Flexidoxy and the Future |
Tuesday, October 17, 2006 |
Jay Michaelson writes about the current phenomenon called "flexidoxy" in the Forward ("Old Labels Feel Stiff for 'Flexidox,'" October 13, 2006). He explains: "The fastest growing synagogues are independent; the fastest growing movement identifier is 'unaffiliated.' And for Jews like me, the labels don't fit anymore."
As the term "flexidoxy" implies, while independence and flexibilty are important, some connection to Orthodoxy is also essential. So there are a number of points that need further elucidation here. Of course, this is a paradoxical position, as adherents to flexidoxy readily admit. Flexibility in practice and dismissal of ideology are precisely what Orthodoxy rejects. But flexidoxy embraces the positive effects of Orthodoxy - spiritual and communal intensity - while eschewing its rules and value system. A congregant in the unaffiliated synagogue I used to attend once said - "We want the oomph without the rules." It is an intensely personal solution to the contemporary yearning for a meaningful Judaism.
Michaelson defends this eclecticism because it is honest and sincere. He is definitely correct to do so. But it is not necessary to limit such sincerity to those whose practice might pass for Orthodox. Read my previous entry - isn't it precisely this aspect of insisting on personal ownership of one's Judaism that characterizes Edgar Bronfman's High Holy Day production?
And critics of flexidoxy are on to something, as well, when they question whether its adherents are not simply sponging off of Orthodoxy, not only for its positive elements but also for its implied legitimacy.
It would seem that flexidoxy is a genuine phenomenon of transition. The old labels and rules don't seem to carry much weight anymore. Breaking free is essential. But some sense of authenticity and approbation is still a felt need. So orthodoxy will do for now. But will such individualistic temporizing lay the basis for a new sense of the normative? Or will it impede such a development because it relies on established Orthodoxy? Is such a new sense even a possibilty as yet?
As the term "flexidoxy" implies, while independence and flexibilty are important, some connection to Orthodoxy is also essential. So there are a number of points that need further elucidation here. Of course, this is a paradoxical position, as adherents to flexidoxy readily admit. Flexibility in practice and dismissal of ideology are precisely what Orthodoxy rejects. But flexidoxy embraces the positive effects of Orthodoxy - spiritual and communal intensity - while eschewing its rules and value system. A congregant in the unaffiliated synagogue I used to attend once said - "We want the oomph without the rules." It is an intensely personal solution to the contemporary yearning for a meaningful Judaism.
Michaelson defends this eclecticism because it is honest and sincere. He is definitely correct to do so. But it is not necessary to limit such sincerity to those whose practice might pass for Orthodox. Read my previous entry - isn't it precisely this aspect of insisting on personal ownership of one's Judaism that characterizes Edgar Bronfman's High Holy Day production?
And critics of flexidoxy are on to something, as well, when they question whether its adherents are not simply sponging off of Orthodoxy, not only for its positive elements but also for its implied legitimacy.
It would seem that flexidoxy is a genuine phenomenon of transition. The old labels and rules don't seem to carry much weight anymore. Breaking free is essential. But some sense of authenticity and approbation is still a felt need. So orthodoxy will do for now. But will such individualistic temporizing lay the basis for a new sense of the normative? Or will it impede such a development because it relies on established Orthodoxy? Is such a new sense even a possibilty as yet?
posted by Helene
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home