Ethnocracy, Theocracy & Democracy
July 21st, 2009 | Tikkun Daily
“Ethnocracy” appears to be one of those nefarious postmodernist words that sounds good and means nothing whatever. I will, therefore, dispose of two notions directly.
I am a progressive but by no means am I a postmodernist. Furthermore, I detest postmodernism in its academic regalia and disdain it in its Jewish religious conception, that which we call “Reconstructionist“.
My objection to academic postmodernism is the relativistic lens it uses and its general hijacking by Marxist rhetoricians. This is particularly evident in sociology, anthropology and political science.
I do, moreover, know what I disdain with respect to the religious postmodernism of Reconstructionism. I am a former member of a Reconstructionist synagogue. Two friends areReconstructionist rabbis.
Jeiwsh religious postmodernism places tremendous value on the aesthetic of the service. Trope is very important, for example, and entirely useless in a congregation of high-culture Jews who neither know Hebrew nor have any conception of the art involved in reading Torah or haftara.
This turns davenen into asi’yah “performance” when the tradition is avoda “service”
About Ethnocracy
The Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth
The word “ethnocracy” does not turn up online except in unattributed articles at Answer.com and Wikipedia. Neither does it occur in credible dictionaries such as Webster’s Third New International Dictionary nor Oxford. Wikipedia lists a history of the article going back only to July of 2008.
Wiktionary, alone of all online resources, cites the use of “ethnocracy” to Dr Paul Dresch, a social anthropolologist at St John’s College, Oxford. The citation is from the book Monarchies and Nations, published in 2005.
I’m not in a position to comment on Monarchies and Nations, which I have not read.
I can criticise, and shall, the use of a term outside the limited context intended by its author. A correspondent has asked “Wasn’t Judaism historically associated with… and isn’t it now associated with a repressive ethnocracy?”
No.
The suggestion that Israel is a state built on ethnic preference, which I assume my correspondent means by the question isn’t (Judaism) now associated with a repressive ethnocracy, misunderstands Jewish ethnography.
Judaism is associated with Israel religiously, not ethnically. Any number of ethnicities are associated with Judaism. The Jews of Tunisia; the Lemba; the Beta Yisrael — and these are merely some of the African ethnic identities of Jews.
The Ashkenazi (European) Jews are often and incorrectly portrayed as the central European ethnic identity of Jews. Are we to then assert that the French Jew is the same as the Finnish?
The Sefardic Jew of southern Europe: is the Spanish & Portugese community the same as Sefardim of Turkey, where my father’s family ultimately comes from?
The point my correspondent is making, of course, is that Israel favours its Jewish population over its Arab population. There is something wrong, perhaps, with 80% of the population forming an absolute majority?
When Jews lived in peace and dignity among the Muslims they were disadvantaged by the status of dhimmi. This disadvantage was not persecution, and I would submit that the disadvantage of Israeli Arabs be understood similarily.
Ibn Saud at Yalta with Pres. Roosevelt
The reason it isn’t so understood, I think, is because Islam did not face the notion of the nation-state until after World War I. After almost 95 years I think it’s about time.
There can be no good case made for the continued occupation of West Bank settlements. Period.
About Theocracy
Theocracy is goverment by an ordained religious authority.
Bnei Yisrael (Israel’s Children), who were not Jews, were led by Moe’sheh after the Exodus from Egypt. It is incorrect to assert that Moe’sheh (Moses) led a theocracy. He was a prophetic royal, perhaps — as were Sha’ul (Saul) and David — but he was not a priest. There was, furthermore, a barony in the form of the Tribal princes.
G!d As “King”
The Hebrew word for king is melekh מלך. This can be divded into the words M’ מ “from” and Leikh לך “go forth”. The king in ancient times was the individual who went forth, either to protect the realm or to expand it by raiding other lands.
G!d has this title because G!d did Go Forth, so to say, to expand the Realm we call monotheism.
There is a traditional Jewish perspective that G!d’s Monarchy will be restored — but this is seen as the restoration of the Davidic royal line, not as the creation of a Divine Monarchy. On the contrary: Rabbinic civilisation has done everything it can to disempower the priesthood.
A Rabbinic Theocracy?
A Rabbinic theocracy is impossible. There are significant differences with respect to minhag (custom), halakha (law), and culture in contemporary Jewish civilisation.
Within Orthodoxy alone the fervently Orthodox are opposed, often on principle, to Centrist Orthodoxy.There are Sefardic, Lithuanian, and Hasidic communities among the fervent. Each has a different worldview.
The suggestion that a Rabbinic theocracy could evolve, or is already in place in Israel, misunderstands the contemporary reality of both traditional Judaism and modern Israel.
The Spirituality of Progress
Democracy, ethnocracy, theocracy — these all describe systems of governance. There are two spiritual principles I often rely on:
- The spiritual principle which states “our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern”.
- Principles, not personalities
The cultivation of a prophetic voice among liberals is the first step, one hopes, is transforming governance to service and personal ambition to principled leadership.
