sign in sign up
<<
Home , Israelis, Jews, Jew (word), Synagogue

AND ETHNICITY AMONG BERNARD LAZERWITZ, PH.D. AND EPHRAIM TABORY, PH.D. Department of Sociology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan,

This article reviews research on the relationship of religion and ethnicity to neighbor­ hood interaction in Israel and to involvement in the Jewish community in the . It highlights one major difference between Israel and the . Whereas in Israel, ethnicity is a barrier to interaction that is reduced by a common religiocultural system, in the United States ethnicity is the foundation of Jewish involvement.

srael's heterogeneous Jewish groups, Independent States (formerly the Soviet I their differences produced by centuries of Union), , , and the social and geographic isolation from one . Although professing a common another, are now coming into increasingly religious origin, centuries of separation and close contact. As this happens, how do the differential impact of modernization Jewish ethnic differences combine with the have greatly diluted, although not elimi­ Jewish religion to enable such different nated, the religious commonality that once Jewish groups to relate to one another? existed among most Jews. And, when a very large Jewish community, Much day-to-day interethnic contact such as that of the United States, becomes takes place within Israel's condominium increasingly homogeneous, how does housing system, which houses an estimated ethnicity combine with religion to better 73% of Israel's population (Werczberger & integrate Jews into their local organized Ginsberg, 1987). requires the Jewish communities? By reviewing owners of apartments in condominium research on ethnicity and religion in buildings to meet periodically to elect a Jewishly heterogeneous Israel and in the building management committee from relatively homogeneous United States, one among their ranks. This committee has the can better understand how the Jews of today task of maintaining the building. Often, and tomorrow can use religion in combina­ before any atypically large expense is tion with ethnicity to overcome communal incurred, the management committee seeks barriers. the approval of a majority of the owner families. The assembly of all the building's ISRAEL: A COMMON RELIGION families decides on the monthly family fees AMIDST ETHNIC DIFFERENCES that are collected by the management committee. In Israel today, the majority Jewish society This system operates on a voluntary (68% of the population within the borders basis. It also necessitates communication ofthe original British mandate) includes among residents. We surveyed residents of such disparate ethnic groups as Jews from condominium buildings in two neighbor­ to those from , from the hoods to examine the varying impacts of Moslem countries stretching from ethnicity and religion on their interaction. to Afghanistan, as well as Jews from Eastern , the Commonwealth of : A Prestigious Residential Neighborhood In the Chaldea neighborhood are found Presented at the 1991 meeting of the American Sociological Association. four-story and larger condominium build­ ings. Generally, only one religiously

39 40 / Joumal of Jewish Communal Service observant (Orthodox) family lives in any The religious residents also take up some of one building. a building's parking space when they build The neighborhood population is largely booths, but this too is not a subject middle and upper class. Just over 70% of of neighborhood contention (although there the religiously observant and 40% of the has been some vandalism of these booths by less religious residents have a university neighborhood youth in recent years). education. About 90% of the respondents in both groups are in the labor force, and Lion: A Working-Class Neighborhood many of them are professionals. The Lion neighborhood contains major In our survey, respondents were asked differences in class, ethnicity, family life how often they did a variety of neighborly cycle, and religiosity. Indeed, the design for activities with persons of different levels of tliis neighborhood deliberately built such religiosity (for study details, see Tabory, differences into Lion. 1989). Table 1 shows that most of them seldom have close social contacts with Lion is a new public housing project persons of different religiosity levels. built in the southern part of a large city. It occupies most of what was a squatters' Religious inhabitants do not completely village that, for the most part, has been isolate themselves from their less religious eliminated by urban renewal. At the time neighbors. However, neither do they go out the project was studied, it had been occu­ of their way to foster close relationships pied for 2 years. It then contained 314 with them. Religious children in the apartments in 31 buildings that were built neighborhood may be seen playing among in five ellipUcal rings. Three ofthe themselves with practically no contact with buildings are eight-story stmctures of 30 less religious youngsters, even those of a apartments each. The other buildings similar age and sex who live in the same contain eight apartments within four-story building. walk-up stmctures. Yet, the highly religious residents consistently state that they are satisfied with The percentage of religiously observant the neighborhood. Their main reason for families is twice as high in the Lion possibly wanting to move is to live in an neighborhood as in Chaldea. The religious even larger apartment or in a free-standing families in Lion are mainly working-class house. If they were to move, they would Sephardic Jews. The of Lion either want to remain in the Chaldea are often formed by those who come from neighborhood or move to one that is similar the same Moslem community or country. to it. They rule out the possibility of living Although historically the Orthodoxy of in a neighborhood composed only of other Sephardic Jews has been less rigid than that highly religious families. of Jews from , the secular person common to the Chaldea neighbor­ The religious residents are tolerant ofthe hood is relatively rare in Lion. Few less religious behavior manifested in the residents revolt against Oriental Orthodox community. Driving and using electrical . Even many of the less religious appliances on do not disturb them, families follow the dietary laws. Therefore, and they do not protest against noisy parties religious and less religious families can as a desecration ofthe day of rest. readily live with each other. Participant- The less religious are also tolerant of the observation showed that children's play highly religious residents. The "Shabbat groups are formed much more on the basis best" attire of the religious on Shabbat of who lives near whom, without a split into stands out in contrast to the very casual religious and nonreligious play groups dress of the nonreligious residents, but little typical of Chaldea (for more information on is made of these different dress pattems. Lion, see Lazerwitz, 1985). Religion and Ethnicity Among Jews / 41

Table 1. COMBINED FREQUENCY OF HELPING, VISITING, OR GOING OUT WITH RELIGIOUSLY DIFFERENT PERSONS IN THE CHALDEA NEIGHBORHOOD

Frequency of Orthodox with Less Religious Social Contact Less Religious with Orthodox (n=79) (n=177)

Daily 6% 4% Weekly 13% 3% Several Times a Month 11% 5% Several Times a Year 13% 4% Rarely 57% 84% Base 100% 100%

Table 2 shows the impacts of life cycle, used gives the relationship between two class, religious involvement, and ethnicity variables while statistically controlling for upon a variety of relations among neighbors all the other variables in the equation.' The in Lion. In it, age of head of family is an statistical impacts show how much a indirect measurement of family life cycle, dependent variable would change for one education of head is the measurement for unit of change in an independent variable. class, and religiosity is measured by a For example, in Table 2, the relationship respondent's self-classificadon as either a between the independent variable of practicing Orthodox , traditional education of the family head and the (following some but not all the current dependent variable of friendships with practices of ), or not building neighbors is a positive .31 above religious. Ethnicity is based upon whether and beyond the effects of age, religiosity, or a respondent's family derives from Europe ethnicity. It is positive because, as educa­ or from an -North African country. tion of family head increases on its low to The measures of residential integration high scale, friendships with building are (I) an index reflecting the number of neighbors increase from low to high on its friendships formed with neighbors in the measurement scale. Finally, for each unit same building; (2) a negative-to-positive increase in scale value for education, scale reflecting attitudes toward these same friendships increase by .31 in scale value. neighbors; (3) the same type of scale Ofthe 32 impact values of Table 2, only reflecting attitudes toward residents living 8 are less than 0.10, and 5 do not consis­ in other Lion buildings; (4) a scale measur­ tently increase or decrease. Fourteen have ing the effectiveness of each of the building absolute values of .20 or more, which committees in maintaining their buildings; indicate strong impacts. Five are between (5) respondents' judgments as to whether . 10 to . 19 and thus indicate moderate the Lion project has a negative, neutral, or impacts. positive efifect on its youth; (6) a scale Effectiveness of a building committee is measuring pride in living in Lion; (7) associated statistically with older husbands. whether or not respondents would recom­ mend living in Lion to friends; and (8) the extent to which respondents were thinking 'Impact is measured by "a dummy variable" about moving out of Lion (for statistical multiple regression beta values computed by either the details, see Schwartz, 1986). multiple classification analysis (MCA) or the multinominal scale analysis (MNA) techniques. For The multiple regression approach being MCA see Andrews, et al., 1969; for MNA, see Andrews and Messenger, 1986. 42 / Joumal of Jewish Communal Service

Table 2. "DUMMY VARIABLE" MULTIPLE REGRESSION EQUATION VALUES SHOWING THE IMPACTS OF AGE, RELIGIOSITY, EDUCATION AND ETHNICITY ON RESIDENTIAL VARIABLES (LOW-RISES ONLY)

Age of Head Education of Head Religiosity Ethnic Young=Old Hi-Moderate - Low Rel.=No Rel. Europe-Asian/ Scale Direction African

Friendships with building neighbors Lo-Hi .04 .31 .08 .20 Attitude toward bldg. neighbors Neg.-Pos. .27 .18 M4 .05 Attitude toward Lion residents outside own bldg. Neg-Pos. .21 .26 .07 .26 Effectiveness of bldg. committee Lo-Hi .16 Ml .18 -.25 Attitude toward Lion neighborhood Impact of Lion on its youth Neg.-Pos. .06 .02 M5 .24 Pride in Lion No-Yes .38 .20 .22 .06 Recommend Lion to friends No-Yes .01 M2 -.18 -.48 Thought about staying in or leaving Lion Stay-Leave .18 ".32 .21 .29

Indicates failure to increase or decrease consistently.

less religiosity, and European background and European backgrounds. However, in families. Education does not have a the three high-rises there are a considerable consistent increasing or decreasing relation­ number of such marriages — 35% of the 29 ship to building committee effectiveness. young couples are both of Oriental back­ Finally, recommending Lion to friends as a ground, 29% are both of European back­ place to live is associated with more ground, and 36% are of mixed Oriental- religiosity and quite strongly with European European backgrounds. background families. The high-rise couples, as a group, Overall, the ethnic factor has the engage in a of neighborly activities strongest impact, with six values of .20 or among themselves, but just about none with larger andjust two values of .05 and .06. the rest of Lion. Hence, there is within the The other three basic variables — age, high-rise buildings a self-segregating group education, and religiosity — have similar of almost exclusively native-bom or impacts, with age having fivevalue s of. 16 socialized young Israeli couples of differing or larger, education having four values of ethnic backgrounds. This group provides .20 or larger, and religiosity having two of an excellent opportunity to explore social .21 and .22. contacts across ethnic lines, as well as what occurs when a newly emergent group — High-Rise Heterogeneity couples of mixed ethnic backgrounds — enters into the picture (for study details, see Only 6% of the marriages in the low-rise Porat, 1985). buildings are between with Oriental Religion and Ethnicity Among Jews / 43

Table 3 examines the impact within the barrier to friendship within the high-rise high-rises of ethnic background on friend­ stmctures. If, indeed, sheer ethnic back­ ships. It indicates that friendships between ground was the dominant factor in friend­ families of the two main ethnic groups, ship formation, one would expect much European background and Asian-African more segregation for the mixed background background Jews, are far from the rule. couples. Both of these ethnic groups, however, do To what extent do these pattems of have considerable contacts with the group social segregation by life cycle, education of couples having mixed ethnic back­ level, and ethnic background affect within- grounds. building leadership? Were the heads of the There is an additional tendency for several high-rise building committees couples to socialize according to the hus­ handling day-to-day maintenance from any band's ethnic background. Couples of particular group? They were not — of the European background concentrate 70% of eight persons who had headed a high-rise their mixed couple friendship choices building committee, three were from among those who are a combination of European background couples, two were husband of European background and wife from Asian-African background couples, of Asian-African background. Couples of and three were from mixed background Asian-African backgrounds concentrate couples. 75% of their mixed couple friendship choices among those who are a combination Conclusions about Neighborhood Interaction of husband of Asian-African background in Israel and wife of European background. We have looked at the influence of religios­ With education such an important ity upon social interaction in Chaldea, an variable with regard to friendship forma­ elite neighborhood, and have studied the tion, additional exploration in this section Lion neighborhood with its class, religion, of the impact of ethnicity upon high-rise life cycle, and ethnic mixtures. friendships is limited to those families Does the "living together - owning whose heads have at least a high-school together'' Israeli condominium system degree. Also, friendship formation for change the mental pictures that these dif­ those with high-school education but with ferent ethnic or religiosity groups have of or without children provides double one another? All the evidence we have controls, for education and life cycle, within from our work indicates that the answer to which ethnicity can be observed. Of course, this question is "yes, but only within the by this point, the number of respondents same building." Residents of the same becomes small. Nevertheless, one can see condominium building do form a more whether friendship formations among the realistic, humane, and understanding three types of ethnicity groupings become picture of the other families living there. considerably less segregated. When their building committee organiza­ Tables 4 and 5 indicate no dramatic shift tion is a more effective one, this realistic, in high-rise friendship formation pattems. sympathetic understanding of one another is Despite the relatively small data base of improved. these tables, ethnicity is shown to continue to be a factor in friendship formation after The Chaldea neighborhood is fairly controlling for education or life cycle. homogeneous in class and ethnicity. Its Those couples with mixed ethnic back­ major differentiating factor is degree of grounds continue to link with European or religiosity. The quite religious inhabitants Asian-African background couples. Yet, it of this neighborhood segregate themselves is not a simple case of ethnicity acting as a from the other residents and have only instmmental interaction with them. They 44 / Joumal of Jewish Communal Service

Table 3. FRIENDSHIPS BY ETHNICITY

Respondents by Ethnic Backgrounds Two Most Friendly Families by Ethnic Backgrounds

European Mixed Asian-African

European background 60% 35% 5% Mixed backgrounds 18% 59% 23% Asian-African background 9% 59% 32%

Table 4. FRIENDSHIPS BY ETHNICITY AMONG COUPLES WITHOUT CHILDREN AND WITH HEADS WHO ARE HIGH-SCHOOL GRADUATES

Respondents by Backgrounds Two Most Friendly Families by Ethnic Backgrounds

European Mixed Asian-African

European background 67% 28% 5% Mixed backgrounds 24% 69% 7% Asian-African background 50% 50% 0%

Table 5. FRIENDSHIPS BY ETHNICITY AMONG COUPLES WITH CHILDREN AND WITH HEADS WHO ARE HIGH-SCHOOL GRADUATES

Respondents by Backgrounds Two Most Friendly Families by Ethnic Backgrounds

European Mixed Asian-African

European background 50% 50% 0% Mixed backgrounds 12% 50% 38% Asian-African background 0% 78% 22% can not eat in the homes of the less obser­ barrier. It limits social interaction consider­ vant residents; they discourage their ably between and, to a lesser degree, children from playing with less religious among children. Yet, the residents of Lion children. are even more religiously observant, on the Yet, the majority of the less religious whole, than are those of Chaldea. residents of Chaldea engage in many Jewish As with Chaldea, Lion religiosity is practices because they are steeped in the based on its residents being steeped in overall cultural and social traditions of Jews traditional Jewish customs and Israeli and of Israel. This common religious norms. This common religiosity, in tum, tradition narrows the gap between the quite helps narrow the ethnic barriers of Lion. religious and everyone else in Chaldea. It The easiest ethnic differences to handle blocks the giving of social offenses, creating are those that involve minor religious and a "live and let live" social atmosphere. class differences, such as, for example, In Lion, ethnicity is a major social differences between American background Religion and Ethnicity Among Jews / 45

Jews and Dutch background Jews, none of work by Roof (1972, 1974, 1976, 1978) and whom is highly Orthodox. Then come RoofandHoge(I980). Roof developed the limited variations in religiosity or family concept of localism to help explain - life-cycle differences. However, class based religion in contemporary society. It differences or major ethnic differences, holds that the maintenance of religious coupled with considerable religious differ­ commitment in a highly differentiated ences, as found between (CIS) immigrants modem society, with a variety of competing and Ethiopian immigrants, are substantially secular and traditional value systems, different. Quite difficult barriers can arise requires a localistic perspective shared by out of widely varying class-ethnic or class- persons who interact frequently and support religious combinations. each other. Moreover, localism is regarded as the source both of religious commitment THE AMERICAN JEWISH SCENE and Orthodoxy, on the one hand, and of nonliberal prejudice, on the other. Finally, During the last quarter of a century there communal enclaves function as support have been two large-scale national studies stmctures for involvement in formal of American Jewry. The first survey, which religious organizations. included 5790 in-depth interviews, was done in 1970. The 1990 National Jewish The localism concept suggests two Population Survey reported on 1905 general hypotheses: (1) localism is posi­ interviews with Jewish respondents.^ tively related to religiosity, and (2) localism inhibits political liberalism more than does The Israeli data presented here focus religiosity or religious orthodoxy. The 1970 upon contacts across intemal Jewish NJPS data regarding U.S. Jewry relevant to religious or ethnic barriers. The American these hypotheses are found in Table 6. data were gathered, in part, to examine the The data do indicate that ethnicity relationship of religiosity to Jewish commu­ (localism), in one form or another, is nal involvement. The measures of concem positively related to the measures of are (1) religious involvement: frequency of religiosity used in this study. However, attendance and extent of home only one ethnicity measure, Jewish primary religious practices; (2) ethnicity: the degree group involvement, is directly related to to which one's family or orientation, best each of the measures of religiosity. In friends, dating, and courtship experiences contrast, the measure of general community have been with fellow Jews and an index of activity is not directly related to any meas­ the extent of activity in Jewish community ure of religiosity. The second measure of voluntary associations; and (3) participation Jewish ethnicity (or localism), Jewish in general community voluntary activity. community organization activity, is related to two measures of religiosity — synagogue 1970 National Jewish Population Study membership and synagogue attendance — (NJPS) but not to home religious observance. Analyses ofthe 1970 NJPS (Lazerwitz, It seems then for Jews, as Roof and Hoge 1978, I98I; Lazerwitz et al., 1988) have (1980) suggest is tme of Roman Catholics compared Jewish religiosity and ethnicity in the United States, communal enclaves with Protestant localism as described in function as support stmctures for involve­ ment in formal religious organizations. In other words, among Jews, religiosity is at Hiverall, the 1990 survey obtained 2441 interviews most only indirectly a reflection of involve­ with respondents who were Jews, or who were not Jewish ment in the general (local) community, but but were married to Jews, or who were the non-Jewish is directly associated with involvement in children of intermarried Jews, or who had converted out of Judaism. For our purposes, analysis eligibility was the Jewish (local) community and its restricted to respondents who were Jewish. primary group network of Jews. 46 / Joumal of Jewish Communal Service

Table 6. IX)CALISM APPUED TO 1970 NJPS DATA

Independent Variables Demographic Block SES Block Parent Influ. Localism Block Religious Block

Family Size Gen i. Home Dependent bfe In­ ofj. J. Child J. CommComm J. primSy n Syn rel Ortho- Variables' Sex' Age- Gen' cycle Educ Occu comeTonu n Bkgid Educoij act oig act groups mem attend observ doxyR 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) [14) (15) (16) (17) (18)

11 Gen. comm. org. act. -.01 .09 -.20 .19' .10 .07 .21 .24» .04 .06 .23 12 J. comm. org. acct. -.10 .07« .02 .25* .09 .08 .08 .16* .08 .25 .24 .35 13 J. prim. groups -.OS .07 .18 .19« -.05 .06 -.04 .24« .19 .16 -.08 .21 .39 14 Synagogue member. -.06 .11 -.07 .14« .07 .13« .07 .26« -.07 .21 .05 .18 .14 .34 15 Synagogue attend. .03 .07 .08 .14« .07 .06» .02 .15' -.07 .16 .03 .14 .19 .42 .48 16 Home rel observ. .01 -.08 .12 .09« -.09 -.04 -.07 .18» .11 .22 .03' .05 .17 .08 .35 .53 17 Orthodoxy* .03 .07 -.lOf .08' -.11 .04 -.07 .13' .08 .02 -.05 .03 .14 .07 .14 .32 .42 18 Polit. liberal. .02 -.08 -.10 .15« .27 -.05 -.09 .14* .04 .12 .05f .07 -.21 .06 -.10 .07 -.13 .30

A negative sign means: ' Low index level larger on dependent variable than high index level. Women higher than men. ' Younger adults have values larger than older adults. Third U.S. generation value is larger than first. • No denominational preference values more than Orthodox. ' Orthodoxy decreases with generation in the U.S. « Not monotonic.

The data also lend general support to the Jewish primary group network, h is also hypothesis that a "localistic" orientation inhibited, although less so, by a measure of inhibits political liberalism and does so religiosity, (i.e., synagogue attendance) and more than either religiosity or religious by religious orthodoxy. orthodoxy. In Table 6, Jewish primary group involvement has a strong negative 1990 National Jewish Population Survey impact on the index of political liberalism. (NJPS) There is also a weaker, negative link between religiosity, as measured by syna­ A strong connection between religion and gogue attendance, and political liberalism. ethnicity appears in data from the 1990 Finally, religious orthodoxy, as measured by National Jewish Population Survey. In Jewish denominational preference, is also Table 7, survey data have been grouped by a negatively related to political liberalism. combination of Jewish denominational That is, although political liberalism is most preferences and synagogue membership. strongly inhibited by involvement in a For each such grouping, there is presented a Religion and Ethnicity Among Jews / 47

Table 7. REUGIOUS AND ETHNIC INVOLVEMENT PERCENTAGES BY DENOMINATIONAL PREFER­ ENCES, NATIONAL JEWISH POPULATION SURVEY, 1990

Involvement Orth. syn. Conserv. Conserv. Reform Reform No preference Items memb. memb. not memb. memb. not memb. not memb.

Attends syn. 25 times or more per year 76% 30% 7% 18% 2% 2% Home relig. pract.* 91% 57% 23% 21% 10% 5% J. primary grps." 92% 57% 35% 31% 16% 10% J. Org. Activ.' 74% 64% 26% 52% 21% 6% Gen. Org. Activ." 17% 42% 27% 44% 31% 41% Intermarried 2% 12% 28% 34% 45% 62% Politic, liberal 23% 40% 34% 39% 44% 56%

Has kosher home, lights Shabbat and Chanukah candles, says on Shabbat. Most friends Jewish, regards neighborhood as Jewish, opposes intermarriage. Jewish organizations, works 20 hours + per month for Jewish organizations, gives money to Jewish organizations. Member of several general organizations, gives money to non-Jewish charities.

range of religious and ethnic items. This of participation, followed by similar per­ table lacks information on those Orthodox centages for the Reform-not members and Jews who are not members of a synagogue Conservative-not members, with the and those Jews without any denominational Orthodox far lower. The percentage of preference who are members of a synagogue intermarried and scoring liberal on a because the number of such cases were too liberal-Conservative political scale also are few for statistical analysis. inversely related to denominational prefer­ In most instances, there is a direct ence (Orthodox to Reform); the intermar­ relationship between synagogue member­ ried percentage and synagogue membership ship and Jewish communal involvement. are inversely related as well. Synagogue attendance is increased by synagogue membership. Hence, Reform GE^fERAL CONCLUSIONS members attend more than Conservative-not Several important conclusions about members. Yet, these two groups are about religion and ethnicity derive from the the same in terms of home religious research studies presented above. Although practices and Jewish primary group the data involve Jews — Israeli and involvement. On activity in Jewish volun­ American — the close tie-in with the work tary associations, the three synagogue of Roof permits the extension of these membership groups hold the first three conclusions to American Protestants and rankings, followed closely by Conservative- Catholics. For the vast majority of religious not members and Reform-not members, adherents, religiosity seems to rest on and with the no preference group much lower. grow out of their ethnicity. When different In contrast, denominational preference ethnic groups possess the same religion (Orthodox to Reform) is inversely related to (tempered by their different histories, participation in general community volun­ ethnicities, and power conflicts), it operates tary associations but the relationship with as a unifying factor. Then, ethnicity synagogue membership is less clear. becomes the particularistic factor and Reform and Conservative members and the religion the universalistic factor. no preference group have the highest levels 48 / Joumal of Jewish Communal Service

It is a change in religious affiliation that and value levels of their communities. They enables the convert to shift his or her ethnic also create new behavioral and value stan­ community. Yet, people in such conversion dards that then affect ordinary community situations only slowly acquire the needed members. ethnic traits that root one in a new religio- A major function of those who embrace ethnic community. the higher religious levels is the develop­ When different ethnic groups possessing ment of more universalistic norms that a common religion come into close contact, reach beyond their communities. This marriages across ethnic lines grow increas­ reaching out extends such values and norms ingly common. Indeed, such marriages are to people outside the original religioethnic difficult to oppose; the power of their com­ community. mon religion to overwhelm ethnic differ­ Another topic that has been neglected in ences is clear. Those couples of mixed the abundance of research on religion and ethnic backgrounds but of a common ethnicity is the relationship among these religion form communication and contact two variables and the . Does citizen­ paths between the involved ethnic groups. ship in or identification with a given nation- When the family status bearer, typically the state enhance or weaken religion and husband, belongs to the higher status ethnic ethnicity? The literature on American group, his wife and children are more ethnic and religious groupings, as well as readily accepted into that group. the work done by Simon Herman (1970, Even when religiosity becomes a barrier 1971), indicates the importance of the to social interaction, as in the Chaldea correlations among these three factors. A neighborhood, the common cultural frame minority (differing in religion of reference possessed by families with from the majority group that has established different degrees of religiosity mitigate and created the and social structure intergroup frictions considerably. Again a of a nation-state) may well find a negative common religiocultural frame of reference correlation between and mem­ becomes the universalistic factor binding bership in this minority ethnic group. together the religious and the nonreligious However, the majority group will findit s (Liebman & Don-Yehiya, 1983). particular ethnicity and religion having a We are all born into families located in a strong positive association with its nation- particular social sector of a community. state. That sector is, in effect, an "ethnic" For example, Herman's research subcommunity. Such a subcommunity also indicates that most perceive possesses a subculture that includes a either no relationship or a negative one religion that functions most clearly on the between their feelings as Jews and their level of daily life. Indeed, that is why such feelings as . However, he finds groups are refened to as religioethnic that when Jews in Israel feel Jewish, it adds communities. On this daily level, religion to the strength of their feelings as Israelis. customarily appears as a set of rituals with We can similarly ask when an American the range of observance set by the norms of Protestant feels Protestant religiously, what a subcommunity. relationship does this feeling have to his or Most people live with a degree of her feelings as an American? adherence to the local religious norms of Certainly, this triad — ethnicity, their communities. Yet, small numbers religiosity, and — needs more seek to live at "higher" religious and careful study. Such study will relate being a ethical levels of their religion. These majority or member to a people become the "saints, sages, and place in a nation and also will ask what a prophets" and express the highest behavior minority member has to change in order to Religion and Ethnicity Anumg Jews / 49

integrate better into his or her nation. Lazerwitz, B. (1985, Spring). Class, ethnicity, These findings also point out a major and site as planning factors in Israeli difference between the situation in Israel residential integration. Intemational and in the Diaspora. In Israel, ethnicity is a Review of Modem Sociology, 15, 233-243. Jewish barrier that is reduced by a common Lazerwitz, Bemard, Winter, J. Alan, & religiocultural system into which Israeli Dashefsky, Arnold. (1988, September). Jews are bom (or migrate). This common Localism, religiosity. Orthodoxy, and religiocultural system is acquired in a liberalism: The case of Jews in the United nonvoluntaristic manner. States. Social Forces, 67,229-242. In the Diaspora, being a Jew and Liebman, Charles, & Don-Yehiya, Eliezer. affiliating with an organized Jewish (1983). Civil religion in Israel. Berkeley: community and its religious expressions are University of California Press. voluntary acts. Such a voluntary affiliation Porat, Naomi. (1985). Social interaction m a is most strongly produced by the ethnic new integrative neighborhood. Master's features ofbeing a Jew. Indeed, given the Thesis, Department of Sociology, Bar-Dan considerable religious differences within University, Ramat-Gan, Israel (Hebrew). most Diaspora Jewish communities, it is Roof, W.C. (1972). The local-cosmopolitan upon ethnicity that Jewish involvement orientation and traditional religious com­ must be buih. mitment. Sociological Analysis, 33, 1-15. American Jewish communal workers Roof, W.C. (1974). Religious ortiiodoxy and need to work for strengthened ties with the minority prejudice: Causal relationship or various aspects of the organized Jewish reflection of localistic world view? Amer­ community. Judaic expression will flow ican Joumal of Sociology, 80, 643-664. from such organized Jewish community Roof, W.C. (1976). Traditional religion in ties. This need applies to both bom Jews contemporary society: A theory of local- and those who enter the Jewish world via cosmopolitan plausibility. American intermarriage. Sociological Review. 41. 195-208. Roof, W.C. (1978). Community and commit­ REFERENCES ment: Religious plausibility in a liberal Protestant church. New : Elsevier. Andrews, Frank & Messenger, Robert. (1986). Roof, W. C. & Hoge, Dean, R. (1980). Church Multivariate nominal scale analysis (fourth involvement in America: Social factors edition). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for affecting membership and participation. Social Research, University of Michigan. Review of Religious Research, 21, 405-426. Andrews, Frank, Morgan, James, & Sonquist, Schwartz, Chaya. (1986). The organization John. (1969). Multiple classification process of a new heterogeneous urban analysis. Atm Arbor, MI: Institute for neighborhood in a public project in Israel. Social Research, University of Michigan. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Depart­ Herman, Simon. (1970). American students in ment of Sociology, Bar-Dan University, Israel. lUiaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press. Ramat-Gan, Israel (Hebrew). Herman, Simon. (1971). Israelis and Jews. Tabory, Ephraim. (1989). Residential integra­ Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. tion and in an Israeli Lazerwitz, Bemard. (1978, Spring/Summer). neighborhood. Intemational Joumal of An approach to the components and Intercultural Relations. 13, 19-35. consequences of Jewish identification. Werczberger, Elia, & Ginsberg, Yona. (1987, Contemporary Jewry, 4, 3-8. July). Maintenance of shared property in Lazerwitz, B. (1981, Winter). Jewish-Christian low income condommiums. Housing marriages and conversions. Jewish Social Studies. 2. 192-202. Studies, 43, 31-46.