Towards what Kind of Unity? David Koigen, Leo Baeck and the Monism-Theism-Debate

Abstract

“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?” With this maxim, R. Hillel the Elder succinctly expressed the religious meaning of community in Judaism: the individual and the community are existentially interrelated. A self-enclosed existence violates the spirit of biblical religion. In this manner, the concept of unity emerged as a core theological principle of monotheism; arguably, it merits consideration as a critical term within religious studies in general. In any event, when freed from conventional rhetoric and communitarian idealisation, the concept clearly has cross-cultural applicability. How to (re-)think the concept of unity is thus a problem now commanding some attention in cultural studies, with the proposed shift of perspective being towards “a way of thinking based on integration and differentiation”.1 In distinction to reductionist positions yielding either unity without diversity or difference without a shared identity, this approach to modern culture considers both as inseparable. In light of the above citation from Hillel, it is perhaps not merely a coincidence that the approach seems highly useful for illuminating the “unity problem” faced by German Jews in the early twentieth century. The conflicting sides within Germany's Jewish community in this period, most prominently the Liberals and Zionists, indeed saw themselves as sharing an identity in spite of all difference. The traditional doctrine of klal yisrael—the “community of Israel” understood in both spiritual and historical terms2—still resonated with many Jews. Yet the antagonists were locked in a dialectical relationship that became increasingly conflicting and called for new patterns of thinking.