Caught in Webs of Paradox

Abstract

176 SHOFAR Fall 1995 Vol. 14, No.1 otherness, and Jonathan Boyarin's discussion exposing the ways European Jewish forms of otherness are occluded by cultural-historical interpretive frames like "assimilation," "annihilation," and the formation of a Jewish state, all dismantle simplified notions of cultural identity and Jews' Others and re-orient readers towards the exciting symbolic junctures at which a variety of constructions of identity and otherness arise. Caught in Webs of Paradox by lauren B. Granite Meyerhoff Center for Jewish Studies University of Maryland at College Park Educated and Ignorant: Ultraorthodox Jewish Women and Their World, by Tamar £l-Or, translated by Haim Watzman. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1994. 227 pp. $17.95. The thesis ofTamar £l-Or's provocative book, Educated andIgnorant: Ultraortbodoxjewisb Women and Their World, is that baredi women are educated for ignorance. Through several means-formal schooling, attendance at baredi colleges as young women, and classes held in their communities once they are married-baredi women are educated towards the goal of being pious like their mothers and grandmothers who, of course, were not formally educated at all. According to EI-Or, this central paradox reflects the multiple paradoxes characteristic of baredi society in Israel. The place of women's education in baredi society, the attitudes towards that education, and the structure of it (e.g., the format of learning, what is being taught) are all reflections of the paradoxical reality of ultraorthodox life in the modern world. While baredim reject the secular modern world, they are products of it and, particularly in Israel, economically dependent on it. In addition, the way in which baredim draw and perceive social boundaries between Gentiles and Jews, religious and secular people, themselves and other baredim, and men and women reveal the depth of this central paradox and their inability to resolve it. Review Essays 177 El-Or conducted her field research among women in a Gur hasidic development in Israel. This book is thought-provoking, yet there are two basic levels on which El-Or undermines her field research. The first is that she overuses and under-defines many of her key terms. Perhaps some of the fault lies in the translation, done by Haim Watzman, but on several occasions I found myself questioning precisely what she meant by "literacy," "paradox," "educated," and "ignorant." For example, despite her discussion of the theoretical literature on literacy, her loose use of this term makes it unclear as to what type of literacy she is referring to. She mentions the schooling that baredi women get (both religious and secular), the classes they take after their formal schooling has ended (only on Jewish subjects), and the fact that they read newspapers and even fiction sometimes, but she scatters this information throughout the book and does not present a coherent picture of her informants' level of literacy in any area. In one place, El-Or supports her claim that the women she spoke with are "highly literate" with the comment that they are "aware of what is going on around them inside their community and outside it as well" (p. 132). This may indicate an important level of consciousness in their lives, but it is not literacy. Similarly, "educated" and "ignorant" become blurry as they are constantly played off one another without being clearly defined. The other way in which El-Or undermines her field work manifests itself in her methodology and presentation. In short, she does not take her informants seriously as actors in their own lives. This is not obvious; indeed, El-Or goes to great pains not to offend the Gur hasidic women she wants to learn about, and she clearly demonstrates empathy towards their sensibilities of modesty when she writes that she "developed a strong antipathy to deliberately exposing private matters, such as the relations between wife and husband and between women and their bodies" (p.7). However, she imposes theoretical categories on her informants which do not allow for nuance (e.g., "educated" and "ignorant"), provides only select field note or interview excerpts (Le., direct quotes of the women themselves talking), and judges her informants by traditionally "male" categories and standards. Each one of these...