jpr / news           Summer 2001

Europe welcomes new arts and culture initiative

May saw the launch of an important new venture — the European Association for Jewish Culture — an independent body established by JPR with the Alliance Israélite Universelle (AIU) in Paris to help create the conditions in which Jewish artistic creativity can thrive in Europe.

AIU’s Jean-Jacques Wahl, Secretary of the European Association of Jewish Culture with JPR’s Lena Stanley-Clamp, Director of the London office

Responding to a new generation of artists intent on making a distinct Jewish contribution to the arts in 21st century Europe, the European Association for Jewish Culture seeks to enhance Jewish life by fostering and supporting artistic creativity and achievement, assisting scholarly research and encouraging access to Jewish culture across Europe.

'This initiative aims to help a new generation of artists, whether they are in Manchester, Prague, Budapest, Copenhagen or Rome', said Lena Stanley-Clamp, JPR Director of Public Activities and Director of the London office of the European Association for Jewish Culture. 'It is an investment in talent and people, not buildings.'

The creation of the Association—from think-tank idea to reality—took place over a two-year period. It emerged following a series of conferences, seminars and consultations with artists and professionals from across Europe, all of whom saw the role of Jewish culture as a source of inspiration and renewal. Of equal importance was the role played by culture and the arts in representing Judaism to the wider world—especially at a time when the promotion of cultural diversity is a key policy of many European institutions.

Backed in part by a grant awarded by the European Commission Culture 2000 programme, the European Association will offer grants in the fields of the visual arts, the performing arts (theatre, music and dance), media and publishing, and scholarship and research.

'At a time when our two countries are still building their relationship in the new Europe, the establishment of the Association indicates that French and British Jews are ready not only to collaborate, but to open up real opportunities by which Jewish creativity can thrive throughout the continent', said Jean-Jacques Wahl, AIU Director General and Secretary of the Association.

Kerstin Allroth, film consultant, Copenhagen: 'I'm especially happy that the Association has decided to support new ventures in the media, which provide such a clear window to the emerging Jewish culture. This is especially critical for Jewish artists in lesser-known European countries, for whom commercial support is non-existent and government funding is already spread thin'.

Professor Andras Kovacs, Institute of Sociology, Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest:Since the collapse of the Iron Curtain there has been a flowering of Jewish subjects in academia, the arts and culture that simply was not possible in the Communist era. In Hungary, with the largest Jewish population outside of France, England and the former Soviet Union, the European Association for Jewish Culture will be important in sustaining this revival on a regular basis— and giving artists an international address for the exchange of ideas.'

Organizations associated with the new grant-making body are the Centre Européen Juif d'Information (CEJI) in Brussels, the Jewish Community of Berlin, the Jewish Museum of Prague and the Jewish Studies Programme, Central European University, in Budapest.

Further information and a schedule for the grant programme operating in 2001, as well as application procedures, can be found on the website: www.jewishcultureineurope.org

The future of religion in a divided world

This is an abridged version of the Third Annual Morris Leigh Memorial Lecture, which was delivered to a JPR audience at Chatham House in December 2000 by the Rt Reverend Richard Harries DD FKC, Bishop of Oxford, author and broadcaster. The lecture was chaired by Howard Leigh, grandson of the late Morris Leigh.

Contemporary sociologists tell us that, more often than not, modernity brings with it a resurgence—not a diminution— of religious belief. They speak of the 'de-secularization' of society. Curiously, while Europe may not appear to fit this thesis, the rest of the world certainly does. A prime example can be found in the United States, which is at once the most developed—and the most religious— country in the world.

The media assume that British life is secular, but we must be suspicious whenever that word is used. The recent 'Soul of Britain' poll conducted by the BBC revealed that 65 per cent of the UK population believe in God. Over 50 per cent believe in the existence of a soul and 76 per cent admit to having had some kind of religious experience—a discovery that surprised the pollsters themselves.

These days many people see themselves on a spiritual journey whose end is less than clear. On the other hand, the problem of evil is a major stumbling block to belief. People are also clearly cynical about religious institutions and uneasy with traditional images of God. These tendencies exist side-by-side with a greater willingness to discuss their spiritual convictions than ever before.

The Rt Rev Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, with Mrs Manja Leigh and Mr Howard Leigh

One key feature of today's secular society is that religious belief has become a matter of personal choice—a phenomenon that leads to the notion that individuals can assemble a religious portfolio from different belief systems.  Outside of Europe, globalization and industrialization have resulted in a loss of traditional identities. Consequently, religion has become an increasingly prominent player on the public scene, and issues of identity have risen to the fore.

In some countries people are rejecting modernity outright, sparking a resurgence of religion and religious conflict. Unfortunately, religion can also lead to a certain triumphalism, with religion, nationalism and patriotism reinforcing each other. Yet it would be wrong to conclude that religion causes war. What can—and frequently does—happen is that religion is exploited in conflict situations, raising tensions and inviting extremist behaviour.

Religion could become a major policy former in the UK Paradoxically, the present Labour government has more card-carrying religious believers than at any time since the Second World War. This fact seldom surfaces in the media.

This stands in contrast with the United States, where religious language is part of the public and political discourse. The British are reluctant to bring religion into the public arena. There are signs that this may be changing, however. Vocal, well-organized opposition to such issues as the repeal of Section 28, therapeutic cloning, and the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals indicates that religion could become a major policy former in the UK.

Christianity should not be confined to the inward personal sphere. It should always have a political and economic expression if it is to be true to itself. The Church has always concerned itself with health and education. While the State has increasingly taken over these traditional roles, the Church has never given them up.

Published in April 2001 in association with Aston Business School, JPR's latest report, Governance in the Jewish voluntary sector, examines the voluntary leadership of the UK Jewish community. The Jewish voluntary sector comprises more than 2,000 organizations including social welfare agencies, membership associations, synagogues, fundraising charities, schools, museums, grant- making trusts and representative bodies.

The report is written by Margaret Harris, Professor of Voluntary Sector Organization and Chair of the Centre for Voluntary Action Research at Aston Business School, Birmingham, together with Colin Rochester, Principal Lecturer in Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Management at the University of Surrey, Roehampton. Professor Harris said: 'As researchers we were struck by the high levels of commitment shown by the members of Jewish governing bodies. They face the same challenges as the broader UK voluntary sector, as well as specific additional issues which reflect the nature of the UK Jewish community'.

The report aims to assist the Jewish community in the running of its voluntary agencies. As a part of JPR's ongoing project on Long-term Planning for British Jewry, it will provide a solid foundation on which the UK Jewish voluntary sector can plan for the future.

Amongst the report's key points are: 

• The shrinking volunteer base and the push to create government-third sector 'partnerships' put additional emphasis on the need for collaboration andco- operation within the Jewish voluntary sector.
• A paramount concern is attracting young volunteers onto the boards of Jewish organizations—a problem shared by the general third sector, but compounded in the Jewish community by an intense competition for resources.
• This competition is intensified by the fact that 'the pool of people on which to draw is itself small and shrinking rapidly and internal religious differences further reduce the number of potential newcomers.'
• As Jews assimilate into 'mainstream' British society, the less interest they have in devoting their leisure time to specifically Jewish causes.
• To meet the challenge of leadership succession, Jewish voluntary organizations may need to take a 'more systematic approach' to volunteer recruitment and leadership development.

'This latest report comes out at an auspicious time, when all three political parties are emphasizing the importance of charitable organizations,' said JPR Director Professor Kosmin. Governance has emerged as a growing concern in public policy debate—especially in the context of community building. This report provides a new window on how this key component of the voluntary sector actually works'.

Access Governance in the Jewish voluntary sector on-line version. Alternatively you can obtain a copy of the report from JPR at £7.50.

Up-to-date information on the socio-demographic profile of Jews in Europe is patchy and inadequate for vital social planning purposes. To rectify this information gap would require a co-ordinated effort on the part of researchers and the backing of Jewish leaders and funders.

Socio-demographic experts at work at the international seminar at JPR.

To set this in motion, the Yad Hanadiv Foundation sponsored a two-day international seminar for experts, held at JPR in April, to discuss the theory and practice of a European-wide survey and to devise a feasibility study. The seminar was undertaken in conjunction with the Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University. Jointly chaired by Professor Sergio DellaPergola, Chairman of the A. Harman Institute and JPR Director, Professor Barry Kosmin, the seminar reviewed the situation in each country in terms of data availability, discussed the contents and methodologies of socio-demographic surveys, as well as the political, communal and financial issues affecting their feasibility.

The meeting was attended by twenty-five leading experts on Jewish population research from universities, research institutes and major international Jewish organisations in the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Hungary, Russia, the United States and Israel.

Three main approaches were discussed:

• A European Jewish panel study, consisting of a representative sample of European Jewish households that would be interviewed annually on a variety of topics. 
• A Europe-wide Jewish cross-sectional study, consisting of a coordinated survey on a representative sample of Jews in Europe, conducted at the same time. 
• A coordinated series of national Jewish Population Studies spread over time in various countries.

Further developments in this field will be reported in future issues.

This was the subject of an animated discussion held at the Roundhouse in February featuring Dr Anthony Julius, eminent lawyer and author, and painter David Breuer-Weil. The evening was chaired by John Russell Taylor, art critic of The Times and took place against the dramatic backdrop of David Breuer-Weil's paintings, which were exhibited in the Undercroft. This dialogue was held within the framework of JPR's programme on Jewish culture, and more specifically, its Visual Arts Forum.

From left: Dr Anthony Julius and John Russell Taylor in front of David Breuer-Weil’s painting entitled ‘Bookhead’

In a contribution to the debate on what defines contemporary Jewish art, Anthony Julius presented the thesis developed in his recent book Idolizing Pictures: Idolatry, Iconoclasm and Jewish Art (Thames & Hudson, 2001). For Anthony Julius, Jewish art—when considered from the perspective of the Torah—is almost an oxymoron. At the very least, it could be seen as a problematic concept in light of the Second Commandment, which forbids the making of graven images.

He chose to examine the nature of contemporary Jewish art and the role of the Jewish artist by posing several questions. Given that incarnation—the solution provided by Christian theology—was clearly not an acceptable means of resolving the challenge of the Second Commandment, was there an alternative way to resolve it? Did Jewish art always have to constitute a contradiction in terms? Must a Jewish artist repudiate his religious origins?

For many Jewish artists, said Julius, such repudiation was felt to be the only option—even in the 20th century. Moreover, many Jewish artists felt forced to part company with Judaism because of their communities' distrust of the visual arts as an acceptable occupation. Chagall's own great-uncle refused to shake the artist's hand because he felt that the painter had violated Biblical law.

In what sense could the Second Commandment be understood not as prohibiting the practice of visual arts, but rather as an enabling aesthetic? For Anthony Julius, there were three possible routes that a Jewish artist could pursue:

• Aniconic art: This type of art avoids the figurative or representational and remains strictly abstract. It is often said that art only became available to Jews at the end of the 19th century, with the emergence of abstract art, which, by definition, did not challenge the Second Commandment.
• Iconic art: This type of art constitutes a paradox for the Jewish artist. On the one hand, the 'icon' is prohibited by the Second Commandment. On the other, it becomes acceptable if it is subordinated to a larger religious purpose. In Julius' opinion, iconic art has made its peace with the Second Commandment, but has done so too quickly; too much of iconic art in the Jewish world is sub-art kitsch—for example, the many pictures of rabbis that abound. This 'approved' Jewish art was easy, too ready available and there was little of any real quality.
• Iconoclastic art: This type of art sets out to attack the icon. In fact, in Anthony Julius' opinion, it is the only truly legitimate type of Jewish art. It is an art of irony, which takes the obligation to destroy idols seriously. Some Russian Jewish artists and contemporary Israeli artists produce interesting art in this category.

How does David Breuer-Weil's work fit these categories? 
For Anthony Julius, the art of David Breuer-Weil poses several challenges. While appearing representational, it is not subordinated to a religious purpose. In some respects it can be classified as Jewish art because many of his images (books, for example) depict Jewish artefacts. His art also bears witness to the Holocaust, which lives on the borders of his work. Many of his paintings reveal a sense of alienation, desolation and loss. However, Anthony Julius felt that, in a sense, it was still too early to paint the Holocaust symbolically; the historians must first have their say about the Holocaust before the artist can begin to do so, and this process of reflection has still not been concluded.

In fact, said Julius, David Breuer-Weil's art combined two types of Jewish art. 'In essence, David has created a kind of "anti-iconic iconoclastic art", that is both figurative and non-representational at the same time'.

A response to Anthony Julius: David Breuer-Weil in his own words

Anthony Julius has identified an important feature of Jewish art—the instinctive desire to be iconoclastic. For me, this is part of a complex phenomenon, one that is conceptually linked to the tradition-based aversion to idolatry. Iconoclasm plays itself out in several intriguing ways. For example, I have discovered that many Jewish artists of my generation find it hard to accept contemporary artistic orthodoxies. One such orthodoxy is the notion that art has to be 'cutting edge'—an idea that has become so locked-in that it has created an academic rigidity rarely seen since the salon painting of the 19th century.

David Breuer-Weil in front of Descent I

The result? Instead of wanting to be the next spot on a line of modern art history, artists of the new generation have taken the entire metaphorical line and thrown it away.

The debate got off to a controversial start when Professor Pollock asked if there should be a Jewish museum of art at all. With a momentary lull in the tide of antisemitism and the general waning of Jewish religious life and identity, was there a need for such a museum? Beyond the Jewish community, identities were being debated and reconstituted in all sorts of forms. For whom should such a museum be set up?

For the non-Jewish world, she thought the word 'Jewish' evoked death (the Holocaust) and conflict (Israel). The Jewish world needed scholarship and art, which are both crucial forces for the future.

Tom Freudenheim described his approach on this issue as 'fence-sitting'. While some could say that seeing art in a Jewish setting amounted to segregation, he saw it as viewing different artists in different contexts.

In the end, a near-consensus was reached. The majority of the panellists believed that a Jewish art museum should be given a chance in the UK. However, to make it viable would require a dynamic leader with a vision and a massive investment of resources.

In March, Fred Lawrence, Professor of Law at Boston University School of Law and author of Punishing Hate was the guest speaker at a JPR policy seminar, together with JPR Civil Society Fellow, Dr Paul Iganski, Lecturer in Sociology and Criminology at the University of Essex.

The seminar was chaired by JPR Director Professor Barry Kosmin, and came within the framework of the Institute's Civil Society programme. Participants included Andy Barton of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, New Scotland Yard, Neil Stevenson of the Race Equality Unit, The Home Office, Elizabeth Burney, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Mike Whine, Director of Defence Policy & Group Relations, the Board of Deputies and Professor Larry Ray of the University of Kent.

Dr Paul Iganski (left) with Professor Fred Lawrence at the JPR policy seminar

Professor Lawrence expressed surprise at the speed with which the climate in the UK had changed in the past few years relating to hate crime legislation. Defining a bias crime as an act of prejudice based on a negative, stereotypical view of the victim, he explained that an act of racism always required both a social context and a social fissure line—a line along which society divides in a dangerous way. By the very act of framing a bias crime law, social fissure lines can be located.

According to Professor Lawrence, the Stephen Lawrence inquiry changed the way such issues were perceived and a separate law was seen to be necessary. Since then, there had been a palpable transformation in the self-understanding of Britain as a multi-faith society. Compared to the United States, where 'hyphenated identity' was the norm, the UK was much more reluctant to accept its multi-cultural reality.

Professor Lawrence outlined two major challenges for the future: the need to find an appropriate role for the criminal justice system on the issue of bias, and the need to locate society's fissure lines. In his view, this was a very healthy process for a legislature to undergo, requiring such crucial issues as sexual orientation, religion and free expression to be fully explored.

Paul Iganski noted that, while there had been much opposition to the introduction of hate crime laws in the United States, there was little debate in the UK. From the research he had conducted in the USA, he concluded that hate crimes hurt individuals more than the same crime carried out without racial motivation. He described hate crimes as 'message crimes', impacting not only on the individual, but also on an entire neighbourhood and community. Often secondary victims demonstrated acute reactions to trauma although they themselves had not been personally affected.

How do hate crimes hurt more?

Dr Iganski distinguished between psychic injury—where the hurt is greater because of the hatred shown, and the in terrorem effect—the behavioural impact on the victim.A member of a targeted community can do nothing to make himself less vulnerable to attack, and this makes it all the more terrifying.

Professor Lawrence pointed out that criminal law was not the only means to deal with hate crime—public education was also very effective. The most successful programmes in the United States were youth projects for offenders, particularly team sports.

According to Elizabeth Burney, face-to-face restorative justice and a formal apology could resolve many situations, and be used in some circumstances instead of prosecution.

Professor Lawrence highlighted another unexpected contrast between the US and the UK: hate crimes are under-reported in the States, while in the UK, there are five times more reported incidents than in the whole of the US.

Future JPR seminars will explore the associated issues of football racism and 'yob culture'.

---

Visit Antisemitism and Xenophobia Today on-line...

The website provides an online country-by-country examination of racism, xenophobia and, especially, antisemitism, against a backdrop of the more general social and political contexts in which such manifestations occur.

Until recently, access to this publication was only available through JPR's main website, but now it has its own domain at www.axt.org.uk and is currently attracting an average of 6,000 visitors per month from all over the world.

Furthermore, AXT is increasingly taking advantage of the facilities that are available to Internet publications, as a glance at the most recent entries to be updated will show: the Russia and Norway entries contain numerous hyperlinks to related websites around the world.

Updates on Russia and Norway

According to the latest entry on Russia, electoral support for extreme national-patriotic groups is dwindling, but the ideas and rhetoric of extremist groups are spreading more widely. Public support for the war against Chechnya and the public response to NATO air strikes in the former Yugoslavia might also be interpreted as reflecting a significant degree of sympathy for the 'national-patriotic' cause. Increased xenophobia and racism in Russian society as a result of the war in Chechnya have also given cause for concern, as has the antisemitic rhetoric of Chechen warlords.

The Norway entry concludes that, although the country remains a tolerant one where human rights and civil liberties are well respected, xenophobic attitudes are becoming more acceptable. The small immigrant and ethnic minority populations have increasingly reported incidents of discrimination. The increasingly popular Progress Party offers immigration as the explanation for all social problems and is now the third largest party in parliament. This is the first time since the Second World War that a populist party has gained a foothold in Norwegian politics.

---

Students visit JPR

Sixth-formers from King Solomon High School in Ilford, visited JPR with their headmaster, Alistair Falk, to find out about JPR’s social research for their own project work.

---

Behind the covers of Patterns of Prejudice

The April 2001 edition of JPR's quarterly journal Patterns of Prejudice is a special issue on the history of anthropology, guest edited by Dan Stone, a lecturer in history at Royal Holloway College, University of London. Stone argues that anthropology, in its earliest forms at least, was devoted to creating a science out of the studying and classifying of human beings and human culture. And one of its principal categories was race.

The articles focus on pieces of anthropological research that are perhaps implicated to some degree in the racialization of humanity that would prove so catastrophic in later decades. Scott Ashley writes about an ethnographic survey of the Aran Islanders in the 1890s, and Paul Cocks about the work of missionary-cum- anthropologist Edwin Smith in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) in the first decades of the twentieth century.

Dan Stone asks what the relationship might be between the work of early German anthropologists and the appalling genocide of the Herero people that was perpetrated in German South West Africa in 1904-5. A seemingly unlikely comparison is made between the genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda by Scott Straus, positing a similarity between the myths of racial superiority—in part based on previous anthropological theories—that drove those massacres.

The issue ends with Adam Kuper's Afterword, in which he argues that many of the retrospective accusations laid at the door of anthropology—including some in the preceding articles—are misplaced, reductive and ahistorical, and that early anthropologists have undeservedly become today's 'usual suspects'. The next issue of Patterns of Prejudice (July 2001) is an open forum issue, and will include Michael Billig and Jovan Byford on the emergence of antisemitic conspiracy theories in the Yugoslav press during the recent war with NATO, Stefano Luconi on the response of Italian Americans to war-time Fascist antisemitism, Jeffrey Kaplan on the growing occult element in neo-Nazism, and Danny Ben-Moshe on the Australian One Nation party and its links with the far right.

Patterns of Prejudice is produced in association with Parkes Centre, University of Southampton, and published by Sage.

For information about subscriptions please contact Sage Publications, 6 Bonhill Street, London EC2A 4PU, tel: 020 7374 0645, fax: 020 7374 8741, or see the website: www.sagepub.co.uk.