Taking Jewish Identity Metaphors Literally: Images of Identity Development From the Boardroom

• In Event: 61.033 - Metaphors of Learning in the Professions: Psychologists, Teachers, Policy Makers, and Artists Compared

Abstract

Goal and Context

Many educational programs have been established in Israel and the Unites States to strengthen the Jewish identities of young Jews. These programs touch the lives of myriad individuals each year, at a collective annual cost of tens of millions of dollars. The present paper examines the metaphors of identity development that policy makers use when proposing, describing or evaluating such programs.
Two of the largest and most influential organizations in the field of Jewish identity education are the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI) and Hillel International (HI). JAFI’s headquarters are in Jerusalem and most of its educational activities are Israel-based or Israel-related. HI is a campus-based student organization with branches around the world. Its headquarters are in Washington, DC, and a large portion of its activity takes place at universities and colleges in the US. Both organizations have recently undergone strategic processes to refine their mission and develop new areas of educational activity.

Method

Policy documents produced in the course recent strategic processes at JAFI (e.g., Jewish Agency for Israel, 2010) and HI (Zwilling, 2012) were subjected to qualitative content analysis, with particular focus on the metaphors of identity and identity development the authors used to describe the goals, methods and outcomes of educational interventions.

Findings

Both JAFI and HI documents contained numerous metaphors of identity and identity development – many of them mutually incompatible.

For example, in one of the JAFI documents (Jewish Agency for Israel, 2010), goals were defined, variously (and within the space of single page!) as: "strengthening the Jewish identity of the younger generation," "prevent[ing] young Jews from around the world … growing apart from Israel," and " prevent[ing] young Israelis who are increasingly distanced from their Jewish roots opting out of the global Jewish collective."

At the start of the passage the goal is defined as "strengthening" Jewish identity. But then the metaphor switches to "preventing." And what is to be prevented is itself a moving target. First there’s “growing apart,” then there’s becoming “increasingly distanced” and then there's “opting out.” The authors treat these metaphors as if they were interchangeable. But they’re not. “Opting out” suggests that Jewish identities are like newsletter subscriptions: You click on the “unsubscribe” box and you’re done. “Growing apart” assumes that Jewish identities are like relationships: Despite the good will on both sides, it’s just not working anymore. “Increasingly distanced” suggests that it’s not even the younger generation's fault; distancing isn’t something they're doing; it’s something that’s happening to them.

Discussion and Implications

The use of mixed, and mutually incompatible, metaphors of identity development in the formulation of educational policy indicates either confusion or intentional "hedging." In either case, the implications for educational practice are highly problematic. Goals that are blurred or internally inconsistent are not a promising starting point from which to launch large-scale interventions. Designers of identity education programs would do well to take their identity metaphors more literally - and more seriously.

Author

• Eli Gottlieb, eli-gottlieb.com