Ads


Sign up for our
Email Newsletter

A Particularly Universal Love

In an article for Haaretz (subsequently picked up by the über-aggregator The Huffington Post), Mira Sucharov reopens the “particularism vs. universalism debate,” arguing the utter superiority of universalism and the foul depravity of particularism in strident terms–even to the extent of invoking everyone’s favorite debating tactic: tying the other side to Hitler. Surprisingly, this is the smaller of the two major problems with her argument.

Sucharov is responding to two recent publications she deems particularist: an article for Commentary by Daniel Gordis and a study by the Jewish service organization Repair the World. She finds fault with Gordis for suggesting that Jews ought to feel a special attachment to the Jewish State, and with Repair for suggesting that young Jews ought to consider serving the needs of others (including non-Jews) through Jewish programs, and within Jewish contexts.

In her article, she presents a “chilling” objection to such particularist attitudes:


It has to do with what happens when empathy vanishes from human interaction. There’s a famous quotation attributed to German Pastor Martin Niemoller, and which is on display at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem: “First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.” Tragically, we all know what happens when a particularist worldview is pushed to the unthinkable extreme.

Leaving aside the tiresomely ubiquitous Nazi connection in the excerpt above, I think it’s clear to most people that any concept, when “pushed to the unthinkable extreme” is very bad. Indeed, that’s what would make it an “unthinkable extreme” in the first place.

It’s much more interesting that Sucharov leaps right from particularism to vanishing empathy without feeling the need to explain how one leads to the other. Does particularism really mean that universalist empathy “vanishes”? Does having a special love for one’s own people automatically preclude loving others? In other words, is the only possible interaction between universalism and particularism a zero-sum game? Sucharov’s article makes sense only under the assumption that this is the case.

But love and empathy don’t have to work that way. Whoever you are, dear reader (unless you are one of my two brothers), I love my mother more than I love your mother. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have any empathy for your mother. If Sucharov wishes to argue that particularism—the special love of those close to us—is an enemy of universal empathy, then I must ask: Does she really have no more empathy for her own mother than for mine? Or would she, in an ideal world, establish a uniform empathy quota for every person on earth?

The idea of an inherent conflict between universalism and particularism is absurd. The two are often mutually reinforcing. For many Jews, thinking about our own relatives being murdered in Auschwitz disallows us from turning away when people less connected to us are murdered in Sudan. Thinking about our great-grandparents stepping off a boat in New York without knowing a word of English prevents us from thinking of Mexican immigrants as being less worthy as human beings, and thinking about those same relatives living in squalor and poverty on the Lower East Side informs our thinking about poverty by making it a personal concept, instead of an abstract question of policy.

Interestingly, Sucharov herself makes this point powerfully, if only implicitly:


We are all interconnected on this tiny, hurting planet. At Jewish camp, we used to sing “Ani v’atah, neshaneh et ha’olam” (You and I will change the world). The message was that tikkun olam (repairing the world) would only come about if you and I, Self and Other—not only our fellow Jews—join hands. A universalist approach to fixing the world’s ills is efficient, strategic, and so much more richly moral than the alternative.

The best argument against the last sentence above is the two sentences immediately preceding it. By referring to tikkun olam, and quoting the Hebrew song she sang at Jewish camp, Sucharov demonstrates why that particular Jewish connection doesn’t cut off universal empathy, but rather enhances it. An argument against particularism is an argument against singing that Hebrew song to begin with, the one that inspired Sucharov to join hands with everyone.

Now, it is true that some Jews emphasize either particularism or universalism to the detriment of the other. Some Jews really don’t care enough about people beyond the Jewish world, and to them we ought to speak of Judaism’s many teachings that insist they open their hearts to all people. Other Jews are completely disconnected from Judaism, preferring to hitch their idealism to exclusively secular wagons, and to them we ought to speak of the importance of Jewish connections and their relation to universalistic action.

But the existence of these two mistaken groups doesn’t validate the idea that universalism and particularism are inherently enemies. To cite these groups as proofs for an unavoidable conflict would be to allow the most insular Jews to define universalism, and the most disconnected Jews to define particularism.

The much-debated conflict between universalism and particularism is an illusion, a nonexistent problem. Perhaps I could see my way to acknowledging an occasional tension between the two values, but tension isn’t the same as mutual exclusivity. And, as Ari Hart points out, tension can be creative. The presence of this particular tension can inspire the more particularistic among us to think more about the broader world, and the more universalistic among us to reconnect to our roots, and rekindle a kind of powerful inspiration that exclusively universalist abstractions often lack.

Seth Chalmer is a graduate student at NYU in Nonprofit Management and Judaic Studies.

RESOURCES

Mira Sucharov, The Risks of Jewish Particularism

Daniel Gordis, Are Young Rabbis Turning on Israel?

Repair the World, Volunteering + Values: A Repair the World Report on Jewish Young Adults

Ari Hart, Peoplehood, Universalism, and Particularism: The Tension That Keeps It All Together

Comments:

8.1.2011 | 11:34am
jason taylor says:
Doesn't the assumption that particularism is a rejection of universalist empathy lead to the assumption that univarsalist empathy would thereby exist? Is that our experience? Are people who don't have empathy for their brothers likely to have empathy for people halfway around the world?

By contrast, Particularism is as likely to reinforce universalism as to compete with it. The proverbial fireman running into a burning building to save the innocent will likely care more about what the other firemen think of him then about people whose name he doesn't know.
8.1.2011 | 12:04pm
TXW says:
BTW, the Niemoller quote she used is a shortened version. Left out is ". . .then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant." I started seeing the abridged version about the same time that the Pope Pius XII battles began. If the quote trully abridged, it suffers from . . .ahem. . . particularism. I do not know the source of the original quote however.
8.1.2011 | 3:31pm
Randy says:
If we're just neighbors, and your father dies suddenly, I obviously won't be as grief-stricken as you are. But, if everyone around you was as grief-stricken as your family, then they (friends and neighbors) wouldn't be much help to you either. If, out of sadness, you don't have the emotional energy to prepare meals for yourself, you certainly don't want the owner of corner delicatessen to share in your incapacitation. That won't help you in any way. People understand, there are different roles in recovering from a tragedy. Sometimes, the best contribution you can make is just to mow somebody's lawn, when they can't be bothered with anything so trivial. The same is true for neighboring countries. The only difference is the scale.
8.1.2011 | 4:01pm
"Thinking about our great-grandparents stepping off a boat in New York without knowing a word of English prevents us from thinking of Mexican immigrants as being less worthy as human beings, and thinking about those same relatives living in squalor and poverty on the Lower East Side informs our thinking about poverty by making it a personal concept, instead of an abstract question of policy."

Most people have empathy for people, especially poor and persecuted people, who have immigrated to this country. By "Mexican immigrants," I assume you mean those who are here legally.

ILLEGAL ALIENS are another matter. Their illegality is not a matter of "policy:" they are illegal and should be deported because we have laws regarding immigration to our country, laws which they have broken.

What would a particularist and universalist views of ILLEGAL ALIENS be?
8.1.2011 | 7:19pm
The outsider view of particularist Jews and universalist Jews in my grandparents' generation: The particularist Jews were looked upon as pathetic ghetto dwellers. The universalist ones were hated at as rootless cosmopolitans with no attachments of their own. It's been a conflict within Judaism for a long time. (The descendants of those Europeans who hated Jews for their rootlessness are now determined enemies of Israel.)
8.1.2011 | 8:42pm
Seth says:
As a rule of thumb, the negation of anything endorsed by the HuffPo is probably the truth.
8.1.2011 | 9:09pm
Jason Caplan says:
Excellent post! I think this is really the discussion of our age. As technology brings us closer together, the same issues continue to challenge us. Many idealistic people thought they could eliminate nationalism, greed, militancy, etc from the human character. We know the extent of chaos that those projects unleashed onto the world. Better to work with the mundane and promote a healthy balance of universalism and particularism together, as Seth correctly highlights. Or else, it becomes a good vs evil battle, as is evident from Sucharov's quotes.

My own investigation into this issue, led to my conviction that jazz music is a near perfect model for achieving this balance. You can see my current findings here, www.universalroom.com. I believe more models and similar posts to promote this balance would greatly benefit our society.
8.1.2011 | 11:02pm
interesting aside from that quote she cites: the Communist Party of Germany inadvertently helped Hitler gain power by refusing to form a coalition government with who it called "social fascists" (Social Democrats etc.) of the Left, under Stalin's orders.

i know i know, that's not the point of the quote. still though. never learned that in history class.
8.2.2011 | 6:10am
PhilR says:
Isn't there a character in Dostoyevsky somewhere who says that the more he loves humanity in general the less he loves indivdual human beings. (Can't be more specific than that I'm afraid)
8.2.2011 | 11:03pm
edmond says:
Why not follow the "Christ model" instead? Particular or Universal was never and issue with Him it was more of unconditional. So why should it matter so much whether universal or particular?
8.3.2011 | 6:03am
Melissa says:
I don't agree Randy. The scale is bigger, true, but you can't put people that grief and neighboring countries to the same scale. There's much more to it. And neighbors come and go, but the countries stays.
8.4.2011 | 6:57pm
Aharon says:
Kudos to the author. Let me add a few points. The notion that particularism (eccelesiastically usually code for "Judaism") is at odds or in a zero sum game with universalism (ecclesiastically usually code for "Christianity") is in fact an old dialogic argument made by the arch universalistic Medieval Church. Jews who buy into this argument are in fact internalizing the negative view of Judaism from the religious "other" who pounded that notion into western society for 2,000 years. It is oddly that Church that has learned to speak about reducing the "teachings of contempt" of the Jewish people since Vatican II in 1965.

Maybe the teachings of the Church on the sin of demonizing the religious "other" are on point for all secular and liberal ideologues that delight in poking traditional Jewish teachings and traditions in the eye. It was Hillel who said, ""If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?" Ethics of the Fathers, 1:14. That teaching, ancient when posed, includes the implicit assumption that you cannot be for yourself, but must at times give priority to yourself, since we cannot count on others to help us. Have we arrived at a time when we can rely on others? History seems to tells us to wait for the answer as it is not all that clear.
9.7.2011 | 8:38pm
Isn't there a character in Dostoyevsky somewhere who says that the more he loves humanity in general the less he loves indivdual human beings. (Can't be more specific than that I'm afraid) BTW, the Niemoller quote she used is a shortened version. Left out is ". . .then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant." I started seeing the abridged version about the same time that the Pope Pius XII battles began. If the quote trully abridged, it suffers from . . .ahem. . . particularism. I do not know the source of the original quote however.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact