Jewish Women and the American Mainstream
Summary
The committee of academics and activists that helped plan the first
Ingeborg, Tamara & Yonina Rennert Women in Judaism Forum - "Jewish Women
Changing America: Cross-Generational Conversations" - was faced with a
particularly daunting task: "with a field so full of accomplished women
and important organizations," asked BCRW Director Janet Jakobsen, "how
were we ever to produce panels that were not so unwieldy as to make the
conference itself impossible?" In the end, what proved impossible was
not the conference but the hope of being comprehensive, of representing
the full spectrum, "the richness and variety of American Jewish women's"
commitments to fighting for progressive social change. Instead, we
envisioned this gathering of more than 20 scholars, artists, and social
activists as the beginning of a conversation that examines the
wide-ranging contributions that Second and Third Wave Jewish feminists
have made to struggles for fundamental human and women's rights.
Moderated by Temple University Professor Laura Levitt, the
conference's opening panel discussion, "Jewish Women and the American
Mainstream," gathered some of today's most distinguished and provocative
voices in Jewish activism, culture, politics, and scholarship,
including:
- Katya Gibel Azoulay, author, Black, Jewish & Interracial:
It's Not the Color of Your Skin but the Race of Your Kin, and Other
Myths of Identity;
- Liz Holtzman, former congresswoman from Brooklyn;
- Lisa Jervis, editor, Bitch magazine;
- Letty Cottin Pogrebin, cofounder, Ms. magazine and the
National Women's Political Caucus;
- Nancy Schwartzman, filmmaker, Between Us; creative
director, Heeb magazine.
In preparing her introductory remarks, Levitt thoughtfully returned
to Adrienne Rich's 1982 collection of poems, A Wild Patience Has
Taken Me This Far. In "Integrity," the second poem of that volume,
Rich speaks of the titular "wild patience" that, for Levitt,
encapsulates a particularly feminist strategy of social action: "Even in
the late 1980s we appreciated that what we needed was to be wildly
patient, because the feminist movement would continue to be a labor of
intensive effort. That it required that we take seriously the
differences among and between and within each of us . . . that we refuse
any easy answers . . . [and] let go of any singular vision of feminist
engagement, feminist action, feminist activism, creativity, scholarship,
or politics."
Where feminists are concerned, there is, perhaps, no greater test of
this "wild patience" than a conversation between members of one
generation and the next. Between women who marched for the ERA or
legislated to secure Roe v. Wade and today's younger generation,
whose activism not only relies on but also critiques the history from
which it emerges, there is, inevitably, necessarily, a tension. Proof of
just how much "intensive effort" this feminist labor requires, of how
adamantly we must resist - to borrow another of Rich's famous lines - "the
dream of a common language."
More often than not, the mainstream media is content to present this
tension as a severe and uncrossable divide: Second Wave feminists, we
hear, blame backlash and backsliding on the inefficacy of Third Wave
tactics, while the younger generation dismisses as irrelevant - or, worse,
is ignorant of - the struggles of the past. And above the din of their
argument, the death knell of feminism is heard. Or so those who pose the
perennial question, "Is Feminism Dead?" would have us believe.
In feminist circles, the tension is not only subtler; it is also more
productive. The question of "legacy," notes Letty Cottin Pogrebin, is as
serious as it is, sometimes, difficult to face. Pogrebin goes on to
admit that she "finds it hard to strike a balance between wanting
younger women to secure the hard-won progress achieved by [her] cohort
and, at the same time, respecting their right to define their own
agenda." Echoing Pogrebin's concerns, former congresswoman Liz Holtzman
praises younger activists for the "temerity that those of us who are
older and wiser . . . have lost," but goes on to lament what she sees as
their unwillingness to apply that temerity in the arenas where it's
needed most: of the real and recent threats to such hard-won freedoms as
the right to abortion and contraception, Holtzman asks, "Is it because
young women have forgotten that these rights were only created in the
last 30 years and can be taken away just as quickly?" For both Pogrebin
and Holtzman, the road to a feminist future winds its way, unavoidably,
through the rough terrain of electoral politics; more cultural and
theory-driven routes are, they fear, merely detours. "Who gets into
office matters," says Pogrebin. "It's nasty, it's dirty, it's not
theoretical . . . it's filthy, rotten, slogging through stuff that
starts at the district level . . . [but] that's where it ends up. It
ends up with the vote, and it ends up with the budget . . . And we've
seen what happens when the wrong people are in office."
Katya Gibel Azoulay qualified the observation about younger
generations' indifference or inaction by suggesting that the absence is
one felt most keenly left of center: conservative and especially
Christian right movements have been disturbingly successful at
organizing young people, while their liberal counterparts, by
comparison, have failed. But Third Wavers Lisa Jervis and Nancy
Schwartzman both strongly disagreed. Young women, they insist, are
present in all areas of feminist struggle. Moreover, they argue that
"personal" or "cultural" feminism is not "blither" that's opposed or
subordinate to more ostensibly public, political actions (like putting a
woman in the White House), but a necessary piece of a sprawling social
puzzle that includes politicians but also filmmakers and novelists,
school teachers and stay-at-home moms, organizers of marches as much as
members of quilting bees. To them, feminist critiques of and
contributions to popular culture - be they via a movie or a magazine - can
be, in fact, as "troublemaking, feather-ruffling, rabble-rousing" as the
methods of Pogrebin's generation. More and more young women, claims
Jervis, believe electoral politics to be "a dead end"; they may see no
point in running for office, but their presence and commitment should
not be underestimated:
There are so many issues that young women are working on,
young feminist women and women who may not identify specifically as
feminists, but they are working on issues that are very much motivated
by feminist politics and feminist principles . . . You've got women
doing work around the prison industrial complex. Anti-sweatshop
organizing. All sorts of things that are deeply, deeply feminist issues,
but because they're not just about women, that work is not claimed as
feminist, and thus gets overlooked when people ask, "Where are the young
women?"
The work of Nancy Schwartzman, who screened a portion of her
documentary Between Us, speaks to the political power of projects
that, at first glance, have little connection to anything as large as
national or international policy. Between Usis an intimate
reflection on Schwartzman's experience of being raped by a Jewish man
during a trip to Israel, but it's also a powerful critique of how
notions of nationality and religious identity can contribute to a kind
of violence that is often construed as essentially personal. The
conflict that Schwartzman often faces in Jewish/Israeli communities that
urge her to suppress her story because they only wish "to hear that [a
Jewish woman going to Israel] made aliah . . . that she fell in
love with a brave Israeli soldier . . . that she is now more religious"
reminds us of the need to abandon a "singular vision of feminist
engagement" in favor of true, lasting, meaningful, and productive
diversity.
"If we are afraid to confront people whose opinions diverge radically
from our own, and only want to hear and speak with the people who agree
with us . . . we will not have any transformations," said Katya Azoulay.
Azoulay's invitation to revise our very notion of American Jewishness - to
open up representations of that experience so that it includes feminists
other than Bella Abzug and Betty Friedan, so that it incorporates Jews
who bear no resemblance to the wealthy, white metropolitans of Woody
Allen's imagination - is, in fact, a demand to disrupt a norm by which
social power (even among progressives) continues to be distributed
unequally along racial and economic lines.
In unearthing such complex, sometimes seemingly conflicting issues,
the panelists enable us to consider how activists should face those
who've come before them. How should one generation pass the torch to the
next? How, for instance, do we build on the achievements of a movement
even as we assess its limitations, its missteps, its failures? To do so
is not to place celebration above the need for critique. It is not to
allow frustration to thwart collaboration. It is, instead, to demand a
movement that allows for both - for, as Adrienne Rich says later in
"Integrity," both "anger and tenderness":
Anger and tenderness: my selves.
And now I can believe they breathe in me
as angels, not polarities.
|