On the subject of mentalblog.com: Golden era of Moscow Jewry. This post is a follow up on my conversation with Ephraim Rosenstein in Boston a week ago. Ephraim mentioned the connection between French Existentialism and the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Now I actually remember that I first heard this idea in Jerusalem from Michoel Schneider. Michoel Shlita and Ephraim’s late father Grisha are certainly the two most prominent post-Chabad representatives of the Moscow Jewry. This actually makes me think that the idea might have originated in that milieu. But on to Ephraim's fascinating post:
I want to make one thing very clear. This treatment deals with the Rebbe as public intellectual and spiritual figure in the context of 20th century and more specifically – of French Existentialism, to the best of my understanding. This is not to imply about his personal history or private experiences of different people of the Rebbe and about the Rebbe. I don’t know enough to pass judgment on personal historical data. This write-up comes as a follow up to our private communication (which I am looking forward to continue).
You were right when you made the point about the chronology. The French Existentialism you referred to, that of Jean-Paul Sartre and the like developed only from the 40's and on, when the Rebbe already left the Continent. Sartre was very political and provocative and therefore we automatically think of him when we talk about French and about existentialism. But Sartre was preceded by such genuine French existentialists as Gabriel Marcel, Rene Le Senne, and Louis Lavelle. Ironically, Lavelle, believed to have coined the term “existentialism,” later preferred to be called neo-Socratic (after Soren Kierkegaard), to make sure not to stay under the same intellectual umbrella with Sartre. Chronologically, early French Existentialism lived and flourished soon after the World War I. Marcel's "Metaphysical Journal" contained entries on the topic from as early as 1925. Traditionally, French Existentialism, unlike historicist German Existentialism, was spiritualistic with strong Catholic roots. Only later Sartre introduced moral and theological nihilism as new Existentialism as we know it today.
I would schematically say that with the German existentialists, the Rebbe shared the tragic vision of human existence in the confines of History (he consistently made a statement that Holocaust remains an unresolved act of absurdity that cannot and should not be explained away) and the belief in social and political action (very unusual to a traditional Hassidic Rebbe) as an antidote. Hence his active interest in the state of Israel, the Jews around the world, his discussions of the end of the Cold War, of imminent fall of the Communist block, the disarmament and its impact on the world, mass Jewish emigration from former USSR, etc. With the French existentialists, he shared the belief that action vis-à-vis history, aside from its pragmatic importance, is an expression of human hope and act of personal spirituality.
Couple of observations about the Rebbe’s public impact and its philosophic underpinnings:
1. The Rebbe’s philosophical radicalism.
It is clear to me that he believed in universality (Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach campaign, Moment of Prayer, non-Jewish public personalities to promote universal spiritual cause), mass communication (satellite broadcasts of parade and of his Sichos), and globalization (UN resolution on disarmament and diversion of funds to developing countries that the Rebbe praised as a sign of imminent Messianic era, Atid Eretz Isroel shetispashet bechol ha’aratzos, etc.) as desired direction of the development of mankind, with individual (personal and financial) investment as driving force, as opposed to the socialist vision, where driving force of development is in public domain, initiated by state. It looks like he was more of a positivistic modernist, as opposed to post-modernist. As it comes up from his public addresses and letters, he believed in human spirit, in technological progress, in formal scientific medicine, in universal appeal to world peace. It seems that he also believed in democracy. It is hard to tell how he envisioned the monarchical state of Messianic era will operate. Did he expect the monarchy to be strictly constitutional (with Sanhedrin as a primary law-maker, and as he claimed that Moshiach era is not Midrashic, but a Halachically pragmatic reality as delineated by Rambam) or Utopian absolutist (based on prophecy that he at some point appealed to, and “morach vadoyin,” etc.)? Would there be elements of representative democracy? It’s difficult to say what was his opinion (or maybe I lack the knowledge), but I think it is safe to say that he liked the all-inclusiveness of American political system as an expression of individual freedom and voluntary participation. Even Moshiach campaign was part of this basic operational belief (whatever the consequences were and are). In his personal communication with David Dinkins (whether he was a good mayor or not, is not an issue here) he praised New York as a melting pot where all nations could worship G-d together. So too, he viewed 770 as a contemporary Beis HaMikdash (very inconvenient statement to swallow for an average Jew like myself even back then, and especially today, even without any background in architecture). This is a very literal and direct reading of biblical prophecies like those of Yeshayahu. He believed that it should directly and promptly make its way into his futuristic vision of Messianic era. To me, this seems to indicate quite radical historicism.
I have to put it in historical context. It is agreed by many that since the crisis of Shabtai Tzvi, the Jewish public consensus lost faith in redemption as a historical process. Initially, Shabtai Zvi evoked passionate hopes for global changes in Jewish history and had overwhelming impact across the board on the entire European and Mediterranean Jewry. When he converted to Islam, it was a spiritual and social disaster. Hassidism came as a reaction to the failure of Shabtai Zvi. Instead of external changes on public Jewish scene that Shabtai Zvi tried to evoke, it emphasized internal process of spiritual enlightenment. As the Ba’al Shem Tov wrote to Gershon Kitover, Moshiach will come when his wellspring, meaning spiritual insight, will flow outward. In historical context, the letter implied that the Redemption was foremost the “redemptive” idea, not the political action. The frum Jews chose to confine themselves to physical and conceptual ghetto, and any attempt to take advantage of civil rights extended to the Jews across Europe and leave the ghetto was viewed as a breakaway from Judaism. However, the Rebbe turned social (Shlichus, Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach, etc.) and political (active interest in global political dynamics in Israel and the world) actions into a vehicle to his eschatological Messianic vision. This brings me to conclude that he tipped over from intellectual spiritualism (with strong elements of transcendental humanism) of the Alter Rebbe, to historicism of social and political responsibility as a spiritual existential choice. His “politicization” of Judaism accounts for an opposition from many Hassidim and Litvishers alike. (In this he seems to be close to Religious Zionists, but with much stronger emphasis on individual spiritual redemptive potential of political action, as opposed to Hegelian attitude of Rabbi Kook.)
2. The Teshuvah phenomenon. Those familiar with the way things were 35-40 years ago will attest that the Rebbe was constantly attacked by Orthodox Jewry for actively reaching out to people to whom the Halachah of Moriddin velo Ma'alin applied. He basically invented the new concept in Judaism as Tinnok Shenishba as a cultural anthropological phenomenon. From anecdotal encounters of the Ba'al Shem Tov with a simple uneducated confused Jew in Vohlin, the Rebbe turned the Teshuvah movement into a massive, international, and social phenomenon, which dramatically changed the face of Judaism. (I personally think that the Rebbe believed in the creative spark of Ba'alei Teshuvah that could revolutionize Judaism into a contemporary Jewish praxis and spirituality. It happened only partially. Ba'alei Teshuvah were encouraged by their local coaches to abandon their intuition, achievements, and spiritual quest that brought them to Judaism in the first place. They were offered Judaism not as a spiritually vibrant legacy awaiting its Renaissance, but as a folkloric lifestyle that died its assisted death in Holocaust.)
3. Universality of Judaism.
The Rebbe made his mission statement in the very beginning of his tenure: to transform Judaism from ghettoized reality that crumbled in the Holocaust into a worldwide web of Jewish communities, which transcends political division of the world. Whatever it evolved into, the idea behind it is very powerful: Defining virtual "Lubavitchland" based not on territory but on shared vision. (I believe that at this point many would come up with the "Proletarians of all countries, unite." But really it is no different than founding the United States on ideals of freedom, equality and pursuit of happiness, with basic belief that philosophical idea can be more fundamental to human society than territory or politics.)
4. Historicism of Spirituality (aka Moshiach).
This is very difficult topic, being that on one hand numerous eschatological Utopian attempts were made by Jews and non-Jews alike during the modern history - from Shabtai Zvi in the 17th century to spiritual nationalist breakaway movements in Central Europe, notably the Balkans in the first part of 19th century, and their Jewish offshoot of Rav Kook’s religious Zionism, on to Utopian dictatorships based on political religions like Communism and Nazism in the first part of 20th century, and all the way to the local Jewish phenomenon of political eschatology - creation of the state of Israel. On the other hand, the Rebbe's last years sparked controversy around his practical efforts to bring Moshiach, and their aftermath. Still, we can attempt to observe a number of philosophical underpinnings of Messianic phenomenon in modern times, and the Rebbe's place in it.
Many interpretations were given to the problem of an individual facing History, beginning with Hegel's radical objectivism that reduced man to a vehicle for the emergence of Ultimate Consciousness that fed the Austro-Hungarian Empire and its wars (Idealism that traced itself all the way back to the Plato’s dictatorial "Republic"); Nietzche’s violently emotional criticism worshiping the almost suicidal ahistorical decadent individuality of the ubermentsch; the ungodly agglomeration of Hegel and Nietzsche in form of revivalist dictatorships of Russia and Germany; and the ultimate refusal to participate in public reality of Sartre.
One theme is common to all these vastly different interpretations of man and history. It is an acute awareness of man living in the immediacy of reality and facing the nothingness - either of his own death or of the otherness of Being, and either succumbing to it (Hegel), rebelling against it (like Nietzsche and maybe Camus), disparaging it (like Sartre), romanticizing and politicizing it (like Plehanov and Heidegger), or becoming pragmatic and quietly desperate, losing faith in the possibility of real change and pursuing private, intentionally un-heroic happiness of a person who shops in WalMart, eats in McDonald’s and has nothing to say or to do about anything. (If you ask me, this is the real meaning of "She'eino Yodea Lish'ol").
In all this, the Rebbe seems to be closest to early French Existentialists, who emphasize active attempts to find Being and not just "research" it (Shlichus vs. Hisbonenus); immediacy and primacy of reality (call it G-d, or existence, or diferánce); tragic encounter between the person and his fate (accentuated by both World Wars, and for Jews, the Holocaust); participation in shared Being (being in the world as existential choice) as a form of human self-realization; dialectical relationship with G-d as the total You, in the presence of which we, previously having perceived ourselves as objects caught up in an alienated reality, become ultimate Subjects of our self-owned reality. As a practical implication of it – overcoming the duality and “nothingness” of the "other" reality and making one face its undeniable totality not as a death sentence but as life destiny. This and the concept of the Rupture of Being (a sense of the texture of reality being ruptured so that the person doesn’t have to feel excluded from it, but rather can find himself immersed in it and determine his own existence, without feeling confined by life circumstances) – allow a person to find his sense of being present in his life and experience existential freedom.
(I believe that this particular concept of rupture as it was first formulated by Lavelle, was developed later into the famous "diferánce" of Derrida –a sense of otherness as it is in G-d Himself, from which the phenomena of “reality as otherness” emerged. This idea is similar to the Kabbalistic idea of "Reshimu shebeAtzmus," which antedated the Creation as the Other to G-d).
These ideas bring one to a conclusion that active participation in the fate of this world is the ultimate form of human spirituality. Sartre took it to nihilism and terrorism (he famously was a friend of Baader, from Baader-Meinhoff, supported Stalinist regime, Arab and Algerian separatist terrorists), Heidegger took it to Nazism (he was member of National-Socialist party from 1932 till 1952, and was appointed by Hitler as Rector of Freiburg University at 1933), and today post-modernists take it to anarchism. However, the roots of this idea of individual participation are very noble. These are the ideas of social responsibility, of human determined society, of charity as a form of social reality shared by all, etc.
This sounds very close to the Rebbe's position (as opposed to other Orthodox Jewish leaders): sacrifice of intellectualism and individual personal experience together with rejection of the ghetto effect of organized religious communities, for the sake of personal action of social responsibility called Shlichus. The Rebbe was accused several times (probably based on his exposure to his brother’s ideas in their early adulthood) of being enamored with revolutionary movements that sacrificed the real, individual human being for the sake of an abstract politicized agenda. I find this inaccurate. I think that the Rebbe expounded the idea of Shlichus as a form of individual achievement that transcends the duality of subject and object, and subsequently the desperation of a person confined to his insular "pursuit of happiness".
I want to add one comment on the Rebbe’s intellectual methodology. One of the most difficult aspects of his literary work is his deconstruction of text. It reminds me of Derrida’s post-structuralism. In order to achieve dynamic reading of a text, he strips down the textual structure and the inherent connotations of words and dyads of opposite symbols to a semiotic field of unstable meanings. Derrida looked for “metaphysics of presence” that emerges not from singularly defined unitary definitions, but from the host of signs and symbols that collectively create semantic field that denotes “presence” of a concept, not the concept itself. This method reminds of the way the Rebbe would write his Ma’amorim based on citations from the Rebbe Rayatz. These are linguistic formal interpretations based on symbolic and structural analysis, or rather – deconstructionist analysis. The meaning that the Rebbe arrived to through those readings would invariably be of a different semiotic layer, thus effectively departing from formulating a metaphor with one assigned and stable meaning (as in traditional Hassidic writing), toward searching after “metaphysics of presence.” (It’s interesting to note that usually the Rebbe was arriving to “political” statements – Moshiach, Ma’ase Hu Haikar, etc., which is again total belief in undeniable realness and spiritual “practicality” of existence.) This aspect of the Rebbe’s work is strongly indicative of French intellectual influence.
- Ephraim Rosenstein, Jerusalem.
