Lubavitchers as Citizens: A Paradox of Liberal Democracy.

By Jan Feldman. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003. 212p. $32.50.

In her book, Jan Feldman offers a meticulous case study of the political culture of a subset of Chassidic Judaism known as Lubavitch or ChaBad. The Lubavitch, explains Feldman, do not adhere to liberal values of critical rationality, universalism, and individual autonomy on the basis of their alternative conception of the good. This concept of the good is guided by the Chassidic interpretation of the Torah, the core of Jewish law. At the same time, Lubavitchers function well in the modern, urban, nonsecluded world in which they dwell. Unlike the Amish or Hutterites with whom they are often compared, Chassidim do not depend on isolation from secular society for survival. They vote, run for office, and serve on local boards. This political activity makes the Lubavitch an excellent test case for Feldman's main claim: that democratic values and behaviors need not depend on possessing a “liberal mindset” (p. 2). The author's core aim is to dispel the view that because they are members of a nonliberal group, Lubavitchers are incapable of informed, rational, autonomous political deliberation as democratic citizens. It is interesting to note that she does not challenge the very portrayal of Lubavitch as nonliberal. Instead, she attempts to explain to a secular audience how Lubavitchers understand the world according to their own theological terms. The most striking feature of this analysis is the conclusion that reason and intellect lead to emunah (faith), not vice versa (p. 123). Thus, Lubavitchers are not foreign to the “faculty of reason,” though their conception of reason lacks scrutiny of beliefs and truth claims by treating them as provisional until demonstrated through objective proof. Their style of reasoning is keen and acute, despite its not resting on radical skepticism.

Next, Feldman tackles the claim that Lubavitchers' political activity is suspect because of their collective identity as an insular religious community, which allegedly delivers a bloc vote. Her main methodology is to provide a rich and detailed account of Lubavitch political life in two urban centers: Brooklyn and Montreal. She paints a picture of a community that is loosely and nonhierarchically organized with no officially recognized political structures. But given the charismatic leadership of the Lubavitcher Rebbe (during his lifetime), the absence of bureaucratic/formal channels of political organization in this community does not necessarily equate with a lack of unofficial channels for galvanizing support for particular policies or specific candidates.

In a more persuasive line of argument, Feldman advances the claim that Chassidic voters should not be evaluated against an idealized, perfectionist conception of the classic citoyen that is not found in practice. When evaluated against the backdrop of the average American or Canadian voter, she argues, concerns about Lubavitchers' capability to adequately deliberate on political issues remain largely unfounded (p. 193). She then addresses the claim that Lubavitchers “abuse” the political system by advancing their objectives as a distinct, religious minority group. Again, she argues that it is unfair to hold the Lubavitch to a higher standard of “good citizenship” than that demanded of any other interest group. Lubavitchers clearly adhere to the model of fair play and respect for procedural justice. They pursue their rights within the parameters set by the Constitution, play by the rules, and respect the rights and equality of fellow citizens. If this does not qualify as an expression of “good or at least adequate citizenship” (p. 193), asks Feldman, what does?

Ultimately, the author's deep entanglement with the Lubavitcher test case forecloses the theoretical horizon of the inquiry into the relationship between liberalism and democracy. This problem is aggravated by her tendency to overemphasize the positive about the Lubavitch and downplay the negative. This is most visible in the discussion of the interracial tensions between Chassidim and other minorities (pp. 53–59), and the chapter devoted to Lubavitcher women (pp. 135–67) in which the author strains to portray differentiations on the basis of sex (which are strictly enforced by the Lubavitch) as unambiguously beneficial and enabling, if not outright empowering, to women. This interpretation may be plausible for some gender-specific practices (such as taharat ha-mishpach) but is far less convincing in the context of legally sanctioned inequalities (such as the husband's power to refuse the get to the agunah), which unlike mere “differentiation” along gender lines, put women at a structural disadvantage vis-à-vis men in the case of separation or divorce. Even less plausible is her attempt to represent a uniform voice of “what Lubavitch women say” about their status and stature within the community (pp. 144–62).

That said, Feldman makes a compelling case, particularly in the context of education, for rejecting simplistic assumptions about women's inability to exit the Lubavitch community. Whereas Chassidic boys are exposed primarily to religious studies (beyond a minimum of required secular courses of study), girls receive a comprehensive secular education in addition to their religious instruction. Upon graduation, young Lubavitch women are generally better positioned to gain employment outside the community and to financially support their families—as they often do. This division of labor occurs in a cultural context where Talmudic scholarship is of greater value than enjoying material success. However, I believe Feldman is correct in claiming that it challenges a degrading portrayal of Chassidic women as “helpless damsels in distress” (p. 141). A more sophisticated analysis of women's status within this community must therefore be informed not only by their engagement in traditional (and gendered) caregiving responsibilities, but also by reference to their education, earning power, and greater preparation for success in the secular world.

The book's finest chapters provide illuminating insights into the history, customs, beliefs, and collective organization of this close-knit minority community, which operates within the confines of a larger, secular society. Unfortunately, the latter chapters, which engage in theoretical debates about civic virtues, liberal values, and the concept of toleration, are not as sharp and crisp as the book's ethnographic parts. Perhaps the major shortcoming is the author's failure to define the limits of the claim that liberal and democratic values are not necessarily intertwined. For instance, it remains unclear whether Feldman believes that there are any circumstances under which Lubavitchers' nonliberal conception of the good may conflict with their democratic right to publicly exercise the franchise. If such conflict may occur, the author provides little guidance as to how to resolve it in a just and fair manner. This is a serious flaw in a book devoted to investigating the relations between the subgroup and the state. Furthermore, Feldman seeks to establish that liberal values and democratic attributes are not synonymous. This is the central edifice of her defense of the Lubavitch. Accordingly, if liberalism and democracy are distinct concepts, then there is no contradiction between the community's rejection of certain liberal values and its adherence to active, democratic participation in the public sphere. But one could make a reverse argument. It seems equally plausible to suggest that the Lubavitch, and other religious minority groups, should hope for some degree of continued entanglement between liberalism and democracy if they are to survive as distinct nomoi communities within a larger, secular society. Otherwise, nothing prohibits the majority of voters from democratically restricting the rights and freedoms of distinctive religious groups for no other reason than to restrict their perceived “otherness.” Given their smaller numbers and the historical record of persecution and violence mounted against them, are not enclaves of religious traditionalism better served by enduring constitutional protections in a society that upholds liberal values, rather than by advise to put their trust in the vicissitudes of majority rule? From this vantage point, it appears that Feldman must concede that core liberal values ought to inform democratic values, especially if she envisions a state that is more hospitable towards nonliberal minorities.

Despite these shortcomings, Lubavitchers as Citizens offers a fresh and enlightening account of the Lubavitch as a complex community whose members navigate almost seamlessly between the sacred and profane, in the process eroding the possibility of clearly marking the legitimate boundaries between intense group loyalty and profound civic engagement.