Orthodoxy as popular culture via Certeau

Michel de Certeau (d. 1986) was Jesuit monk, historian and philosopher whose work is essential for conceptualizing religion within everyday life. His scholarship on mysticism and religious polemics offers some of the most fruitful for understanding of Hasidism, Mitnagdim, and Neo-Hasidism, or the in-between groups within Orthodoxy. I will limit my discussion here to those points important for the understanding of popular culture.

In one of his talks given to an intellectual group of clergy debating ideological issues of the age, a European Catholic version of the Orthodox Forum, where the debate was how much pluralism can the unified teachings of the Church bear? As in the Jewish community, the papers addressed the matter from the perspective of liberal and conservative, specifically how to increase pluralism within the Church or how to set limits to the pluralism? Certeau undercut the discussion of the forum by arguing that pluralism is everywhere. Everything that goes on in the practice of everyday life is interpreted differently by everyone—the fishmonger and the lawyer, the bishop and the doctor, all people hear things differently. The average person, the teenager, the householder, the senior citizen, the high school teacher, the doctor, and the lawyer each create their own version of the Church’s teaching.

To apply this to the case of the Orthodoxy, Certeau would emphasize how Rav Soloveitchik means different things to different people. Most of us are used to the debates about Rav Soloveitchik and revisionism, situating the diversity on a left and right spectrum. Certeau would undercut this and looks at the reception of Rav Soloveitchik from a real life perspective.

To illustrate, I will take a real life example, a local New York high school gave its students a short essay written by Rav Soloveitchik on the axiological importance of Torah study in our lives. As homework, they had to answer questions about how to apply that essay within their lives. So, one student, showing commitment to Torah study, started to paint signs for his youth group, another spent time each day on AskMoses the Chabad question and answer site, another studied with diligence Akiva Tatz’s books, another read frum message boards on the web, one downloaded Torah shiurim on mp3’s, and another worked on a video for their NCSY region, others spent extra time on their Navi class where literary approaches to the chapter were emphasized. None of this plurality relates to the left-right divide or can be directly found in Rav Soloveitchik’s words.

According to Certeau, the religious person can cull the products of the community and adapt it to her own life and worldview, thereby Rav Soloveitchik can be combined with the twelve steps, kiruv, neo-hasidism, sports, and be seen to support Artscroll, Hatam Sofer, Kahanaism, and the internet.

For Certeau, the understanding of culture is the understanding of consumers and how they poach. Culture is also about the operational logic of disguise and survival against a background of obligation and orthodoxy. Certeau is interested in how we use objects—not how the original intent for which they were created for to us. For instance, Certeau is interested in how people buy books just to have them on the shelf, or to make a polemic point, or to show allegiance. How people misquote them just as much as what it says in the book. Do we give the object privileged space? Do they subvert their meanings? A common practice is to harmonize the given book with whatever a person is actually interested in or actually uses in her life.

When Certeau looks at everyday life, he looks at activities of resistance and evasion and how people resist under the radar by means of tactics. An example of a tactic might be something as mundane as using office supplies for personal purposes or IMing at work. They are committed to work but their heart and mind are elsewhere.

In Certeau’s gaze, he would see students who may be committed to study Talmud yet are successful at evasion of the very activity to which they claim to be devoting their efforts. They may start the morning learning by talking about their dates, the entertainment they recently attended, and sports scores. They also know that if they play along enough to cover the Gemara, they will be left alone to deal with their own path where they can concentrate on Neo-Haisdut, kiruv, current events, the seforim sale, or the MCATS. They can spend seder uploading to the web reverential pictures of the roshei yeshiva, sending Twitter messages about what they are currently learning, or collecting all the political and polemical comments made by the Rosh Yeshiva. They can reminisce about the popular culture experience of the gap year in Israel. Or they can enter into a language weave of steig and stark by focusing on how they dress, their props, and the books on their shelves, rather than the content of the Talmud. Each of these is a tactic of evasion that simultaneously evades and supports the system.

These activities have no clear authority or no proper location. Rather, they are opportunistic moments that we use to construct our days that let us survive. According to Certeau, all institutions, books, and ideas are now conversations and everyday practices. Certeau focus on space, not time or ideas, to explain everyday life. He uses the metaphor of the fishwife going to market and walking through the streets of Paris in order to opt out of the grand metaphors about history, ideas, and social change. For Certeau, everything is a network and everything has potential to contradict everything else without upsetting the public confession.

There are a variety of sources of knowledge that continuously undercut the main narrative. Certeau makes the point that the ideas get played out so radically different in the real life that it becomes hard to talk about the ideas. Every work has multiple receptions in society that are incorrigible. Storytellers have no power in the hierarchical religious system, but they gain authority that people use in their personal narratives. Other tactics to undermine include calling something a “secret” because secret knowledge gives us status, this works also for religious experience. Singularity is also a good tactic—if you make something “different” then you can opt out as well. Mystics and pietists are masters of this. Hecklers have amazing authority without power.

In his theory, it is important to note when the personal overrides the supposed orthodoxy. Someone may have heard a rabbi give a proper lecture on a topic but a story by lay preacher or a Neo-Hasidic tale may speak to their personal narrative in a stronger way and the religious person lets the story overrides the formal teaching. If asked if one followers a Rosh Yeshivah, a person can give a resounding 100% “yes” answer of obedience. But Certeau would observe when you discuss the details with the person they may give complete deference to the personal meanderings including what he reads on a blog, a weird singular halakhic opinion they once heard, his high school rebbe, Artscroll, his NCSY advisor, or something in the name of Rav Moshe Wolfson. In all of these cases, there was no rationalization for the contradictory harmonization but natural evasions that create their own authority. In addition, Certeau shows that when a religious person is asked about compliance with a religious principle they may also refer to a different question, the way he is dressed, a class he attended, an event in the news, something he just read, tell a story and never return to the original question.

From Certeau’s ground level vantage point, high culture reveals itself as subject to the same cultural forces as popular culture. Ideological products become excorporated into daily life, meaning incorporated along with the distortions and evasions generated by fears, desires, distortions, pragmatic decisions, and misreadings of daily life. Popular culture is the paradigm by which people can deal with high culture products that are out-dated, oppressive, or out of touch with experiences or aspirations.

2 responses to “Orthodoxy as popular culture via Certeau

  1. All these recent posts are vaguely connected, as if you are trying to get us to look at the two worlds we all inhabit in a somewhat different way. Let me try to put this new way into my framework. One can see the yeshiva experience as studying Talmud lishmah, coupled with the multiple evasions of this task that is made possible by different types of resistance. Going to yeshiva is another example of the themes of Post Colonial Studies. Here is the master, the rosh yeshiva and here are the colonized students who cannot go head to head with their teachers lest they be thrown out of school. If this becomes the model for our post yeshiva life, we are always conforming and dreying, trying to both remain connected to the community but still preserve some of our individuality. This picture generally presupposes what you have described as strict compliance model for Orthodoxy.

    The other picture, more difficult to perceive, is an Orthodoxy with no masters. The Big Other in Lacan jargon is our own creation. When authority disappears so does the need for evasion and resistance. We see instances of this . A guy drives to an Orthodox shul on shabbus without qualms; he is even disappointed he didn’t get shishi . The New Jersey kids described here who text with no qualms. Tefilin dates. Family size. The rabbis say no internet and the entire Orthodox world says “You gotta be kidding.”Bugs in broccoli, maybe, worms in fish probably not, microbes in the water, get out of my face.” And we have also seen issues flip from evasion to no inner conflict. Evolution started out as c”v, moved to a maybe, and has now flipped to ‘how farchnukt can you get not to accept what is obvious.’ Those who accept this model might have as their chant “We want the 1950’s now.”
    The new leftist hero, Gene Sharp was just quoted in the Times as saying “If people are not afraid of the dictatorship, that dictatorship is in big trouble.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/middleeast/17sharp.html?scp=2&sq=gene%20sharp&st=cse

    Most Orthodox bildungsromane have elements of both models. Conflict, anxiety, struggle, some defeats and at the same time “I was curious and interested. I just did it. Everything turned out fine.”

    All this is experience near and clear enough. What is the value added of Certeau?

    • EJ-
      I think you basically have got it. Certeau is the route since popular culture historians use him. If you want to do get to the same place with colonial studies, that would also work for the basic thesis. Colonial studies do use Certeau, but went way beyond him with their Althussaer.
      The value in Certeau is the emphasis on place, language, everyday life, and his not focusing on power and Foucault issues. Certeau is also useful for addressing those who still think everyday practice is ideologically determined from above.
      I think the Lacan incredible important but the official orthodox community does not think in psychoanalytic terms. It is foreign to them without a resonance. They treat Freud as needless allegory, so there is little place for Lacan or Kristeva.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s