Who Are We to Choose Who Mattters

http://zeroanthropology.net/2014/10/26/useful-atrocities/

I read a blog called Useful Atrocities by Eva Bartlett whose blog was about Western medias obvious choice of who counts as an atrocity and who doesn't. Her argument is based off of Western medias preference towards the average white christian and making their tragic deaths more important than those who are not white and christian. This is a tragedy because every human life is important regardless of their religious persuasion. Currently ISIS is killing because they feel that those they are killing are either "bad muslims" or non-muslims all of whom are considered threats to their cause and as such they should either be converted or eliminated. Religious disagreement over the years has been a source of violence and a way to segregate people. What makes it okay for one religion to say that others are not as important or not worthy of life? This question is something that I'm sure many religiously motivated events are based on, and which, obviously, some have less of an issue with than others. The other question that I personally have is related to why violence, and more particularly religious violence is more prominent in areas where there is poverty? Also why it is the wealthy media broadcasters who aren't at the front lines are the ones deciding who and what is important to report? Who's death is more important? The choices they make help to perpetuate the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Islamic culture and religious belief.

-Ciara

American Exceptional-ism and Cultural Exchange

Doostdar writes: “The novelist and journalist Michael Muhammad Knight has recently argued that his own flirting with jihad in the Chechen war of the 1990s did not grow out of his then commitment to Salafi Islam, but from American values: ‘I had grown up in the Reagan ‘80s. I learned from G.I. Joe cartoons to (in the words of the theme song) ‘fight for freedom, wherever there’s trouble.’ I assumed that individuals had the right—and the duty—to intervene anywhere on the planet where they perceived threats to freedom, justice, and equality’” How can Doostdar’s use of the phrase “American values” be perceived, understood: ironically? a self-indictment? a sardonic critique of what is assumed uniquely American? Incidentally, Doostdar’s invoking of a notion of values as uniquely American in itself points towards the very thing she criticizes: that is, the reality of events, or simultaneously the irreality of events, being solely disseminated and comprehended through a Western/American ideological framework (the structure of which is continually implemented and perpetuated by transparency of Western media). The phrase itself again points further towards the notion of cultural exchange: more precisely, what becomes invisible/obscured/lost in cultural exchange? 

ISIS and Public Relations

"ISIS has arguably distinguished itself from all of the other rebel groups in its outreach to Syrian populations by employing social media with remarkable effectiveness. Indeed, the extent of ISIS’s political and media outreach aimed at garnering local support is unprecedented in the history of global jihadist movements"  Pg. 4


"In a bid to ensure that their political rule lasts, ISIS’s da’wah efforts have particularly targeted children. The group has also sought to recruit children during Muslim religious festivals by offering them gifts. The most egregious case of this took place in ad-Dana, where ISIS distributed Western- brand toys, including Spiderman and the Teletubbies, on Eid al-Fitr."  Pg. 6

     As I read through Tamimi's article on ISIS I found myself to be both amazed and appalled at the success ISIS was finding in its recruiting attempt. As noted in the text ISIS has found unprecedented success with recruitment, especially through social media which I've pointed out in a few links below. They also launched a lot of community outreach efforts, offering things like education or discounted bread. I'm almost perplexed as to how a group that could participate in videotaped beheadings could also participate in community outreach. While I certainly understand that they must in order to gain recruits and allies, the concept it difficult for me to wrap my head around. It seems that there is much more going on in ISIS than we've been privy to, whether that's as result of withheld information or general ignorance is currently unknown. It's similarly difficult for me to see how in light of their actions they are still able to rely on social and local media to recruit and also to spread propaganda. These efforts have resulted in some 80 different nations now being represented in ISIS members, in 2nd article listed below. Though the reliance on social media is becoming less obvious since the social media channels themselves have begun to crackdown. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, especially the social media aspect, because of the implications it may have for not only future jihadist groups but also how we defend against them.


Other Related Articles
* http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-uses-social-media-to-recruit-western-allies/ [On Westerners fighting along side ISIS]
*http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-recruitment-reaches-unprecedented-scale-15000-foreign-jihadists-joining-militant-1716684 [More recent, on 80+ countries who now have citizens represented in ISIS]
*http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/isis-attempting-to-show-softer-gentler-side-in-new-video-media-scholar-1.2077141 [On the shift from beheadings to news reporting]

True Perception?

    The blog post entitled Useful Atrocities by Eva Bartlett on the Zero Anthropology blog raises several interesting points regarding the very nature of the violence surrounding ISIS. The article highlights the irony in the fact that the alleged beheadings of two American journalists has inundated the media when hundreds of similar acts of violence are going on seemingly unreported on a global scale. I know that I was personally shocked to read of the extent of the violence that was going on. Somehow, in the midst of the media’s attempt to cover what they perceive as pertinent and relevant information to the American public, the importance of the whole reality has been lost. At what point did American media start to care more about reporting only “American” news, as opposed to the whole story. Is this the effect of a consumer economy? Or what else?

     I also found interesting the segment of the article that was discussing case of the organ-eating al-Farouq Brigade militant “Abu Sakkar,” who bit into the lung out of a Syrian soldier. In this case, the media was quick to justify the cannibalism. However, Bartlett’s comments raise an interesting point that had the lung in question belonged to a Western soldier, or worse, an “Israeli”soldier, the act would not have so quickly been moved past. It is my personal opinion that the news should be portrayed as accurate reflection of the situation, whether good or bad, and regardless of whether the people affected are our own. Only then can we have an accurate understanding of the situation regarding ISIS, and more broadly, of world events in general. 

An Odd Juxtaposition and the "Who" of ISIS

What I found particularly interesting about this article was the discussion of ISIS' use of monopolizing the bakeries and lowering the price of bread to gain support. It seems wildly ironic that ISIS, which has been known for brutally torturing and killing thousands of people, tries to win favor amongst people by seemingly trying to help them. Though it isn't as simple as I am making it out to be, I was just struck by this façade of innocence for a horrendous organization.

I was also interested in the article about "How Not to Understand ISIS"-- particularly the part about who chooses to join ISIS and why they choose to do so. It reminded me of a couple of articles I had recently read. The first was an article written by an American who considered joining ISIS and told his story. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/09/03/i-understand-why-westerners-are-joining-the-islamic-state-i-was-almost-one-of-them/

I found it to be really interesting to hear from someone who came from such a unique point-of-view. I also think it helps to humanize the Jihadists, which was important for me as I tend to think of them as demonic creatures or something non-human because of what they are doing, and I forget that they, too are people. I think the article has good insight on how ISIS could appeal to someone and can help us understand them and the Jihadists a little bit more. 

In the same vein, the second article was about women joining the Jihadist and what compelled them to do so. 

 http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/inside-the-online-world-of-the-women-of-isis 

It also discussed what life was like for them once they joined and gave instructions on how girls should go about joining. I appreciated the fact that this article focused on the women in the movement, as they are often forgotten it seems. I was intrigued and dismayed at some of the details of life in ISIS for them, and was glad the article pointed them out. 

Empathy

            I think of myself an activist –mainly a food activist, demanding transparency in our food system. I also am a strong advocate of gay rights, marriage equality and pro-choice. It’s hard for me to pull myself away from self-righteousness or anger when my passion and beliefs are so strong. I’ve sat with the question of how to be a non-violent activist, a peaceful fighter. It has become a norm that demanding justice means identifying the one bad guy to blame and punish. Even the global legal system agrees with that. (Something bad happens, the one to blame is accused, that person is judged sent for punishment and somehow that is justice.) Look at the Ferguson shooting for example. Stunning amounts of people are protesting and marching under the name of justice, but in my mind, under the rally to strengthen the blame on one person. What gives us so much comfort to know who’s fault it all is?

            My NVC teacher has taught at a preschool when the event of 9-11 occurred. Students had gathered to mourn and honor the lives that were lost when one pre-schooler said, “Boy, I hope someone is giving empathy to the person who was in the plain.” This story resonates with me powerfully.

            I like the article “How not to understand ISIS” tries to understand without the desperate urge to blame . Some quotes that resonate with me are: “none of these terms is particularly accurate, especially given the diverse range of Salafi views and the different ways in which people adhere to them.” And, “The problem with these statements is that they seem to assume that ISIS is a causa sui phenomenon that has suddenly materialized out of the thin ether of an evil doctrine. But ISIS emerged from the fires of war, occupation, killing, torture, and disenfranchisement. It did not need to sell its doctrine to win recruits. It needed above all to prove itself effective against its foes.”

Bartlett's ideas on America and ISIS

In "The Terrorism We Support in Syria: A First-hand Account of the Use of Mortars against Civilians", a blog by Bartlett, she makes the claim that the emergence and terrorist acts of ISIS are "US-backed and funded". However, throughout the article, she gives accounts of mortar attacks with the help on an NDF solider, who provides insight onto the nature of the attacks. In the final paragraph, she concludes with the claim that the destruction of Syria has always been in intention of the "Axis-of-Interventionists", and the US-Zionist-Gulf-Turkish-British-French-Jordanian project. She claims this is the case simply because the Western media doesn't give a proportional amount of attention to these mortar attacks that are taking place in cities such as Damascus. At the beginning and end of the article, she repeats the thought that the US is in fact supporting this self-proclaimed state. However, through the entire length of the post, she provides actually no evidence linking the United States to ISIS. No money trail, no transcripts between US officials and members of ISIS, no American presentations at NATO conferences stating why ISIS should be supported. Nothing. The lack of factual evidence that Bartlett provides to her point is simply astounding. How does she expect to connect the US to ISIS if she provides quotations of a wounded soldier explaining the simple mechanisms of a mortar? She cannot. 

Granted, it's difficult to get any kind of information out of the members of ISIS themselves, as I would assume they are group exclusive to those conforming to their beliefs, which a Canadian "justice activist" is not. In which case I would suggest that she begin at the borders of Turkey, the nation from which she believes ISIS is receiving the most direct support. Maybe then she'll be able to find something qualitative towards her hypothesis that NATO is backing the killing of innocent Syrians, and the nation's destruction is, in fact, on their agenda. 

Effective Recruitment

I focused on the UChicago author by Alireza Doostdar. The most interesting thing to me was the fact that religions, beliefs and practices do not need to assert themselves as the one truth. Instead, if they convince their young recruits that they are the best way out of the terrible situation that they are currently faced with, recruitment becomes much easier. The author states, "ISIS emerged from the fires of war, occupation, killing, torture, and disenfranchisement. It did not need to sell its doctrine to win recruits. It needed above all to prove itself effective against its foes."


The fact that many of the recruits began as peaceful protesters in Iraq and Syria raises a question. How many of these recruits see their beliefs as an end, or as a means to an end? Do these people fight and kill to fulfill their religious beliefs, or do the believe that fighting and killing will lead them out of the oppression they were once faced with? 

Ultimately, as Doostdar points out, much of the things that we now about what is actually happening on the ground has come from ISIS propaganda and recruitment videos, so it is impossible to clump this group of people together and assert that they were created, and fight for the same purposes. Some may fight because of their beliefs of the Salafi tradition, while others see it as an escape from their current oppression. Additionally, it is unimportant to try and pin point when exactly the creation of this group began because this knowledge doesn't help us understand the cycles of brutality. 

Aiming to Understand, Not Judge

In the piece by Doostdar, we read that labeling a group as extremist will not help us to understand the violence and actions that the group undertakes. He suggests that individuals join ISIS for a multiplicity of reasons, not always due to Salafist inclinations. One possible reason that we discussed in class on Wednesday is that people join radical groups not because ideology, but because of the tangible goods they provide. In a place with very little economic vitality and few opportunities, extremist groups are able to flourish. In Tamami's article we learn that one way JN and ISIS distinguish between one another is through the provision of economic aid and social services. When trying to determine why people begin to follow ISIS we should not privilege the spiritual,  rather we should look at it alongside the physical. Examining the extreme conditions that drive people to extreme groups will better help the West to combat radicalism.

Also I just wanted to include a note on the articles from Zero Anthropology. The author makes some important claims and provides important information. However, I completely disagree with her tactics and feel that these tactics rendered the material ineffective. The author utilized inflammatory language and incorporated periphery claims that would undoubtedly turn a majority of people off from the evidence. The language used would likely result in many people immediately turning away and discrediting what they read.

In the UChicago article, Doostdar says that there are many different ways people can adhere to "the diverse range of Salafi views". I agree that there is always a range of different ways to adhere to a certain religion. For example, in Judaism, you can either be orthodox (most religious), conservative, or reform (least religious). And even within those categories, there is a spectrum of how religious you are and how much/how you practice. I have found that the spectrum does vary by area, though. For example, an orthodox Jew in San Diego, CA seems to be much less religious than an orthodox Jew in New York City. My question is, how does this begin? Why does this happen? Is this acceptable or should we be able to place an orthodox Jew from one area into another area and it be just the same?

Propoganda

The most interesting thing for me in the readings was the emphasis placed on propaganda in the UChicago article. After reading it I did take a moment to reflect and realize a lot of the terror and connecting the terror to an "evil doctrine" and an "evil ideology" shared by all those in and supporting ISIS is primarily a production of ISIS propaganda. It is those in charge of the group that are bombarding the West with these images and probably doing so to inflict the same terror we see today. But what about on the other side? ISIS is also using media and propaganda to gain the support of locals and eventually win over new territories, and when you look at the access, financial support, and power they are gaining, this media outreach must be working. Obviously this is a different set of propaganda. Probably one aimed at appealing to the financial and other strife locals are going through. Once again this goes back to the point we had made in class, what is the fighting really about? Is it simply politically driven? What is the true motivation? From this outlook on propaganda I tend to stick with the claim that more than religion is at stake (motivation). A combination of economic, social, and educational strategies are being put at play through ISIS, and these strategies are winning over locals. Overall this propganda is becoming a medium that allows ISIS to represent themselves (differently in some cases) how they want, to whom they want.

Secrecy to attract attention

One thing that I've seen through personal experience and observing the behavior of those around me is that people most often want what they cannot have. The mystery, the inability to attain whatever it is we're looking for, is what provides the impetus for the desire that keeps us moving in a given direction. While perhaps it wasn't their original intention, it's quite possible that the canomble have recognized this.
Naturally, the original intention was the preservation of the integrity of the rituals, so that outsiders wouldn't attempt to judge or analyze the practices that they didn't understand. However, when they found that their strict secrecy would attract even further attention from media and tourists (not to mention bringing in more money), I'd be willing to wager there was little complaint from the head members of the cult.

Suffering (bodily pain) as Religious Necessity

Van de Port invokes Eliade’s concept of “hierophany”: “Religious practices in candomble have always privileged the human body as the prime site of what Mircea Eliade has called ‘heirophany’, the appearance of the sacred. Initiation rituals, animal sacrifice, spirit possession – in all these activities, the human body in performative action is the medium used to gain access to the mysterious fundamentos, the ‘deep knowledge’”. (p. 445). Further in the paper, he notes the arduous and prolonged initiation processes as requisite to access the arcane knowledge of the candomble. Where/how does bodily suffering figure here? In the sense of a performative action, suffering itself may be requisite to furthering religious knowledge – as in, to perform the reveal and dissemination of knowledge and secrets. Why has suffering figured integrally in all the rituals we have studied (the Hauka rituals, particularly) – where is suffering place in religious performance and “imagination”? Can the supernatural only be sufficiently comprehended through the body that is specifically in pain, the body that is on the verge of being broken? 

The Knowledge of the Initiate

The Candomblé way of transmitting religious knowledge being that they are an initiation cult is very similar to how other religions “initiate” their members. Religions all have had to adapt to the changing technological times and those that change and integrate these new technologies best are the ones that remain in power and influence across the world. “Knowledge…comes with doing: observing the taboos, participating in the rituals, subjecting oneself to the rigid temple hierarchy, and respecting ones commitments…time is also crucial to the transmission of the secret knowledge,” (p.449). We can look at this an initiation right of passage. One has to observe, listen and prove that their religious devotion is true. However, if we look at children born into groups with these sorts of ideologies then can we consider the children unwilling initiates? They are brought up amongst this knowledge and therefore have had no outside experience unlike adults who choose to join the cult. It’s a very similar situation to some of the worlds largest and most prominent religions. The children who grow up with parents who bring them to temple or church, read them religious texts and observe religious dietary, and clothing constraints have the knowledge and simply because they have grow up with this knowledge they simply follow their parents because this is the only way they know. Introduce advances such as radio, television and media, now the children are exposed to outside forces, things that can’t be controlled via ones religion. The Candomblé have integrated these advances into their society and have managed to maintain their secrecy while also being public which has allowed them to slowly gain the influence and recognition that they lacked previously in Brazil. Religions or cults that can adapt and incorporate the changes in technology are becoming more and more prominent in everyday life because they have utilized these advances in order to gain more followers and members that aren’t the children of previously initiated members.

-Ciara Williams

The Televisual World

The thing that interested me most in this article was the description of the televisual world and how media technologies are never entirely a "instrumental or material" form. When these technologies enter religion, they have already been used to document other things, in Antonio's case, weddings, birthday parties etc. Because of this even the media has a preconceived style and opinions on what televisual realities should look like.

This contrasted one of our discussions in class about the media used to portray the Hauka rituals. During the discussion we talked about how the camera and media was an objective view point while the commentary was the subjective part. However this portion of this article displays that not even technology can completely remove the subject from interpretation. How the technology is used means that there is a specific style for all things in the televisual world, and that even things like cameras and tapes and videos are subjective in themselves.

Media: A Constitution of Moral Imagination

Mattijs van de Port, in his article, "Visualizing the Sacred", pointed out a compelling statement, that "media are constitutive of religious imagination" (van de Port, 445). I found this statement surprisingly truthful. In his example that he gave, he mentioned that in some mass gatherings of the Charismatic catholics in Brazil, the Charismatic priests would ask the members to "be like antennas" to receive the Holy Spirit and in other cases instruct the members to "put a glass of water on the TV set during their live broadcast of prayer meetings to be a receptacle of the Holy Spirit, which infuses the water with curative powers" (van de Port, 444). I expected media and the perceptions portrayed to influence the morals or fundamental views of religions, however, I did not expect that the objects used in media such as the TV to be a literal medium through which the secular world could influence the practices of religion.

This characteristic of such religion could be problematic because one of the significant factors about certain religions is their uniqueness which is commonly shown through the traditions and practices unique to religion. However, in cases such as this Charismatic catholic group, which is swayed whichever way the wind blows the media's attention- from the current popular view, to the next trending fashion line, to the next hottest gossip -there might come a point that such religions would not be able to set foundations for the religion and maintain it for generations if media is what influences what they stand on as their beliefs.

Why the Secrecy?

I was really interested by the different answers the anthropologist received when he asked about why the religious ceremonies couldn't be filmed. The first one, that the presence of cameras and flashes would detract from the sacredness of the ceremony seemed to be understandable. After all, many religious ceremonies believe cameras and flash to be disrespectful. However, it was interesting that tourist were still allowed to watch by and observe, and that didn't seem to bother the participants.

I was also really interested in the second reason, that the images of the cult's activities would cause prejudice from people who would see only their foreign and seemingly primitive practices instead of taking the time to understand the meaning behind it. The participants and adherents of the cult were very aware of how what they were doing could be perceived. Did they choose to uphold a standard of secrecy because of negative feedback? Was it really so profound that they veiled their entire religious beliefs because of it? I also wonder how they look at other "primitive" African practices. Do they empathize with the way they are viewed by Western society or do they see themselves as above them in some way?

The third explanation, that people shouldn't make profits on the images and not give any back to the Candomblé was reasonable, I thought. But then, if this was the only reason, why wouldn't they have their own videos made and sold so they could regulate the output as well as keep the money?

The lack of reason for the secrecy was interesting. The fact that people would believe so whole-heartedly in something that they didn't entirely understand is interesting but not foreign. Could it speak to their religious success?

TV and Media

In a time where social media plays a significant role in our daily lives, it's interesting to see how religion and social media intertwine. A great example is in one of my favorite shows, Lost, where religion makes many appearances. Here is an article explaining how much Lost uses religion:

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/lost-religion-christianity-faith-played-big-role-abc-series-article-1.204340

The Inevitability of TV

While reading van de Port’s article, I was struck by the attempt at TV mimicry and its pervasiveness in society. Van de Port poses the question “is it possible that these videos seek to inscribe candomble rituals in everyday realities by using televisual styles and formats?” It seems almost inevitable that, despite the attempts of candomble priests and taboos, modern forms of media would insert themselves into every corner of the world. As someone who watches far too much TV and has dealt with struggles with the invasive nature of media, the fabrication of reality through the medium of television is an easy trap to fall into. The first thing I thought after reading this was that by using TV to inscribe candomble rituals into the everyday, the everyday will succumb to televisual styles as well. Mimicking TV is a rabbit hole; it doesn’t stop with one activity. It would be interesting to see how this insertion of modern media in the candomble ritual has affected other aspects of practitioners’ lives.

Escaping Bias?

     In reading this article, I was drawn to the idea of bias. It seemed to me that the real issue surrounding the televised portrayal of the Cabdomblé was the concern that the final media product would be inaccurate in its portrayal of the cult due to misunderstanding. In fact, the article represents the concern displayed by the Ilê Axé Opô Afonjá temple that others may represent the house “erroneously”. I think that the context of this statement brings together the very controversy of bias seen here. The sentence states, in reference to the video produced by the Ilê Axé Opô Afonjá themselves, that “The tape seems to be the result of a public-relations strategy that somehow got stuck between the idea that the Ilê Axé Opô Afonjá, as one of the most prestigious temples in town, has to speak out in public about itself (rather than have others represent the house ‘erroneously’) and cultists’ basic unwillingness to speak out and appear in the public eye”. I believe that this statement shows the very nature of the two-edged sword that media production can represent in this case. On the one hand, we see a bias coming from the temple itself, and on the other hand we would still see a bias coming from an outsider’s perspective. And yet, given the nature of the topic, the article indicates that the video produced by the temple actively sought incomprehensibility in their production. So given the options, is their really a point of view that is more accurate than any other? Doesn’t every perspective contain an inherent bias?

Religious assimilation

In chapter 9, "Matisyahu and 'My Fair Lady': Reflections on Adult Language Socialization", Benor writes:

"One major difference between the socialization of BTs and FFBs is the timing of the stages. For FFB children, access and responsibility increase when they reach a new age, a new grade, or a new level of maturity. Their process of legitimate peripheral participation is, to some extent, institutionalized. BTs, on the other hand, must take the initiative and seek out new stages themselves. In, addition, young children do not have access to some of the self-teaching practices that adult BTs do, like web searches dictionaries, and recorded lectures," (Benor, "Becoming Frum", p. 189)

In this context, language and the ability to articulate oneself through a certain vernacular becomes a gauge of not only assimilation but maturation, as one of many indicators of progression through religious culture. This engenders the question: what is religious maturation, if such a concept even exists/is operational and has affect in religious thought/practice/belief? This presents a problem for the convert particularly: how does one, a convert, assimilate themselves into a new religious structure when the rituals/rites of that structure, that create that structure, are integral on an already pre-defined trajectory of maturation through the religion itself, a trajectory which often runs parallel to biological age and social maturation? Or maybe this not so problematic: as in christianity, baptism allows the convert to be initiated and to become assimilated through rite in a set of pre-defined rites. Maybe the more illustrative and complicated question is: how does religious initiation occur, through what medium (language, rite, hallucination), and what affects are produced.

FFB Hesitance to marry a BT

According to Becoming Frum, there are three main reasons as to why someone who is FFB may hesitate to marry someone who is BT. First, there is the fear that the BT person may back out of his or her choice to become Orthodox after the marriage is completed. Second, the children will be presented with the "confusing" factor that the BT's grandparents aren't a part of the Orthodox culture at all. Third, the BT won't have any kind of pedigree showing some kind of lineage within the community. To these reasons for hesitance, I have a few questions/criticisms.
The first, being afraid to marry someone because the FFB is afraid the BT might back out, is completely understandable. A lot of lifestyle changes need to be put into place, and become habit before Orthodoxy can really become a part of that person's daily routine. Often, a person might idealize a certain lifestyle, but eventually may find that they aren't compatible.
The second, however, I find to be quite ridiculous. At a certain point, when able to understand basic differences in faith a cultures. The parents can sit down with the child, and explain that the BT parent decided to take his/her life in a different religious direction than it was going. "While grandma and grandpa may be Jewish, they never decided to take their lives in the Orthodox direction. Nonetheless, they are still your grandparents, and they still love you very much."
The third, placing such importance on lineage and name, is something I understand to be a very traditional belief system. However, I can't agree with how heavily you can place someone's name with his or her ability to be a fit parent, spouse, or religious person. Granted, their household may have provided the necessary tools to being all of those things, but has not determined if those tools will be used in creating a happy home.

Are they Faking it Until the Make It?

Last class we talked a lot about belief and practices and which was more important. I find interesting the idea of behaviors inspiring belief. Although it seems ideally a person should completely take up a belief and then conduct in behaviors to influence that belief, when it comes to conversions and transitions this may not always be the case. In Becoming Frum, Benor, spends chapter 3 talking about the habits of those living in the orthodox community and the transition of the BTs to those habits. It is interesting that for aspects such as clothes and food, you can see that the BTs first deal with an initial discomfort (or for some an enthusiasm/curiosity) that drives them to start dressing/acting differently. Benor writes about "a gradual implementation of cultural practices and then a sense that it could not be otherwise." This is basically another way of saying the BTs faked it until they made it. They went through the steps, without the belief being the only driving force, and eventually the belief kicked in to reinforce the behavior. Is this pathway also relevant to other regions? Maybe even to all conversions?

Practicing Judaism Without Believing

On Wednesday we attempted to answer the question of whether or not belief or behavior was more important. We discussed that perhaps without belief, behavior was inauthentic. Alternatively, some suggested that behavior was needed to solidify belief and that acting a certain way plays a central role in making one a believer. While we did not get an answer to this question in the second part of our Becoming Frum reading, we did get insight into how orthodox Judaism assesses the question. Benor writes that "many orthodox Jews have disdain for cultural Judaism devoid of any religious content" (61). For orthodox Jews, one must be engaged spiritually in Judaism, not simply culturally.

To add a personal aspect to this question, and in the process possibly problematize our understanding even further, I will mention how Judaism manifests itself in my life. I do not believe in the spiritual aspects  of Judaism. Yet, I still engage in many "Jewish" activities. I often eat typically "Jewish meals", celebrate religious events, and attend religious gatherings. In fact, I even use many Yiddish and Hebrew words each day. I see these activities as a core part of my life, and Judaism as an important part of my life. This behavior does not condition or create a religious belief in my life, despite the religious foundations upon which the actions are fundamentally based. Judaism for me is not a religious experience, but a cultural one. For me to stop doing these things would mean a departure from my culture, and would signify a fundamental shift in my identity. I identify as a Jew, just not a religious one. In asking the initial question, what is more important, belief or behavior, we are framing it as what is more important for religious experience. In my life I have separated Judaism from religion, perhaps rendering the question unimportant. This conscious separation also allows me to practice certain Jewish customs and abstain from others, all the while not suffering from a feeling of inauthenticity.