EAJS Conference Grant Programme 2019/20
REPORT
International Junior Scholars Workshop, Association for Jewish Studies in Germany “Rural and Urban Jewries Between Tradition and Modernity”
University of Bamberg (online), March 14-15, 2021
Abstract
The entangled histories of “Rural and Urban Jewries between Tradition and Modernity” play a crucial role in our understanding of Jewish history including long-lasting patterns to this day strengthening a dichotomy between city and country. During the course of the workshop all research presentations focusing on different geographical regions made clear that these terminologies and perceived contractions and innovations are still important to be aware of. However, focusing on regional history and with its active historical protagonists within proves to be a challenge for innovative scholarship to this very day.
Main report
Event rationale
This international junior scholar workshop, entitled “Rural and Urban Jewries between Tradition and Modernity”, was intended to bring together a group of junior scholars from different universities from Europe, Israel and the United States to discuss their research projects in the areas of rural and urban Jewries. These young researchers were supported by experienced researchers who commented on their papers and provided crucial feedback.
The workshop focuses on the phenomenon of rural Jewries in their relationship to urban Jewries in modern times. The Association for Jewish Studies in Germany (Vereinigung für Jüdische Studien) was one of the organizers of the event. The association has been promoting young researchers since more than a decade, organizing workshops on different topics of Jewish history in a transdisciplinary and international context. Due to the Corona pandemic the format of the workshop had to be changed from in-person to virtual. The presentations and discussions were adapted accordingly.
The digitized format of the workshop provided for a frequent change of speaker and a mix of methods to keep the attention span of all participants as high as possible during the course of the two-day workshop.
Event Program
Overview: The workshop consisted of two sessions with a total of two senior scholars as Chair and a total of seven junior scholars (Session 1: 3; Session 2: 4). The sessions consisted of short lectures by the young researchers, a discussion of their presentations and an integrated joint reading seminar. At the end of the workshop, a concluding joint reading seminar was held, which was designed by a young researcher and a senior scholar. In preparation for the workshop, all active participants received the lecture texts and several relevant scientific articles to promote the discussion during the sessions and the joint reading seminar on day 2.
Introduction: Following a brief welcome, the organizing team (Rebekka Denz, M.A., University of Bamberg. Prof. Dr. Carsten Schapkow, University of Potsdam/University of Oklahoma. Dr. Michael K. Schulz, University of Potsdam) introduced the concept of the two-day workshop. The organizers stressed that the dichotomy of ‘tradition’ and ‘modernity’ characterizes our image of Jewish history and culture to this day. The dualism of “land equals stagnation” and “city equals modernization” is a common scholarly pattern we sought to question and discuss during the workshop. The relationship between city and countryside has mostly been seen as a one-way street and as an “either/or”, either city or country. This raises crucial questions such as: is this dichotomy tenable in light of recent research on transformation processes? What happened in-between city and countryside and in movements that headed in both directions?
And moreover, questions need be to be asked such as: What exactly is a “city Jew”? What exactly is a country Jew? Is a city Jew just a Jew who lives in the city? Is it sufficient to live in a village or a small town to fall into the category of “rural Jew”?
To be sure Jews lived in the country site as well as in the city. Judaism as such has not changed significantly due to the relocation of Jewish life from the medieval city to the early modern country. In addition, in the 19th century Jewish life has not changed significantly due to trends of urbanization. Judaism as a religious “system” was always able to reform itself from within, Judaism adapts to the prevailing conditions brought to it or imposed on it from outside and inside.
Both types of settlement required the same facilities: 1.) cemetery, 2.) synagogue as a multifunctional house (place of prayer, assembly, religious study, and jurisdiction), 3.) The mikveh. All three together made up the basic equipment – be it in the village, in the small town or in the city.
„The Jewish Families of the village were close-knit. They shared each other’s joy and sorrows, and a helping hand was readily extended whenever necessary. All the men who were at home at the time attended the daily minyan. If someone failed to put in an appearance on Shabbath morning he was surely ill, and everyone would visit him.“ (Hugo Mandelbaum: Jewish Life in the Village Communities of Southern Germany, p. 48)
This is how Hugo Mandelbaum describes the Jewish cohesion in the country. This passage is taken from his childhood memories in Sommerhausen, in a small rural village near Würzburg. Mandelbaum was born in 1901 in Sommerhausen. In 1939, he emigrated to the United States. Mandelbaum left a beautiful vivid source from which the living environment of rural Jewry in Franconia speaks.
But it can be assumed that this cohesion can be identified independently of the question of town or village. Because regardless of whether in the country or in the city, a minyan was and is always necessary to celebrate a complete service in synagogues. The Jewish communities in the city (in Franconia and elsewhere) also needed this reliability in the formation of minjanim. And it cannot always be assumed that Jewish communities in the city inevitably had more men coming to the service than those in the countryside.
Session 1: “Migration and Transnationality”, with Frank Jacobs as chair with three speakers.
The first speaker Felicitas Remer spoke about “City and Country as Sites of Modernization and Nation-Building: The Urban-Rural Dualism and the Zionist Movement, c. 1890-1939”. In conclusion of her talk, Remer emphasizes that in the context of the Zionist Movement the country became a signifier for the anti-modern and alternative modernities. City and country, beyond their material realities, came to be associated with a much wider set of binary categories: industry/agriculture, modernity/tradition, estrangement/authenticity – endowing the categories “urban” and “rural” with the quality of a spatial shorthand for the comprehensive historical transformations of the past century. It appears, therefore, that rather than ruralism it was “rurbanism” that dominated the Zionist intellectual and practical engagement with the urban-rural binary – reflecting a broader ambivalence towards modernity. The alleged antagonism between city and country thus gains relevance not only as an analytical category, but as a concept used and negotiated by the contemporaries in an effort to reinterpret and shape the world that surrounded them and therefore has its own conceptual and material history.
In his presentation Shai Abadi discussed “The ’Old’ Rural Jew in Hebrew Revival Literature” to emphasize the complexity of terminology and their shift in meaning in the different geographical and temporal contexts. Abadi argues, the dualism of city and country has historically grown which turned out to be an excellent research tool in the field of literary research.
Max Lazar lectured on the topic of “New People in the Old Community: Rural Jewish Migration to Frankfurt am Main, 1933-1941.” In his lecture, Lazar focused on the history of events and reflected on the relationship between city and country in a historical dimension. He described the pull and push factors for the (forced) urbanization in the Nazi era and the concrete situation in Frankfurt, i.e., the Jewish infrastructure that the Jewish population in Frankfurt am Main could use.
Session 2: The ambivalences between “Country and City: Modernity and Tradition” were discussed in Session 2 from several perspectives and in different historical contexts. Monika Müller examined the topic of country Jews in the Cities with a focus on local history in the early modern period when discussing the Importance of Country and City in the Jewish History of Palatinate-Neuburg. Müller argued that the question of how urban or small-town Jewish life was in Pfalz-Neuburg probably neither arose contemporarily nor does it arise from a historical distance. If only for lack of alternatives, the difference – not only from an official perspective – between town and country was marked. The examples from Lauingen and Monheim show that criteria such as the question of bourgeoisie or the urban scope of power were not defined according to the size of the city. Rather, they were related to its nature as a city, to its dense, broader social stratification, to its situation of privilege and not least to its consciousness as a city. For Jewish life in Pfalz-Neuburg, the city always remained an important reference, often a decisive benchmark.
Also, the next presenter, Moritz Bauerfeind, reflected on “Franconian Reform Rabbis as Conciliators and Troublemakers“ in a local history perspective. Bauernfeind argued that the life and works of the Franconian Rabbis in the first half of the 19th century can not only be seen as situated between city and countryside but also as testimonies that speak to us from the realities the Jewish majority faced away from the centers of bourgeois education. He highlighted that discussion about reform and tradition was a very passionate one, also and especially in the backyards and peripheries of the German-Jewish world. The province did not lag behind the cities as much as most of mainstream historiography makes us believe.
In her lecture Maja Hultman discussed “The Modern Jewish Stockholmer as both City Jew and Country Jew” as a local history paradigm. The parallel identity construction of the city Jew and the country Jew constituted together the Jewish Stockholmer during the first half of the 20th century. The realization of Jewish incorporation into the Swedish national identity was negotiated on both platforms, with the rural identity being equally important as the urban identity.
Ekaterina Oleshkevich’s presentation “Rural and Urban Jewish Childhoods in the Russian Pale of Settlement: What are the Differences?” shifted our attention towards Eastern Europe again. Rural and urban Jewry enjoyed a very different status in the Jewish society of the Pale of Settlement. Jews residing in towns or shtetls tended to look down upon the rural Jews, whom they considered ignorami and simpletons. She argued that the childhood in the village was in a way freer. There were more possibilities for interaction with the Christians and the environment stimulated Jewish children to master the local language (both boys and girls — in contrast to the shtetl where usually it was considered appropriate for a girl to learn non-Jewish languages, not for a boy). When rural Jews visited the shtetlach, it was difficult for them and their children to get used to the environment, even if it was not a big city, but a small shtetl. Their rural habits and behaviors were a dead give-away and made them feel uneasy and sometimes embarrassed.
Summary of Discussion
Scholarship as we know it is represented to this day by major narratives, which is also true for the assumed dichotomy between the city and the country (side). Based on the vivid discussions during the course of the workshop the arguments of arguably all participants were shaped.
It became clear that focusing on regional history and its identities proves to be a challenge up to this very day. Or in other words can we assume that the regional was always connected to the global in the eyes of the people that scholars are studying today?
There was some common sense among the workshop participants that to be aware of terminology and definitions regarding city and countryside are and will remain to be necessary to begin with. However, as we the organizers hoped for, the dichotomy of city and country was questioned during the course of the workshop. Questions such as how to define a city and the countryside were investigated from different research angles with different regional and historical perspectives in mind. In this regard Monika Mueller did emphasize the importance of small cities in the territory of Pfalz-Neuburg in her talk and during the discussions.
Similarly, Moritz Bauernfeind did emphasize the relevance of Southern Germany in order to go beyond paradigms of modernization focusing on Prussia exclusively. Moreover, he argued that urban environments were less enthusiastic about Reform than rural congregations. He asked, was the Jewish elite in Franconia really representative and were the rabbis really representative for what happened regarding modernization?
Cornelia Aust proposed an inclusive “connected history” that would integrate the city and country perspectives based on the “mental landscapes” (C. Aust) of its citizens. The term “citizens” in this regard was brought up during the discussions multiple times and did highlight that even before the emancipation of the Jews concepts of citizenship were negotiated in the city and the countryside.
The latter term, “mental landscapes”, was considered to be of relevance in particular when shifting towards the protagonists in question again by contextualizing the individual in the respective society s/he was living in. (Questions of gender could have been addressed more during the workshop as it actually happened, one might add here.)
In modern usage a sense of belonging can be assumed but due to the lack of sources in the early modern period and the middle ages cannot always supported.
Questions of social stratification and security, however, were raised multiple times. For instance, in Ekatarina Oleshkevich’s talk when focusing on Jewish childhoods in the pale of settlement.
Also, the question was asked if a focus on migration (histories) could not assist in solving the fixed contrast between city and country in scholarship. Eva Haverkamp also asked for older traditions of change not imposed by violence and opportunities the city or the countryside might promise.
Michael Schulz probed the need to understand history from the bottom up which would help to offer different insight even when this is questionable.
How does the local influence the broader perspective?
Without the local/the regional the global (perspective) would not come into being based on source material on the local level first of all (Frank Jacob)
Regions such as Franconia with its vivid Jewish living worlds need to be understood properly and not overlooked (Rebekka Denz)
Eva Haverkamp argued that already the late middle ages (late 13th and early 14th C.) were a point in history where questions of center and periphery were newly negotiated. And yet, this seemed to be another contrast that still proves to be viable.
In her talk Maja Hultman did shed light on questions of center and periphery when analyzing the Modern Jewish Stockholmer as both City Jew and Country Jew.
The other concept based on Shulamit Volkov’s scholarship would be the one of the inventions of Jewish tradition what Martha Stellmacher did highlight in her talk on Prague Jewry, namely how the usage of an organ before the emerging debates of Reform Judaism already existed. This was another strong point of reading the sources first before making general incorrect claims that then will remain in scholarship maybe forever.
The question of primary sources was raised at various points during the workshop and the lack thereof.
What to do with the existing scholarly paradigms on the dichotomy between city and country?
Be cautious to change those paradigms (Shai Abadi), be open to change the existing categories when it is fitting (Frank Jacob and Jonathan Schorsch).
Jonathan Schorsch alluded to the complex living situations of Sephardic Jews in the Americas. Here, fluctuation of identities were already viable in pre-modern times, but lack of sources makes it difficult to prove this.
And Frank Jacob emphasized that in regard to funding of research it is difficult to prove any new concepts because it is hard to pass overall accepted dichotomies (such as city and country for instance).
Hybridity as a concept further devolved by Moshe Rosman can be tempting as Rosman had suggested himself but also has its failures. The agenda of those writing history (today and then) should instead be kept in mind. Rosman maintains that besides, how much one has discovered the other crucial question is how much is my reading itself into the past what one does?
Final Program of the Workshop
Workshop Organisers: Rebekka Denz, M.A. (University of Bamberg), Prof. Dr. Carsten Schapkow (University of Potsdam/University of Oklahoma) and Dr. Michael K. Schulz (University of Potsdam).
Sunday, March 14, 2021
13:00 (plenum) Welcome, Concept of the Workshop, Introduction
Rebekka Denz, M.A. (University of Bamberg), Prof. Dr. Carsten Schapkow (University of Potsdam/University of Oklahoma) and Dr. Michael K. Schulz (University of Potsdam)
13:00 (2 small groups) Get Together – Work Together
Chairs: Dr. Cornelia Aust and Prof. Dr. Frank Jacob
14:45 Break
15:15 (plenum) Self Introduction
16:00 Break
16:15 – 18:45 (plenum, and small groups) Session 1 (with break)
Migration and Transnationality Chair: Prof, Dr. Frank Jacob (Nord University, Norway)
Felicitas Remer, MA (Free University of Berlin): City and Country as Sites of Modernization and Nation-Building: Urban and Rural Settlement in the Debates of German-Speaking Zionists, c. 1890-1939
Shai Abadi, MA (Tel Aviv University): The ‘Old’ Rural Jew in Hebrew Revival Literature
Max Lazar, MA (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) : “New People in the Old Gemeinde”: Rural Jewish Migration to Frankfurt am Main, 1933-1941
Discussion and a joint reading seminar
Monday, March 15, 2021
13:00 Session 2 (with break) Country and City: Modernity and Tradition
Chair: Dr. Cornelia Aust (University of Bielefeld)
Dr. Monika Müller (University of Augsburg): Country Jews in the Cities? – On the Importance of Country and City in the Jewish History of Pfalz-Neuburg
Moritz Bauerfeind, M.A. (University of Basel): Franconian Reform Rabbis as Conciliators and Troublemakers
PhD Maja Hultman (University of Gothenburg): The Modern Jewish Stockhol-mer as both City Jew and Country Jew
Ekaterina Oleshkevich, MA (Bar Ilan University): Rural and Urban Jewish Childhoods in the Russian Pale of Settlement: What are the Differences?
Discussion and a joint reading seminar
16:15 Break
16:45 (plenum and small groups) Joint reading seminar (with break)
Rural and Urban Jewries Between Tradition and Modernity Chair: Prof. Dr. Eva Haverkamp-Rott (LMU Munich) and Dr. des. Martha Stellmacher (Culture Coordination Office – NDFI4Culture, SLUB Dresden)
18:30 – 19:00 Resume
Rebekka Denz, M.A. (University of Bamberg), Prof. Dr. Carsten Schapkow (University of Potsdam/University of Oklahoma) and Dr. Michael K. Schulz (University of Potsdam)
Publicitiy
The event was publicized at least through the following channels:
Webpage Association for Jewish Studies in Germany (Vereinigung für Jüdische Studien): https://v-j-s.org/
Webpage University of Bamberg: https://www.uni-bamberg.de/judaistik/forschung/veranstaltungen/
Webpage Selma Stern Zentrum (Center for Jewish Studies, Berlin and Brandenburg):
Newsletters such as H-Judaic, H-Soz-Kult.