Scan barcode
A review by rbruehlman
American Shtetl: The Making of Kiryas Joel, a Hasidic Village in Upstate New York by David N Myers, Nomi M Stolzenberg
4.0
This was a long read on merit of its academic legalese, and the sheer litigious nature of the Satmars got exhausting and a bit tedious to follow towards the end. However, while it was probably a bit outside of my preferred genre, credit must be given where credit is due--I thought it was a very well-researched book, and one that managed to remain fair and neutral discussing issues that inspired black-and-white ire from both sides of the court.
Some thoughts and takeaways:
1. Stolzenberg makes the point that Kiryas Joel is a uniquely American phenomenon, one that was borne from the U.S.'s concept of private property and unusual separation of church and state. Kiryas Joel was not a top-down decision like, say, Israel; it was instead bottom-up, forged from the US's fierce private property rights and then protected by their freedom to practice religion. In other countries, such as in France, what the Satmars did would never come to pass; "égalité", as the French would say. I find it wildly fascinating to think there are some uniquely American things that exist because of our legal system that don't exist in other countries--not in an American exceptionalism kind of way, but just ... it's wild how entire an entire culture or movement can exist in one place and not the other, on merit of a society's tangled or rigidly held laws.
2. Jews have always co-existed in societies in which they were the minority and found ways to thrive in said society even in spite of restrictions. Despite their emphasis on insularity, the Satmars are no different. They readily partnered with whichever political party would help advance their interests, and learned the legal system could be used to their advantage to settle disputes, stop others in their track, and otherwise strong-arm or protect what they needed. They might ignore American society, but they weren't immune to ignoring the American legal system. As it so happens, the legal system is complicated and twisted enough that it wasn't hard for them to find ways to bend it to their will.
3. I loved the delicious irony of what to do with the Satmars from a Republican vs. Democrat perspective. Even as Democrats resisted majority Christianity encroaching on American life, they nonetheless couldn't deny the Satmars because to do otherwise would reject liberal pluralism--the Satmars are a cultural minority, after all, and pluralism advocates supporting their right to practice their culture. Meanwhile, the Republicans embraced the Satmars because they had similar causes--freedom of religion meaning right to include religion in the public domain, and the right to educate their children as they saw fit. It didn't matter that evangelical Christians and Satmars believed in totally different things; the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
4. What is freedom of religion? Is it the freedom to practice your religion, wherever, however, which means it can be practiced in a public space if that's what is important to your community? Or is it freedom from religion, because at the point you practice your religion in my public space, it infringes on my right to practice my religion (or none at all)? Does practicing a religion in a public space end up endorsing that religion, albeit implicitly? I can see both sides, which is the type of legal issue I find most fascinating.
5. It was so interesting seeing how Kiryas Joel's adherents first were introduced to the legal system because they needed to defend themselves against the town of Monroe; then they started using the legal system not just to defend themselves, but to gain things they needed from the external world; then they started using the legal system on each other, within their own community, to settle religious differences. It was a bit sad to see the fierce in-fighting, but it makes sense that if the Satmars had to gerrymander the legal system to exist within Monroe, it was only a matter of time they would use that same political know-how to undermine dissidents in their own community.
6. The real power of the American legal system is its litigiousness. Don't want something to happen? Sue. Want something to happen? Sue.
Some thoughts and takeaways:
1. Stolzenberg makes the point that Kiryas Joel is a uniquely American phenomenon, one that was borne from the U.S.'s concept of private property and unusual separation of church and state. Kiryas Joel was not a top-down decision like, say, Israel; it was instead bottom-up, forged from the US's fierce private property rights and then protected by their freedom to practice religion. In other countries, such as in France, what the Satmars did would never come to pass; "égalité", as the French would say. I find it wildly fascinating to think there are some uniquely American things that exist because of our legal system that don't exist in other countries--not in an American exceptionalism kind of way, but just ... it's wild how entire an entire culture or movement can exist in one place and not the other, on merit of a society's tangled or rigidly held laws.
2. Jews have always co-existed in societies in which they were the minority and found ways to thrive in said society even in spite of restrictions. Despite their emphasis on insularity, the Satmars are no different. They readily partnered with whichever political party would help advance their interests, and learned the legal system could be used to their advantage to settle disputes, stop others in their track, and otherwise strong-arm or protect what they needed. They might ignore American society, but they weren't immune to ignoring the American legal system. As it so happens, the legal system is complicated and twisted enough that it wasn't hard for them to find ways to bend it to their will.
3. I loved the delicious irony of what to do with the Satmars from a Republican vs. Democrat perspective. Even as Democrats resisted majority Christianity encroaching on American life, they nonetheless couldn't deny the Satmars because to do otherwise would reject liberal pluralism--the Satmars are a cultural minority, after all, and pluralism advocates supporting their right to practice their culture. Meanwhile, the Republicans embraced the Satmars because they had similar causes--freedom of religion meaning right to include religion in the public domain, and the right to educate their children as they saw fit. It didn't matter that evangelical Christians and Satmars believed in totally different things; the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
4. What is freedom of religion? Is it the freedom to practice your religion, wherever, however, which means it can be practiced in a public space if that's what is important to your community? Or is it freedom from religion, because at the point you practice your religion in my public space, it infringes on my right to practice my religion (or none at all)? Does practicing a religion in a public space end up endorsing that religion, albeit implicitly? I can see both sides, which is the type of legal issue I find most fascinating.
5. It was so interesting seeing how Kiryas Joel's adherents first were introduced to the legal system because they needed to defend themselves against the town of Monroe; then they started using the legal system not just to defend themselves, but to gain things they needed from the external world; then they started using the legal system on each other, within their own community, to settle religious differences. It was a bit sad to see the fierce in-fighting, but it makes sense that if the Satmars had to gerrymander the legal system to exist within Monroe, it was only a matter of time they would use that same political know-how to undermine dissidents in their own community.
6. The real power of the American legal system is its litigiousness. Don't want something to happen? Sue. Want something to happen? Sue.