real Heilman actually posted it.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Sam is a smart man and I’m sure his book is a smart book. He’s also lazy and egotistical. Accordingly I go out on limb to say that the details and metrics are no doubt missing from his tome (I have no plans to read it) and it is a work of opinion rather than analysis. Steven is a good man who seeks facts upon which to base his account and/or arguments. In this debate Stephen has my vote. Sorry Sam, your agenda is undoubtedly colored by your prejudices and not by your research, if you did any at all.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:14 am
Tzvee - Having read the book, I’d also say it’s “smart” in the way you’re implying. For instance, on a cursory read, the study of numbers for Brooklyn seems like a pretty good and innovative way to go; then on analysis the numbers turn out shockingly off, and it doesn’t seem so smart anymore.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:41 am
I have no dog in this fight, but I think Jimmy came close the the mark when he said
I think Steven’s main gripe is that Heilman has professed to be the authoritative scholar of orthodox jewry and when any publication, newspaper has any issue they contact Heilman. Heilman gets professorships, book deals, paid weekends and vacations at hotels, and newspaper coverage of this “expertise”.
Close to the mark, but not a bullseye. SIW’s main gripe is that SIW isn’t the authoritative scholar with the sinecure, book deals and honoraria.
Prof. Heilman’s comments here might be looked at as protecting his brand from a new competitor. SIW clearly has ambitions.
Kinda reminds me a bit of Cynthia Ozick’s Envy: Yiddish in America
February 1st, 2007 at 10:55 am
There is nothing wrong with a professor of any sort responding to a mean-spirited review of his work on a blog or anywhere else. One can disagree without being nasty and insulting. My book is called sliding to the right — and it is about a contest. The contest is abbout ethos and worldview. Mr. Weiss wants numbers. But as any true researcher of haredim knows, it is hard if not impossible to count with accuracy worldview. Is every black hatter trully haredi? I think not. Are people who are aredi on weekends and not on weekdays — when they move out of that world — contrapuntal (holding two dissonant and mutually contradictory views) or enclavist? These are maters that are not handled well by discussions of numbers. Indicators here are subtle and nuanced. This apparently is too much for someone who has the hutzpa to call himself the protector of the canon.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:04 am
Heilman - Don’t try to mislead about how completely you go wrong. Of course the shift to the right involves ideology — and, as I explain above, you utterly fail in your attempt to get at those distinctions. For you, the Schachter statement about watching a Mass is evidence of a shift to the right from the days of Soloveitchik. This is your solitary effort at really drawing that ideological line with any sharpness, and it’s ridiculous.
And while I don’t doubt it’s hard “to count with accuracy,” I’d say it’s actually profoundly more difficult to come up with numbers indicating that an ultra-Orthodox enclave is actually only 13% ultra-Orthodox — 20% fewer than your presumed national average. That’s not a failure at “accuracy,” that’s failing to hit the side of the barn.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:19 am
>legendary American yeshivas like Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood, New Jersey, and Ner Israel Rabbinical Seminary in Baltimore, Maryland.
I am puzzled by your lack of distinction between these.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:21 am
S. - It doesn’t matter how different they are; they’re obviously both ultra-Orthodox, which is the matter at hand.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:34 am
I don’t like to beat up on anyone, but I can’t forget this
...
When I emailed Dr Heilman, he responded essentially “Prove I’m wrong.” Perhaps I can’t prove it, but everyone who knows knows I am right: identifying this image as “Lakewood” is culturally tonedeaf.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I see that Mr. Weiss is more interested in defending his misread of my comment about the Rabbi from YU and his prohibition upon Jews of watching any sort of Christian ceremony on television (a prohibitionthat reflects an unwillingness to be contrapuntal, as I argue) than in explaining this book which he has chosen to attack. (By the way, the response that he will now look at the chapter on Jewish Education as a Field of Conflict hints at the fact that the “Canonist” decided to write a review without reading the entire book.) So be it, I suggest that those who want to spend their time reading look at the book themselves rather than leave it to someone who calls himself the keeper of the canon to make judgments for them. As for Mr. Weiss’ nasty way of talking, remember that when you are busy biting others, you will soon find that others are biting you. Disagreements can be civil. The little dogs always bark the loudest.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Heilman - No worries, I read it cover-to-cover before writing the review, but I wrote the review six months ago and don’t necessarily remember all of the book’s content.
Your defense of the Schachter point is nothing other than your same-old misdirection. Again, it’s not a shift to the right from Soloveitchik.
Your arguments here are so dishonest; despite how shoddy the book was, I hadn’t imagined you were such a disingenuous person as you’ve shown yourself to be here.
I’ve come across plenty of thin-skinned subjects, sure, but you’re just a liar.
If my review comes off as mean-spirited, that certainly wasn’t my intent; I was simply reviewing the arguments made and characterizing them as they are. But it really was a piece of junk, and your responses here indicate why.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I think that Professor Heilman is really afraid that bad reviews of his book will affect his cottage industry of being quoted in publications and funding his vacations.
Its a shame the way hes acting. He’s getting pretty desperate.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
jimmy - I don’t think any number of bad reviews would change his status as a premier talking head.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
FWIW I take a dim view of Heilman and his work - this is based on other works of his, and not the current publication which i’ve not read - and I would speculate that most of the criticisms expressed here are probably valid. But I take strong exception to the notion that Heilman’s posting to this blog is indicative of some sort of character flaw. To the contrary, it is a very commendable and is not at all indicative of anything wrong with him or his work. I wish more published authors would engage in this type of discussion.
(On these lines, I would observe that the author of the Ne’echaz B’svach study of chassidic episodes - a professor named Assaf - participated in an extemely lengthy discussion of the work on an online message board called Hude Park.)
February 1st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
The real problem here is that Heilman is known to the world in general as an expert in Chareidi Jewry. That may have been the case 20 years ago but this book demonstrates, and Steven I Weiss correctly exposes, that he is no longer an expert. His total inability, or knowledge, to correctly estimate the numbers of Chareidim in Brooklyn gives credence to questions about the more subjective parts of the book. If anyone should know that there are more than 75,000 Chareidi Jews in Brooklyn it should be Heilman but he blows this analysis so badly it requires one to question whether he is in fact qualified to write about his subject. Heilman clearly picks on some very questionable and subjective examples to prove his theory. it is almost as if he decided to sit down and qrite the book off the top of his head without any serious knowledge of the real ideological issues that divided the modern from chareidi. This reminds me of that horrendous front page Jewish Week article that claimed that anyone who has or will ever pursue higher education is ultra-orthodox. What we see here is a group of experts who consistently make assumptions and then write and survey to justify their own dated views.
One thing that Heilman essentially ignores are the profound and multiple gradations within chareidi, yeshiva, torah, chasidishe judaism. There is a contest and struggle there for the future of Orthodoxy as well.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Ich - I agree completely. Blogs are a great medium for discussion, and if the comments section at Canonist is good enough for Jewish leaders and scholars, it’s good enough for Heilman. Blogs do a great job of reflecting reality; Heilman just doesn’t come out looking all that great in the reflection.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Heilman,
I didnt read the book, but that number of 13% stven cited seems shocking. Please explain how this may be accurate (or can even be possible).
February 1st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
is Heilman’s defense on his fudging of the numbers really that not ever chasid in Boro Park is really ultra-orthodox?
from the comments:
“The contest is abbout ethos and worldview. Mr. Weiss wants numbers. But as any true researcher of haredim knows, it is hard if not impossible to count with accuracy worldview. Is every black hatter trully haredi? I think not.”
this comment from him is so shocking given that if he really means it then the orthodox world is probably sliding to the left. Heilman really needs to make up his mind as to what he wants to use as evidence in his work. If all his criteria are in his own mind then he should just state that his scholarly work is an opinion piece or a polemic.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:14 pm
aaron - I don’t think he means to be that geographically-specific with that statement. He’s just citing the obvious reality that not all black hatters are haredi in the world as a whole.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Professor Heilman writes:
“Is every black hatter trully haredi? I think not. Are people who are aredi on weekends and not on weekdays — when they move out of that world — contrapuntal (holding two dissonant and mutually contradictory views) or enclavist?”
I think this reflects a misperception about the charedi world. Professor Heilman seems to believe that to be deemed “charedi,” one must be as religiously right-wing as the (purported) charedi leadership.
I recall that prior to the 2004 election, Rabbi Elyashiv called upon American charedim to vote for Bush. Professor Heilman then was quoted as saying that all of the voting charedim would vote for Bush. ...
I’m certain that it is quite naïve to believe that a charedi person living in, say, Kew Gardens Hills, voted for Bush because of what Rav Elyashiv says.
Professor Heilman seems to define “charedi” as the charedi community’s most right-wing common denominator, as represented by those who support bans on books and sheitels, oppose college education, and ask their rav or rosh yeshiva for advice on mundane matters. He is apparently unaware that this is representative of only a fraction of the charedi world outside of Lakewood.
Similarly, Professor Heilman’s view, as expressed two years ago, that whether one is MO or charedi can be largely determined based upon whether they value a college education was offbase. Plenty of people who value advanced secular education go to charedi shuls, send their children to charedi schools, and would reject the notion that they are MO.
That said, Professor Heilman’s question about whether every black-hatter is truly charedi remains an interesting one. Quite a few of these people are indeed active in the non-charedi observant Jewish world. But in my view, if anything, the growing participation of people with charedi backhrounds in secular pursuits, and in support of Israel, is indicative - at least for some - of a slide to the left, not the right.
Could it be that the shift to the left of some ex-charedim has resulted in a perceived slide to the right in the centrist communities these ex-charedim now live in?
February 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Can you give us the value added blog - and collect all the critiques of Heiman from around the web?
This collection read as an entire whole may offer insights into where Heilman went so wrong.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
“those who support bans on books and sheitels”
Books I know. But is there really a serious ban on sheitels? Are there shuls that won’t allow a woman with a sheitel to enter? Must one wear a burkadik shmatte?
February 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I think calling someone with whom one disagrees “a liar” and then saying one did not mean to be mean-spirited as Mr. Weiss has I think says it all. Asfor trying to protect my ability to be quoted in the press, I would be delighted if some of you who think that is my goal were the ones to whom the press turned for your insights and wisdom. Why they do not, given the careful analysis of the issues I see here, I cannot understand. But if you want to give me your true names and numbers, I will be more than happy to suggest that the next reporter who calls and wants an hour or more of my time to contact you. I don’t understand what you think one gets from being quoted in the paper. For me, it translates to the barks and bites on this blog — nothing else of value. You may consider this disingenuous — why else would I talk to them? I do because I talk to everyone — even the people of this blog who have taken character assassination behind the veil of anonymity to a new height. If you want to debate with me directly, by all means do so. If instead you want to sling zingers from behind your pseudonyms in public, I suggest instead write your own books and articles. Of course you will have to find someone to publish this. By the way, the reference to the Comenetz article of the numbers of hasidim was published in a journal I edit. Indeed, I was the one who published it. So much for the argument that I only look at matter my way. Moreover, Comentz’s figures roughly equal my own. But let me say again, the story of the slide to the right is not about numbers. As for the idea that maybe the fact there are some haredim who do go to college indicating the slide to the left, read my final chpater on post-modern orthodoxy — one of the many the canonist decided was not worthy of review or mention. Polemicists do that
February 1st, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Heilman - I wasn’t trying to be mean-spirited before, when I thought your work was just woefully poor; after all, perhaps you were simply incompetent or lazy. But now that you’ve shown your knack for dishonesty in these comments, I don’t think incompetence or laziness can account for your distant relationship with the truth.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:06 pm
veganovich:
“As to the Heilman post on Amazon, it would be embarrassing if that was really written by him. However, given other things I’ve read by him, and the fact that this Heilman lives in Israel, it is exceedingly unlikely that the real Heilman actually posted it.”
a) what does his living in israel have to do with anything?
b) if he denied writing the review i would probably believe him. but he has so far commented 4 times on this post without denying that he authored the review. so i see no reason to assume he did not.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:17 pm
jimmy:
“Most PHD tenured professors who are the “expert” on any subject wouldn’t stoop to such a level unless they had either something to protect, or has to make sure the great aurora surrounding him.”
that is a problem with elitist professors. a statement should be judged by its merits, not by the forum in which it appears.
and in this respect a blog could really add to scholarly discourse. in the old mode, a scholar publishes a study. maybe it will be reviewed months (or even years) later in some (obscure) scholarly journals or considered at a conference. then the author might (or more often not) respond again after a few months (or years) in a journal or at a conference. in the new mode, scholars can use blogs to make their communication and debates more timely and efficient.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Even weirder is that within minutes of the first Heilman post on this thread- 1/30
on the Amazon site a comment was made by Samuel Heilman “the master teacher” in Israel that the post was only by someone “purporting to be Samuel Heilman”
It was from the same account as the original review. Now, if the original reviewer was not Heilman himself, then (1) what are the odds that he was reading this blog at the same time as the real Heilman? (2) Why would he write in third person? He should have written “this is not my real name” and (3)he should have also taken away the “real name” logo.
(4) How many other people would besides pushing Heilman also review Talcott Parsons, the method of Heilman?
And if it was Heilman, how stupid does he think the public is?
Steve- as I said above, a review of the blogs on Heilman may reveal enough for an article.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:53 pm
could it be that the Aamazon Heilman also reads this blog?
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Heilman-
You toy with us - and then get upset when Steve calls you dishonest.
If Steve wants, he can check the IP numbers of those who was looking at his blog between 3:22 and 3:27 the time of the Amazon post. We can even be generous and start with 2:06, the time of my post.
We can see if another was also involved.
Please!
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Well my name is out there, and your name Mr. Amazon?
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I don’t like the tone of this thread. Steve, I respect your blogging abilities. You need to show more respect for a distinguished academic. Sam has a sterling record as a teacher, lecturer, author, etc. I am not sure what you think academics ought to be. You seem to have some idealized vision of a perfect world.
Let me assure you that Sam is tops in Jewish studies. You might not like or agree with his book. Fine. It is his book, no yours. Feel free to write a better one. This book is an expression of opinions by an expert. Many, many people want to hear such opinions even when they are not supported by exacting statistics and facts. The assumption is that a scholar has absorbed much knowledge from many sources and can formulate more valuable opinions than an uninformed person. Accordingly and obviously Sam’s opinion carries much more weight than yours.
I’ve got my own views as you may already suspect. My opinions are not as weighty as Sam’s in this area because my claim to specialization is a mastery of early rabbinism and its texts.
I occasionally do hazard some editorializing in assessing modern American Judaism because I am a modern American Jew. Last week we saw the AJC release an essay (horribly conceived and written) claiming that left wing Jews are at the forefront of a new antiSemitism. I don’t want to get into that brouhaha here except to say that those guys at the AJC are preoccupied with a sharp swing to left in Judaism and not with a slide to the right in Orthodoxy.
In this enterprise of self assessment, we all gaze at our own navels to start with and then - hopefully - beyond.
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
“Sam is tops in Jewish studies”
Hi sam.
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Tzvee - Obviously, Heilman’s record, however sterling before, needs to be reassessed in terms of this volume and his rather deceptive approach in this comments thread.
It’s obviously not my review that set you off, nor my earlier comments — given your first comment on this thread — but the latest ones. It’s not my fault that Heilman’s being dishonest, and I see no reason why his status as “tops in Jewish studies” should make me recalcitrant to put that issue forward.
Further, your description of a how an academic should be treated sounds to me quite a lot like a severe interpretation of daas Torah. You’re saying Heilman’s analysis is valuable, even when that analysis comes from severely misstated facts, as it does here — a situation made yet worse by the reality that these are facts that he chose.
Yet more, as I’ve said in my review, his assessments are so far off that it should very much call into question the reputation that you’re touting here.
No one my age crowned Heilman “tops in Jewish studies,” and it could be that he’s simply dropped far off in quality from his earlier work. To us, looking at the present and toward the future, this book is a starting point from which to evaluate his position as someone whose commentary on Judaism of today and tomorrow can either be trusted or disregarded. The impression it leaves is that we should unquestionably choose the latter.
Maybe Heilman once had chops; I don’t know. You seem to be claiming he did, but there are lots of middle-aged and older figures in positions of esteem for the Jewish community that people my age scratch our heads about. From the work they’re doing today, we don’t get it, and I don’t think that all of them just lost it when they hit 40; a lot of them probably didn’t do anything to deserve to be where they are.
Reading this book, I absolutely fail to understand how Heilman can in any way be that top dog. Reading what he’s written in the comments, that assessment changes from one where I’d be willing to assume that perhaps this book was an anomaly, to one where I see he’s not trustworthy.
If he’s to be the respected academic moving forward, let him show us something respectable. The book isn’t, and his comments are far less so.
February 4th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
I frequently use Professor Heilman’s books in one of my courses: Defenders of the Faith, published in the early 1990s about Haredim in Jerusalem. I just went and looked up a series of reviews by various scholars, especially sociologists of religion, and found that the reviews were generally favorable, although of course pointing out parts of the book that they found lacking. I haven’t read his latest book, but I would like to point out that he is in fact a distinguished scholar of the sociology of Judaism, and does not deserve to be treated in such an insulting fashion.
I am not personally acquainted with Heilman, nor has he asked me to write this comment.
February 4th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Rebecca - So how should someone be treated when he responds to criticism with deception and dissembling?
As I said to Tzvee, the defense you’re providing comes off a lot like typical rebbe worship. You get to remain distinguished and respected for past work even if you’re not still producing, so long as you remain honest. Heilman’s shown himself here to be quite dishonest, and it would be foolish not to call him on it.
There would seem to be a double standard going on here, where an approach like this by a rabbi or other leading figure in the organized Jewish world would receive a torrent of criticism from academics. But question an academic’s integrity, and suddenly the rules change.
February 4th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
People on this blog are getting quite confused between religion and academics. Simply because someone is a noted scholar in a subject does not provide them with any sort of immunity from criticism. Quite the opposite. People at the top of their fields are giant targets and rightfully so. They will often receive the most harsh of criticisms, personal or otherwise. If they are in fact the very best, they should have no problems answering their critics and maintaining their status and reputation.
This is true for any type of scholar, be it math, law or history, and there is no reason jewish scholars should be any different. So those of you who want to defend him, do it based on the substance of his work, not his reputation.
February 4th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
As I said before, I am not personally acquainted with Professor Heilman, and I am not accustomed to worshipping my fellow academics. I do not regard him as my rebbe. I cited the reviews by other scholars as evidence that his earlier research was well-regarded by people who are in the same field as he is (the reviews I read were written by sociologists of religion, some of them sociologists of Judaism). If I had found that the reviewers said that his research was badly done and that the books were badly argued, I would have said so. Yes, it is true that academics attack each other - but they generally focus on the ideas, arguments, and evidence that the scholar brings forth, rather than ad hominem attacks. Steve, I think your review itself was interesting and worth considering, but I don’t like the accusations of lying that you’ve engaged in while defending your point of view.
February 4th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Steve,
You have every right to question whether a scholar can coast on his reputation. I’m not insisting that you give him a pass. And for sure you are way off base when you compare this line of argument with daas torah. Fact is that like it or not Sam is still one of the top dogs in the field. He earned his reputation by publishing and allowing his work to be subject to critical scrutiny. That is a far cry from the rebbe who never published or stood for review or scrutiny and rests on his charismatic reputation.
Look, that’s how the world works, certainly how the academic world works. You earn your stripes and they entitle you to stand on your reputation. People value that system because it has some stability.
You are of a new generation, true. That does not give you the right to ignore the work and accomplishments of the previous masters. If you do that you may be labeled impudent and dismissed - or not - depending on how you proceed.
What you claim is a double standard is not. It is a single standard. We cannot give you a free pass because you are young and brash. We do give respect to those who have published and shown their ability in their field.
Sure Sam may be wrong in his opinions. But he deserves your respect because he has earned it by his books, his teaching record, his reviews, his students. Not because of some arbitrary daas torah BS without any publications or tangible records. You confuse religious authority with professional achievement. Don’t do that. It makes you look loony.
February 4th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Tzvee - I get it, he’s got a reputation. But he’s presenting fiercely dishonest arguments here, and I’m calling it that. That’s entirely in-bounds, no matter someone’s reputation. Letting someone’s reputation serve as a shield against criticism or against calling his arguments here what they are is a level of fervent adherence you frequently wouldn’t grant others.
If his book were merely mediocre, or simply nothing new, my review would say as much. But it’s wrong — astonishingly wrong — in ways that very much call into question his ability to keep that reputation for his work today and going forward, irrespective of his reputation as an authority in the past.
As I said last time, it’s clear that your objections here aren’t to my review or initial responses, but to my later ones. Well, as I’ve said before, there remained an available argument prior to his comments here to say that maybe this book was just an anomaly. But then he stood by it with arguments that are fundamentally dishonest, that fundamentally mischaracterize realities and constantly shift the ground on which an objective assessment can be made.
If you did the same thing, I’d call you a liar. I don’t see why Heilman’s prior reputation should grant him license to run roughshod over the facts without being called on it.
February 5th, 2007 at 12:10 am
“We do give respect to those who have published and shown their ability in their field.”
This is certainly not true when people write about subjects that are surrounded by controversy- and religion definitely qualifies.
Critics, both peers and layman, of top scholars such as krugman, chomsky, tribe, kihladi etc. are relentless, personal and merciless in their attacks.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:41 am
rebecca:
“I cited the reviews by other scholars as evidence that his earlier research was well-regarded by people who are in the same field as he is”
it is not his earlier research that is being called into question here.
and to all of heilman’s defenders, he had still not addressed the more serious issues raised by steven. (e.g., his apparently ridiculous criteria for distinguishing between modern and rw and his very wrong brooklyn population numbers.)
February 5th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Steve,
“astonishingly wrong… arguments that are fundamentally dishonest, that fundamentally mischaracterize realities…” Please, cut the rhetoric.
I’ve figured out what is your problem with the book. The title Samuel Heilman gives it is Sliding to the Right: The Contest for the Future of American Jewish Orthodoxy. Now to me that title does not suggest that the book inside will have a tightly argued and well-documented thesis. The term “sliding” is vague and the term “contest” is vaguer. Knowing Heilman’s work from books he wrote - like Synagogue Life - you would expect a series of loosely connected and impressionistic studies. That kind of writing is characteristic of the brand of sociology that Heilman studied. It’s perfectly acceptable, expected and lauded by those who consume such writing.
You make the serious mistake of re-titling the book in your own mind (I cannot figiure out what you would call it - maybe “the definitive history, demography and philosophy of Orthodoxy in America 1997-2007″). Then once you do that re-titling you proceed to tear the book apart for not meeting your imaginary expectations.
That’s a common mistake of an inexperienced reviewer.
But then you make a more egregious error. You go ahead and attack the character and expertise of the author. In your mind he made mistakes so he no longer should be allowed to practice scholarship.
That an attitude taken from a closed authoritarian often religious culture where the resources are limited and democratic values are alien. The rabbi determines what is kosher and what is taboo. Progress is not sought after. Alien ideas are threats.
That’s not how our culture works. Everyone is entitled and encouraged to try his or her hand at adding value to learning. In Synagogue Life when Sam writes about banter in the coat room or the ramifications of taking another person’s seat, you could say he wasn’t talking about the things you want him to address - prayer, intention, Torah learning. And you could condemn the book. But he means something else by “Synagogue Life” and here he means something you don’t understand by his title “Sliding to the Right.”
February 5th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Tzvee - Please. Because you have a problem with my later comments, you now think my whole review was off? And because you now have a problem with the review, I’m a fundamentalist to whom “democratic values are alien”?
My problems with the book are quite well layed out in the review. I don’t care that it’s not comprehensive, I care that it’s “astonishingly wrong” no matter how much you dislike that rhetoric. To get things that far wrong is either to not know what one’s doing, not to care, or to desire to leave the wrong impression.
These aren’t just simple mistakes. The ones about doctrine go to the very core of understanding religion, Judaism, and Jewish Orthodoxy. The demographic mistakes are so far off that they have to call into question the author’s ability to work with that kind of material.
It’s not crazy or fundamentalist or ignorant to expect a book about a rightward slide to provide some definition of what such a slide is. And Heilman does. And he’s extremely wrong. Of what value, then, is his impressionistic analysis of various elements of Orthodoxy in America? If he doesn’t get the nuts and bolts right, why trust him on the more abstract elements?
And don’t try to pass off that line about “everyone” being part of the discussion. “Everyone” doesn’t have their thoughts put between two covers for a university press. Heilman’s contribution isn’t presented as the impressions of the everyman; as you said, he’s the expert, and that’s why his ideas are presented this way. It’s not a failure on my part to then expect expertise, and to criticize the book when he doesn’t show it. Experts should be subject to the same rules as everyone else, but you seem to think their bar should be far lower.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
I thought you declared Heilman posul. My bad. You just criticized that he doesn’t show expertise in accord with your expectations. So you must be right then.
No my friend. You are “extremely wrong.” “Of what value then is your impressionistic analysis” of a book by a university scholar? You don’t appear to understand the academic enterprise. And because of that you don’t seem to like its products and that makes you so angry. So I suggest that you stick to books by journalists then and you will be much happier. Journalism is not academe. Don’t make yourself so morose. Read a book by Tom Friedman. He gets his facts right - all four of them - and then he repeats them again and again and again. Hey. Just what you apparently want!
February 6th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Tzvee - Dude, check your ego at the door. This doesn’t have to do with “posul,” it has to do with doing bad work. You haven’t even read it; how would you know if I’m wrong or right? Your opinions switch with whomever you have a lesser grudge against at the moment.
Go on claiming that exclusive flag of the brilliance it takes to “understand the academic enterprise.” It doesn’t take some series of advanced degrees to completely understand what Heilman’s writing, nor does it take those degrees to understand that he’s full of it. It’s just not that hard, no matter how much you decide to privilege it when the plebes get critical.
You want to turn me into some fundamentalist nincompoop, just because you think I went too far in calling a guy a liar.
You know me, and you know my work. I don’t go around saying this and that person can’t be part of the discussion; I’m the last person who’ll say someone doesn’t deserve a platform. But Heilman’s work in this book just isn’t up to snuff, and his defenses of it are dishonest.
You wouldn’t have written any of this if I hadn’t called him a liar; indeed, you were supportive of the original arguments until I did so. Don’t you think it’s a bit transparent that your analysis of the review changed when you didn’t like how I was expressing disagreement in a subsequent conversation?
Heilman’s book could take the same tactic and be a good work if only it revealed he knows what he’s doing. But read it, and it’s very clear he doesn’t. Despite his numerous comments, he hasn’t had a substantive response to any of the criticisms I put forward. You should think about that for a bit before you fly off the handle, declaring anyone without tenure unable to gather just what is going on inside those hallowed halls of the alma mater.
February 6th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
thanks, dude
February 6th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
I happen to agree with Steve here. Heilman’s scholarship in this book is so shallow that it calls him into question as an expert. The man who is the expert and the Chareidi world is so amazingly off the mark in his demographic knowledge of the contemporary community that it is laughable. If you are an expert then you should keep current. 75,000 Chareidi Jews in Brooklyn’s Orthodox neighborhoods is a joke and is an embarrassing guess for a scholar of Heilman’s reputation. Most of the other arguments here are subjective so I will stick with what really offends me. My feeling is that Heilman chose the 75,000 number so that he can continue to claim the numerical superiority of the MO in Brooklyn.
To paraphrase a great American: We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I’m new here but I just wanted to chime in with Tzvee. Having take a few courses with Steven Cohen at Hebrew U. I understand a bit about how academics go about analyzing the Jewish world. There is quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis. Apparently, in your opinion, the former is the only legitimate way of analyzing the state of Orthodoxy in America today. (As a journalist, that would make sense- you just want the facts) However, most sociologists today, Cohen and probably Heilman included (having not read the book) are probably more interested in the qualitative analysis (hey, it’s more interesting analyzing people’s personal stories than crunching numbers)
You seem to be missing this fundamental distinction. I’m having a hard time understanding how his miscalculation of Jews in Williamsburg discredits his entire academic career.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Abbi - Qualitative analysis isn’t an uncommon concept, and not one I’m unfamiliar with. As you’ll see if you read the review in its entirety, I deal with his analysis of both the numbers and the concepts — and he gets both of them quite wrong.
February 13th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
isnt Heilman supposed to be THE expert in the ultra-orthodox world? if he is then you can his quantitative analysis be so wrong?
in addition, his quantitative analysis is so much a part of his thesis since it is about a contest for the future. the contest is not just about ideas but it also about those who follow those ideas. if you don’t have followers then you just aren’t that relevant to the contemporary discussion. If Sam still thinks that the Modern outnumber the Ultra in Brooklyn then he has gotten both sides of the coin, quantitative and qualitative, wrong!
February 14th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I am pleased to see that the discussion goes on here. I am sorry to see that Mr. Weiss appears to believe that he alone is comand of the truth. That makes all who disaree with him “liars.” This is a process of demonization that makes one wonder if the issue here is not at all the substance of what I have written but my person. Mr. Weiss thinks there is only one interpretation of the facts — his. I think the challenge is not to call others demonizing names but to provide an alternate explanation. No one serious can question that there is a contest ongoing between those who view Orthodoxy as allowing for a variety of competing and often contradictory points of view and those that see it monolithic and having to keep its adherents under the authority of a rabbi and in a monochromatic enclave. That is the essence of my discussion in the book. What Mr. Weiss believe seems to be that Orthodoxy is only what he can understand. I’ll wait for the publisher who invests in his vision and then read what he has to say. In the meantime the rest of you who depend on his comments for wisdom, good luck to all of you.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Heilman - While I’m sure you’d love to make this a grand battle of you and everyone against me, or me against the world, the only person I called a liar is you — and appropriately so, given your dishonest argumentation above.
Those familiar with my writing know that I’ve always engaged the reality that a variety of viewpoints exist for any given issue, none of which can always be said to be in the right. And that’s the real issue here; I’m not touting any viewpoints of mine or anyone else that I’m claiming are somehow objectively “correct,” just that your viewpoints are so far from the array of opinions in the reality-based discussion that you can’t legitimately be said to be a part of it.
There’s no rational way to look at what you’ve written and place it within the discussion, because what you’ve written doesn’t come close to what the valences of subjectivity allow; you’re extremely far off the mark.
Now, you’ve to this point taken many opportunities to “defend” your book, but in none of them do you actually address my criticisms; you relegate your response to side-points and personal attacks.
There’s only one conclusion to draw at this point: you not only won’t defend your book, but you can’t.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Heilman,
It might have been better never to have commented on blogs, but now that you have gotten involved you might have to do a good job.
Instead of attacking your critics with personal attacks, how about answering the criticism?
As you well know, Marvin Schick and a host of others have reacted negatively to your book. There are many long blog entries on many blogs about the book.
Just write a calm defense and explanation of your posiiton that answers your many critics.
You are respected for your earlier work starting with Synagouge Life and many later works. Your status was earned a long time ago. Yet, you do not want to be remembered only for these blog personal attacks.
You do not have to put the defense up on Canonist- you can submit it to any website-including your own. Or submit it to Commentary magazine.
Seek to understand your critics- ask them to explain themselves- present them fairly.
The results are more likely to be positive.
February 15th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Heilman- no one is denying that there is a contest going on. however, your book really does not address it in a meaningful manner by describing the shifts of adherents. Your examples are poor because they are not truly indicative of trends (bangitout.com, rav schachter). Better you should speak to a group of chareidi students in Columbia Law School and get their weltanschaungg. Your demographic knowledge is far worse. it would be good for all of us, and you, if you chose to defend your shortcomings rather than attack Steve. the bottom line is that many out there think that you wrote a poor scholarly work that is well below the standard of your past contributions.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
aaron-
Sam Heilman is not going to do new research. So if you tell him to “speak to a group of chareidi students in Columbia Law School,” it wont happen. Instead, try explaining to
him, why his examples are poor. Explain to him what he would gain from these Columbia students. Where do you think the shift line is located? This will allow him, hopefully, to respond by explaining his approach to his readers and to explain why a trained sociologist sees it the way he does. Comments on blogs should not be confused with sociological method and we should politely understand that. But, we do need to know what he was thinking and why it does not seem to correspond to anybody’s reality. His other works were not received like this; there was a normal range of criticism but not this negative questioning of him.
February 18th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
“Better you should speak to a group of chareidi students in Columbia Law School”
What would he learn by speaking to charaidi students in columbia law school?
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
He would learn about their personal intellectual struggle between adhering to Chareidi Judaism and daas torah while engaging intellectually and professionally with those who are far more pluralistic in outlook. Many of these students are emerging from the shelter of the yeshiva for the first time. The fact that the Chareidi world continues to hold its adherents despite the fact that many become professionals is an important part of the “contest”. similarly, Heilman may want to address some of the surveys, or do his own, of the undergraduate student bodies at YU. That may also help him address the contest. What about looking at the differences between YU grads who move to Teaneck vs. Passaic? These are all good sociological studies that can be done about observance and ideology.
good question: how many YU grads in the aforementioned communities daven in shuls where the tefila for the medina is omitted? that would really tell us about the “contest”.
unfortunately Heilman relies on “sound byte” type examples that don’t prove his point at all. it is a shame that he has besmirched his own reputation in this way.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Those who would like me to submit a response to my critics suggest I write to Commentary. I doubt if Commentary would publish any part of this debate. I have decided to let my book speak for itself. Those who rely on others to make their judgments for them rather than to read the book itself (including my good friend Marvin Schick who admitted in public that he had not read the book when he published his criticism in his regular ad — he was basing himself on a talk I gave several years before the book was published) will never be persuaded by any amount of afternotes. The suggestions others have made for alternative places to look for the debate on this contest: I once again urge you to publish your own alternate explanations on a place that, as AR suggests, is of more value this this blog. There are many such places. As for the critcism about my numbers, I reiterate what I wrote in my book: “I am unprepared to give a definitive answer to these questions in demographic terms” because as I suggest in the book, the issue of what and who is haredi is complex. It is more than wearing black, being bearded, wearing a sheital, etc. Anyone who looks beyond the table on page 75 (i.e. anyone who actually reads the chapter) sees that even in Brooklyn I suggest a range between 75,000 and about 129,000. The table is only one estimate. And as I argue, numbers do not tell the story.
Finally, there are those who have argued that I am only interested in sound bytes. Let them read chapters 1, 3 and 4 and see if these are sound bytes. The sound bytes are what Mr. Weiss gives. Those who worry that my reputation rise or falls on this blog, I would suggest the worry is misplaced. I doubt most people have even heard of this blog. In any event, there is much work still to be done since the days nearly 6 years ago when I was collecting the information on which this book is based. Zil u’gmor. All of you are invited to write, publish, and offer your own explanations — as I have said before a better choice than reading Mr. Weiss’s persoanl attacks on me.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
As for Mr. Weiss’ expertise on all these matters, I suggst you all read his interview at .... I think it says it all.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Dr. Heilman-
I must object to your wholesale dismissal of Steve Weiss and this blog. If it were so irrelevant then why do you keep reading and commenting? Please come up with a better defense of your work.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Heilman - Your responses get more hilarious as you go. You’re here suggesting that your errors are owed to the fact that “who is haredi is complex.” So, basically, you’re acknowledging that you can’t figure out who is haredi within any reasonable margin of error. Your book alleges a contest, but by your own words, you don’t even know who’s on what side. What, then, is your alleged expertise on this issue? What, then, is the contribution this volume has to the debate other than to say “there’s a contest going on,” which is how you justified the book in a previous comment?
While some reasonable, educated people would disagree that there is a shift to the right going on, my problem with your book isn’t that it operates on the assumption that there is one, but that you don’t seem to understand at all what it is or how it operates.
Once again, I’ll emphasize that you have no substantive response to my explanation that your assessment of the ideological positions in Orthodoxy is extremely off-base.
Already in this comments section, you’ve acknowledged that you can’t explain who’s right and who’s left, what differentiates those groups, how many of either party there are, which groups are growing, or what would indicate that a shift has actually occurred or that a given side is “winning” the contest.
Exactly what about this issue are you actually claiming to understand?
From your comments here, it’d seem you’re claiming no knowledge at all — and that somehow this ignorance is what should shield your book from criticism. That’s absurd.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Whew. A lot of heat but still, not much light. Steve you don’t understand how far the study of contemporary Judaism has come in the last 25 years. You can now attempt to differentiate in a sustained manner among the many varieties and shades of Jews and Judaic belief systems. That was not even dreamed of way back when. And Sam is a big factor in the advance of the study of contemporary Jews. But Steve. He is not the entire discipline. He is but one voice in the cacophony. You are part of another world, that of Jewish blogging. You are a big contributor to the recent developments in this arena. While you and Sam may talk about the same Jews - and make your livings from doing that - you cannot both be judged by the same standards. Sorry Steve. A blogger is not a professor. What Sam understands and what he explains has credibility in his world. This book may undermine or support that credibility. I’ve only read the first chunk and find it substantial. You don’t like the work. But you are a blogger whose insights are designed to last 15 minutes on average. Sam’s books are cited in serious studies and will resonate for 50 years. If he is wrong, he won’t be the first. But I’ll put my money on his accuracy over your exaggerations.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Tzvee - That’s a pretty senseless response. What are you talking about?
February 28th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Heilman - If there had been any question that you were willing to be outrightly dishonest in trying to discredit my arguments, your most recent comment clears the matter up entirely.
You write:
Well, I just read the chapter again. The number 129,000 appears nowhere within it. It’s interesting that you cite the table, since that’s not what I looked at when I wrote the review. I read the text where you declare:
That is the only point in the chapter in which you provide an estimate of the number of haredim in Brooklyn. You’re simply not telling the truth when you’re defending your book.
And, once again, that leaves you estimating the number of haredim in Flatbush and Boro Park at a total of around 20,000, or a mere 13% of the Orthodox present in those areas — a number you’ve to this point refused to acknowledge is extremely far from a reasonable estimate according to almost anyone else.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Steve,
So you are saying, “Gotcha” to Sam?
I generally associate the game of gotcha with conservative wingnut bloggers who employ it frequently in their lame attempts to divert debate and discredit their opponents.
I thought you were a liberal blogger.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Tzvee - You can keep shifting the goalposts of this discussion, but you got upset when I called him a liar because I felt his arguments were dishonest. His latest argument is a plain fabrication. That should matter to you. For someone who spent a lot of words defending the integrity of the academy, blatant dishonesty within it should be a big deal. Of course, it doesn’t to you, because you’re less concerned about objective values here than with taking sides.
This doesn’t have anything to do with conservative vs. liberal (if your insinuation there made any sense). It has to do with honesty, which is something we should all care about and expect and from others. Heilman’s broken that code again and again in this thread; on this latest, it’s blatant.
As I’ve said many times before, there’s a reasonable range in which people can have different ideas about the facts, and Heilman’s very far outside it, which calls into question his ability to do this work. There’s also a reasonable range in which people can be said to still be honest, just wrong, and Heilman’s clearly shown himself to be far outside that, too, and I just don’t think a liar should be a respected part of any discussion. Call me crazy, but that’s my standard.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
As a journalist you ought to know that people lie all the time. You report their lies. If you didn’t, if journalists stopped writing about lies, the newspapers would be awfully thin.
If you are right and there indeed are more Haredi Jews in Brooklyn (and I don’t think you are right - look at voting patterns) then Sam has underestimated the number. So what?
We are not taking our country into war based on Sam’s statements. We are not collecting taxes based on his numbers.
Nobody cares that you think Sam violated your standard of honesty. That’s your opinion about your opinion.
So I say, number one, what then is your point?
And number two, why don’t you just lighten up?
February 28th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Tzvee - With all due respect, your comments on this thread have become ridiculous.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Tzvee- what is your point? that Heilman is not really an expert and therefore we should not take the things that he writes that seriously?
February 28th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Steve,
I’m so sorry that you don’t value my contributions.
Aaron,
Contrary to what Steve thinks, Heilman is an expert in his field. He doesn’t lie. He deserves your respect.
Bye bye.
March 1st, 2007 at 8:29 am
Heilman is like an expert holding a map upside down asserting that maps don’t lie.
March 1st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Add the numbers of Orthodox on p. 73 and take 32% for the haredi proportion and you will see how the numbers vary. Yes, it is precisely because as my arguments in the chapters 1,3, and 4 demonstrate, the haredi definition is not reducible simply to numbers. But Mr. Weiss, who in an interview was described as someone who “was at YU (Yeshiva University) from August 1998 until June 2002 [when, shortly before he was to graduate, Weiss was expelled]. I got a letter from the academic advisor that said to not come back to YU and don’t get involved with our stuff. The ostensible reason was grades.” just chooses to attack and reduce. Readers, look at the book, read it for yourselves and make your own judgments. Or, alternatively, use the judgment of someone who says, “”My father thought I’d become an engineer. I don’t know what my mother expected me to be. We were actually having a family conversation recently, I forget about what, and somehow my parents got asked what they’d thought I’d become. My father mentioned the engineer thing. My mother said: ‘I can tell you one thing I wasn’t expecting — that my son would be a college dropout.’
March 1st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Heilman - Are you seriously expecting people to believe what you’re saying? That they should take the national average proportion and apply it to numbers of Orthodox you drew from other surveys, and then somehow apply those numbers to two specific populations and then treat the results of their calculations as an estimate that you, yourself, are giving?
Yes, if readers tinker with the numbers on their own, they can come up with better estimates than that which you actually provide. But that doesn’t change the fact of what the numbers are that you provide. And, what’s more, you’re offering a de facto acknowledgment here that anyone with a calculator and the survey figures would come up with far better estimates than you did with your chapter-length, ostensibly in-depth research.
You say it’s 75,000 in the book, and you were lying when you said in this comments section that in your book you “suggest a range between 75,000 and about 129,000.” You don’t suggest that at all; the only thing you suggest, as the passage I quoted above shows, is that there are 75,000.
How much more are you going to lie? How much do you use these dishonest approaches in the rest of your work?
March 1st, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I do not see how one’s collegiate history has any relevance to an individual’s ability to read and constructively comment on or criticize a text. Was the text only published for university graduates to read? Moreover, I don’t understand how SIW’s personal academic history is in any way related to this discussion nor a valid rejoinder to SIW’s observations or questions of intellectual honesty. They seem to be more of the Red Herring ilk and really, more damaging to the one offering them than of whom he speaks. Incidentally, though there is no need to justify, for the record, SIW is an esteemed graduate of an NJ university. Indeed, I was there the day he was awarded his diploma! We were so proud. Let’s play two!
March 1st, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I am usually not such a big fan of steven’s harsh responses/ overreactions, but in this thread totally justified.
Heilman, and tzvee, his defender, are being so unintentional funny, its ridiculous. Its sad when the best argument aging men can put up is falling back to their reputations (well, that and dishonesty).
Some scholars toil in academia for so long they completely lose touch with whats a reasonable and convincing argument and whats just plain stupid. Sam and tzvee continuously remind Steve how he doesnt really understand the issues, because he isnt a member of their elite academic club. Well i think its time they are reminded how they are no longer members of a club we like to call “reality”. I would suggested both sam and tzvee stop posting before they embarrasses themselves further.
March 1st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
If we wanted to get involved in personal attacks, we could mention that Heilman had only a public school education and cannot read Orthodox texts with any proficiency, therefore he would be outside the club of those who can understand the Orthodox society. But we wont get personal, so forget it.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Not true. I went to the Maimonides Yeshiva and read the text quite proficiently