Chasing Symptoms

Jewish publications and thought leaders, especially since COVID and October 7^th, have identified many “problems” that need to be solved, such as declining synagogue membership, support for Israel, and rising rates of intermarriage. These problems are often accompanied by a call for new, dramatic solutions which are advertised as innovative upgrades to Jewish life and education.

Many of these “innovations” are problematic for four reasons. 

First, they are closely related to, if not exact copies, of things that have been tried in the past. Second, they treat symptoms rather than underlying problems. Third, they are “hydroponic” – rootless and floating on their own, often educationally and structurally disconnected from other programming in their institutions.  Fourth, they lack a plausibility structure, which may be the deeper problem organizations need to address.

According to Peter Berger and Arnold Eisen, plausibility structures describe the sociocultural contexts that sustain systems of meaning. In an organization, a plausibility structure is created when a widely shared vision is expressed through goals and values that are embodied by teachers, peers, leaders, practices, rituals, and institutional decisions.

These collective experiences make a group’s ideas and beliefs credible and meaningful to its members. They strengthen connections among members and, over time, foster a sense of belonging and commitment to the organization’s values and well-being.  Such organizations are unapologetically intentional. They make their values and goals clear and create programs that support them.

Many of our Jewish organizations have weak plausibility structures. How did this happen? 

The Jewish People have dealt with challenges and change for millennia and have found ways to reorganize and develop programs for a variety of circumstances, often based on commonly held beliefs and practices. 

With the Enlightenment and the granting of civil equality to Jews in various countries, new challenges to Jewish communal life emerged, some of which we continue to experience today. For instance, not every Jewish individual or family wants or needs the same things from the organized Jewish community – or even wants to belong to it. Jews are free to think Jewish and do Jewish as they see fit. What were once shared beliefs and practices can no longer be assumed.

As a result, structures and programs have evolved in the Jewish community that attempt to accommodate a wide variety of beliefs, levels of Judaic knowledge, motivations, and priorities. Some organizations chose to open their tent flaps to a wide range of participants, doing what they could to encourage participation, or serve as a gateway to deeper involvement. Others chose a different direction, closing many of their tent flaps, and doubling down on more intense Jewish practice and learning, which, we know, attracted fewer participants than the first approach.

Because Jewish organizations depend on membership dues and donations, definitions of “target” membership and assumed commitments often shift, as does the programming considered effective for maintaining participation.  A pluralistic approach to membership creates a challenge: how can an organization achieve consensus and coherence?

Not everyone has to believe the same things. But an organization must be clear about what it stands for and hopes to achieve. Unless organizations achieve this clarity and coherence, their plausibility structures will be weak. In such cases, trying to “fix” certain problems ends up as simply treating symptoms.

Let’s revisit the calls for an upgraded Israel curriculum (which includes better training for teachers in religious schools). A school may decide to adopt one of the “upgraded” Israel curricula. It may be better than earlier ones - at least on paper. But young children spending a few hours a year learning about Israel will not develop a sophisticated understanding about something as complicated as the Middle East.  A new curriculum, and better teaching, may improve what happens during those few hours, but it cannot compensate for the absence of the larger environment needed to make that learning meaningful and durable. 

Educational organizations with strong plausibility structures have a strong school culture in which values are embodied by teachers, leaders, and students. They also have qualified staff, adequate time for learning, and multi-year, integrated, comprehensive programming that reinforces and expands learning.

Students in programs that have such structures see that the values, skills, and concepts they learn are not simply known by people around them but are deeply valued by them. Graduates of these programs will be emotionally and cognitively equipped to continue developing their Jewish commitments, and will be better able to navigate challenges.

Now, more than ever, Jewish organizations need to focus on what they specifically want to accomplish and whom they want to serve. They then need to create plausibility structures that foster meaning, belonging, and commitment among their participants.

In the Friday night Kabbalat Shabbat hymn Lekha Dodi, we read סוֹף מַעֲשֶׂה בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה תְּחִלָּה -  Sof maaseh b’makhshava t’kheela, “the end is conceived in thought.”  In other words, begin with a vision.

When I was a Head of School I would ask prospective parents a few questions: What is your family’s mission and vision? What will your family’s portrait look like down the road? And, finally, how will enrolling your children in our day school help you accomplish that?

It’s tempting, and often necessary, to quickly address what appears to be a crisis. But Jewish communal planning for the future must begin with first strengthening existing institutions in ways that keep some challenges from ever becoming crises. That begins with a vision. Each organization must bravely define who it is, what it believes in, and what it hopes to accomplish.  It must then build the internal coherence and programming necessary to reinforce that vision. This requires specific outcomes, aligned staffing and resources, long-term programming, and visible, practical values.

Instead of chasing symptoms, each organization should ask: What kind of Jewish institution are we trying to create, and for whom? What conditions will make that vision believable and sustainable for our members/families/students? And, ultimately, how can we create a space where Jews and Judaism thrive?”

Rabbi Jim Rogozen