On Religiosity and Super-Religiosity (I): Measures of Radical Religion

Gideon Aran Department of Sociology & Anthropology Hebrew University, Jerusalem Mt Scopus, 9 9!" #srael$ msaran%mscc$hu&i$ac$il

Abstract This essay submits a thesis on radical religion, discusses the measures of religion and proposes the concept of Super-Religiosity. It will be followed by a second essay (in an upcoming issue of 'umen, 4, 2 !"# that presents a contemporary $case% to which the analytic model of Super-Religiosity is applied. Though the two essays systematically relate to each other and are complementary, they can be read independently of one another. The theoretical core of the essay addresses the issue of the measurability of religiosity. It supports the recent claim that religion in general and religious e&tremism in particular, is not so much a matter of belief or e&perience but rather it is essentially a matter of performance of the self and the group. It then argues that ad'ancing our understanding of religious e&tremism re(uires turning the spotlight from a performance oriented towards religion)s en'ironment to religious inward-facing performance. It further maintains that religious e&tremism)s center of gra'ity is the in-group dynamics of competition o'er religious e&cellence rather than (rational choice# competition o'er e&ternal resources. *inally, the paper proposes a measure of religiosity+ one used by the practitioners of religion themsel'es. The religious group at the empirical focus of the essay is the ,ewish -ltra-.rthodo& in contemporary Israel, /nown as 0aredim. 1ore precisely, the essay describes and analy2es the hard core of the 0aredi society that manifests religious e&tremism. It offers a comprehensi'e and methodic picture of 0aredi society based on a critical sur'ey of the literature, combined with e&amination of updated data into which findings of an e&tensi'e field research are integrated. The discussion of the 0aredi world is harnessed to the effort to deconstruct and ree'aluate the pre'alent concepts of tradition and fundamentalism, and suggest new perspecti'e on scaling religiosity and on high-scale religiosity. Keywords Religious 3&tremism4 Scaling Religiosity4 Traditionalism4 *undamentalism4 5ast 6 5resent ,udaism4 -ltra-.rthodo&y (0aredim#

On Religiosity and Super-Religiosity: Measures of Radical Religion

7ideon 8ran

(reface) 1y wor/ on Super-Religiosity consists of two parts. The present essay which is theoretical and methodological in nature presents a thesis on radical religion and discusses the measures of religion. The ne&t essay ('umen, forthcoming 2 !"# presents an empirical $case% to which the analytic model of Super-Religiosity is applied. The first essay may ser'e as a conceptual and analytic introduction to the second, while the latter one may ser'e as an illustration and test of the former. The religious group at the empirical focus of the two essays is the ,ewish -ltra.rthodo& in contemporary Israel, /nown as 0aredim. 1ore precisely, the wor/ on SuperReligiosity depicts and analy2es the hard core of the 0aredi society that manifests religious e&tremism. The discussion of the 0aredi world is harnessed to the effort to deconstruct and ree'aluate the pre'alent concepts of tradition and fundamentalism, and suggest new perspecti'e on scaling religiosity and on high-scale religiosity. I tend to support the recent claim that religion in general and religious e&tremism in particular, is not so much a matter of belief or e&perience but rather it is essentially a matter of performance of the self and the group (e.g., 8sad !99"#. I will argue that ad'ancing our understanding of religious e&tremism re(uires turning the spotlight from a performance oriented towards religion)s en'ironment to religious inward facing performance. I will further maintain that religious e&tremism)s center of gra'ity is the ingroup dynamics of competition o'er religious e&cellence rather than (rational choice# competition o'er e&ternal resources. *inally, I propose a measure of religiosity+ one used by the practitioners of religion themsel'es. The core of the article addresses the issue of the measurability of religiosity by de'eloping a multi-dimensional model that measures religiosity, or rather, suggesting a

system of parameters that defines the degree of radicalism of religious performance. I aspire to redefine radical religiosity with a two-pronged approach. *irst, I challenge the pre'alent models of religious radicalism that tend to be reduced to the mono-theme of the potentiality of conflict between religious groups and the world that surrounds them. The article)s contention implies additional, more subtle elements of religious radicalism. The second point of departure is the obser'ation that religious indi'iduals and collecti'es are preoccupied with (uestions regarding the degree of their religiosity compared to that of others. .ne can detect in the religious world arch-typical sophisticated scales of religiosity that are of heuristic 'alue. The obser'ed phenomenon guides the construction of an ideal-type of religious radicalism. This hypothetical construct pro'ides a foundation for a comparati'e program. The application of the suggested model depicts the 0aredim as 'ery religious, e'en religiously e&treme, and as haunted by the perple&ities of the assessment of their religiosity, which is challenged by inner tension and rapid change. I propose rethin/ing both Religious Radicalism and ,ewish -ltra-.rthodo&y. This is conducted through an ethnographic study of a particular 0aredi institution titled :a;8 (0ebrew acronym for <isaster =ictim Identification#. It is a 'olunteer organi2ation founded in the !99 s in the wa/e of a series of 5alestinian terror attac/s, dedicated to caring for the bodies of the dead after a bombing and ensuring their proper religious burial (Stadler et al. 2 >#. :a;8 leaders and acti'ists are e&clusi'ely ultra-orthodo& ,ews. :a;8 is essentially a 0aredi enterprise, reflecting the fundamental features of 0aredi society and culture including its heterogeneity, typical inner tensions, and current transformation. This study of 0aredim is e(ui'alent and complimentary to my pre'ious study of another ,ewish radical religious group in Israel, namely 7ush 3munin (The ?loc of the *aithful. 0enceforth+ 73#, or rather the messianic hard core of the ultra-:ionist Right wing settler mo'ement in the @est ?an/ (8ran !9AB#. ?oth 0aredim and 73 are resourceful and thri'ing re'i'al mo'ements that burst into ,ewish public life in the last generations and left a decisi'e imprint upon it. These two religious phenomena are /nown as the two brands of ,ewish *undamentalism. The two e&emplify entirely different 'ersions of Super-Religiosity. 1y study of 73 is also based on fieldwor/, mostly three years of participant obser'ation. Some subtle yet potentially e&plosi'e "

matters analy2ed in these two research proCects and their main thrust ha'e been crystalli2ed, to a large degree, while the True ?elie'ers were my capti'e dialoguepartners, densely enclosed with me alone in a small car, dri'ing long distances late at night. It was in this tra'eling confessional bo& of 0aredi men that the following conception of ,ewish -ltra-.rthodo&y in general, and the thesis on Super-Religiosity in particular, was subCect to scrupulous e&aminations. <uring one of those nocturnal rides, on the way bac/ from some horrific terror scene, an animated con'ersation bro/e out concerning what moti'ates the 5alestinian suicide bombers. Daturally enough, the 0aredi :a;8 'olunteers e&pressed much rage and disgust towards the terrorists. They ascribed the latter)s e'il and brutality to their $inferior 1uslim religiosity.% ?ut then, one of the young -ltra-.rthodo& ,ews in the car hesitantly 'entured a daring speculation that the bomber who sacrificed his life for a cause he considers sacred acted out a superior /ind of religiosity, may be e'en more ele'ated than their own. 8 tense moment of complete silence followed. 8n&iety, embarrassment and bewilderment pre'ailed. .ne could sense traces of reser'ed admiration, a shadow of repressed en'y. 8t that moment the present study was born. Soon after this rare occasion of awe and self-awareness the li'ely con'ersation was re/indled, 'ocal, flowing and assured.

Degrees of *eligiosity It is said that some people are religious, some are 'ery religious, and some e'en more so. This might sound ridiculous, strange or outrageous to many. Dot so for 'arious religious groups, including .rthodo&, and particularly -ltra-.rthodo& ,ews. The -ltra-.rthodo& community of ,ews in Israel is regarded as representing anything from paragon to radical religiosity. This stands in contradistinction to standard religiosity, which con'entional wisdom hold is moderate and ci'ili2ed, related to the establishment, and mainstream. @hile a large proportion of Israeli .rthodo& is in fact located in the range of $normal% religiosity, only a minority among them are truly emancipated from a charged position towards the -ltra-.rthodo& (and the secular#.

8ccording to idiomatic diagnosis, local ,ews are either cha+ir trefe or meshuge frum$ Translated from Eiddish, they are either abhorred piggish filth eaters (as far as you can go in the 'iolation of /ashrut#, or, in contrast, cra2y punctilious rituali2ers. Some mainstream religious Israelis are frustrated by the polar alternati'es concei'ed as abomination and madness. 8 genuine solid conception of ideal religiosity as a matter of middle way is much less pre'alent than could be e&pected. 8dherents to this e&treme group, many of its religious opponents, and, curiously enough, secular ,ews as well, see in -ltra-.rthodo&y the embodiment of $high-degree religiosity,% or, $religiosity par e&cellence.% The notion of being more religious, or 'ery religious, in the eyes of the -ltra-.rthodo& as well as among others, gi'es the former a uni(ue and authoritati'e standing. 1ost .rthodo& ,ews--of all types--accept this perception, thereby relegating themsel'es to a lesser religiosity, a somewhat apologetic 'iew of their own le'el of obser'ance alongside awe for that of their more religious counterparts, one that relates to the religiosity of the latter as a point of reference for which they yearn and according to which they conduct themsel'es. Though criticism of the -ltra-.rthodo& on a wide range of issues is not uncommon, their supremacy in the religious realm is indisputable and the admiration they recei'e from other ,ews is undeniable. 3'en those labeled 1odern ,ews whose li'es are guided by $enlightened% 'alues are ambi'alent in their feelings toward the -ltra-.rthodo&. @hen 1odern ( neo# .rthodo& ,ews in Israel, especially those who are regarded as maintaining a $feeble% religiosity, wish to embar/ on a path toward greater religious obser'ance, they essentially are on a Courney to becoming -ltra-.rthodo&. This phenomenon is /nown as hitcha+,ut (strengthening#. There is e&plicit discourse in the -ltra-.rthodo& world regarding le'els of religiosity (ma-regot#, including informal distinctions between high, low, and intermediate degrees (benoniyyim#. .ne)s le'el of religiosity is regarded throughout the -ltra-.rthodo& community as intertwined with one)s professional-scholarly career. Those who e&cel at studying ,ewish te&ts and ta/e on Torah study as a full-time Cob to the e&tent that it precludes their engaging in any other occupation (.almi-ei Ha,hamim she/.oratam Umanutam# are considered, together with their families, to be at the top of

>

the hierarchy. Those who hold Cobs and engage in Torah study for only a few hours perwee/, usually in the e'ening and on the Sabbath, are one step below and find their places in the middle of the hierarchy ( 0alebatim#. *inally, those who do not engage in formal Torah study are labeled as ignoramuses ( amarat+im#, and notwithstanding their daily prayers and moral way-of-life find themsel'es ran/ed at the bottom. The guiding presumption of the hierarchy is that one)s scholarly ran/ing will be consonant with one)s stringency in the obser'ance of all of the commandments.! There e&ist other religiosity ran/ing systems in the -ltra-.rthodo& world, including intersecting systems as well as subcategories of the aforementioned gradation. In general, one may obser'e in the -ltra.rthodo& community concentric circles of religiosity. 8s one ad'ances from the periphery toward the center, the le'el of religiosity becomes ele'ated and intensified. -ltra-.rthodo& culture embraces elaborate, high-resolution scales of religiosity. 8 prominent e&ample is the hierarchy among those institutions which issue /ashrut certification, particularly when it comes to the certification of ritual slaughter. *irst, there e&ists a fundamental distinction between $regular% /ashrut and $special% /ashrut for the stringent (meha-rin#, popularly referred to by the Eiddish designation 1latt (Smooth#. $Regular% /ashrut is deemed sufficient for Israeli ,ews at large, including a decisi'e maCority of the .rthodo&. 2 The -ltra-.rthodo&, on the other hand, find $regular% /ashrut insufficient, and prefer the $special% certification instead despite added e&penses and hassles. ?ut e'en this special le'el of certification has its own internal religiosity ran/ing system, the intricacies of which are /nown only to e&perts within the community. The stamp of /ashrut issued by the Hare-i ,erusalem Rabbinate is not satisfactory for certain members of the -ltra-.rthodo& community and some will prefer the certification of the 2-ah Hare-it (0a-at+#. *or many -ltra-.rthodo& the certifying body upon which they rely for /ashrut is determined by affiliation with certain sects or loyalty to specific
!

This statement needs some (ualification+ among Fithuanian Eeshi'a students there is a distinct inde& for scholarship and a separate one for obser'ance (frum,eit#. 2 This /ashrut is under the auspices of the Ghief Rabbinate of Israel, a wholly .rthodo& entity led by -ltra.rthodo& rabbis, but deri'ing its authority and funding from the State of Israel.

rabbinical authorities (?el2, Fandau, Rubin, etc.# reputed as upholding different standards of stringency." These /ashrut ran/ings are subCect to constant change, contro'ersy, and negotiation. Rarely does the (uestion of (uantifying religiosity stand alone without being affected by issues of prestige or financial and political considerations. .n the -ltra-.rthodo& street there is tal/ of the $table test%+ who can--or cannot-eat at whose homes in the community. The stronger or more radical one)s ,udaism, the fewer homes where one may eat. 8 clear-cut pyramid emerges designating rising le'els of religiosity. 8n association with the 0indu food-taboo system is una'oidable. 4 The ,ewish case of food stringency, rather than reflecting a rigid hierarchy of castes, is a metonym for the measurability of religiosity. @hat is the meaning of $more% or $less% religious, or $'ery% religiousI Is religiosity indeed a 'ariable which may assume 'arious (uantifiable 'alues and be compared to 'alues of other religiosities, with the possibility of competition between themI Is it possible that in addition to hori2ontal differentiation between types of religiosity according to 'arious criteria (e.g. church - sect#, there also e&ists 'ertical differentiation based on degreeI 8nd what happens when within one social group alternati'e scales of religiosity e'ol'eI @hat is the purpose of or moti'e for distinguishing between superior and inferior le'els of religiosityI To what e&tent are these distinctions connected to (uestions regarding religious e&cellence, perfection, or 'irtuosityI 8nd, of course, how does all this relate to the issues of religious e&tremism or moderationI *inally, is there an interface or correlation between the aforementioned 'alues of religiosity and particular religionsI > @e should note that degrees of religiosity are not an essentialist deri'ati'e, but rather a social construction. These le'els are not to
"

*or e&ample, there are those who debate whether the certification of She3erit 4isra3el (an institution with the approbation of the Fithuanian community# is preferable o'er that of 0a-at+. 4 The Indian traditional stratification system relates comple& set of rituals J mostly eating and food taboos J to social status. Relations concerning purity (who can eat with whom# are correlated with relations concerning power (who is o'er and who is under#. (e.g., <umont !9A 4 ?ayly !9994 @atson and Galdwell 2 >#. > *or e&ample, $8re 1uslims more religious than non-1uslimsI% This (uestion is posed by *ish (2 !!#. 0is answer is negati'e (2 !!a#.

be e&amined outside of their historical, political, or other rele'ant conte&ts. Inter- and intra-religious competitions are recogni2ed phenomena. 7enerally spea/ing, they are seen as antagonisms re'ol'ing around religious $truth,% monopoli2ation of the claim to the original message, possession of the fundamentals (as well as struggles for control o'er sacred sites and offices.# (e.g., 7opal !9924 Reichler !99B4 5artner !99A4 Seal !9994 ,uergensmeyer 2 4 0assner 2 9#. 8t times these conflicts escalate to 0oly @ars, Religious @ars, Grusades. ,ihad, etc. In our case, though, we are spea/ing of competition between partners who might share a religious doctrine, who do not necessarily ha'e e&egetical disagreements or o'ert ri'alries o'er pri'ileges and positions of prestige and authority. 1oreo'er, we are concerned here with a contest which is not concei'ed in $2ero-sum% terms, and conse(uently is not necessarily militant, let alone physically 'iolent, but more restrained and subtle, reminiscent of 'arious social competitions in ethnic or class groups+ who is more patriotic, more aristocratic and so forth. The present issue relates not merely to world'iew or power, but also to performance. Thus, in ,udaism - clearly a performati'e religious culture J one should e&pect relati'ely e&plicit scaling. The ,ewish case is indeed especially appropriate for testing hypotheses about religious scaling and illustrating it. Daturally different religions might 'ary in their understanding of the issue of scaling and in their manifestation thereof. <iscussions about religiosity le'els ta/e place in a 'ariety of religious subcultures. *ormulations such as $more% or $less% religious are li/ely to hide widespread e&periences among the religious, a basic need of sorts, perhaps a religious instinct, manifestations of which--despite their general repudiation--are both e'ident and intriguing. .bser'ing 'arious religious people and communities, one comes away with the impression that religion is haunted by (uestions regarding the le'els of its religiosity, primarily in relati'e terms. It seems that religiosity must contend with an almost obsessi'e procli'ity for locating itself on some sort of ladder and has become engrossed in a struggle with its competitors for one-upmanship or bragging rights o'er record

obser'ance.H .ur e&amination will be limited to the three maCor monotheistic faiths. Similar to the -ltra-.rthodo& ,ews are their parallel-competitors in Israel, the right-wing nationalist .rthodo& (/nown by the acronym Har-al#, as well as the 1uslim ?rotherhood in the Sunni countries of the 1iddle 3ast (e.g., 1itchell !99"4 ;epel 2 "#, the 5rotestant ?ible ?elie'ers 3'angelists in the -nited States, 0olland, and 7ermany (e.g., 8mmerman !99B#, and Gatholic groups such as the Italian 5ommunion e 6ibera+ione (:adra !994#. 8ll these groups share the unwa'ering endea'or to increase their religiosity, in relation to both themsel'es as well as to the religiosity of others.B Such a religious culture that stri'es for perfection has been labeled by ,ews in Israel as a-i7ut (0eb. fer'ent4 the -ltra.rthodo& use the Eiddish term frum,eit#. *or 1uslims, the 8rabic term used is tasha--u- (primarily among members of those circles thought to be enlightened#. In the case of Ghristians, the terms utili2ed are re'erence, de'otion, and other synonyms with 'arious connotations, such as piety. The Ghristian and 1uslim analog to the $'ery religious,% much li/e the ,ewish -ltra-.rthodo&, are referred to in their internal languages as the Ford)s faithful, /eepers of the legacy, and often saints. A Those who ha'e pretensions of maintaining a higher religiosity see themsel'es as the sole $true% belie'ers, and conse(uently, as possessors of a monopoly on the right to be called by the name of their greater religion. This in contrast with their brethren, the maCority, who technically share the same religion, though merely as nominal Ghristians, ,ews, and 1uslims. 1uch li/e the islamiyun (not to be confused with $1uslims%#, the -ltra-.rthodo& refer to themsel'es in Eiddish as 4i--en -- simply ,ews. 8nalysis of religiosity as a characteristic which may manifest in different degrees, higher or lower, relates both to the (uestion of the 'ery empirical e&istence of the phenomenon, i.e., the actual application of religiosity inde&es among the religious, as well as to the (uestion of the theoretical 'alue and methodological 'alidity--that is, the heuristic functionality--of analy2ing the measurability of religiosity. There is an o'erlap between the scholarly interest in ($obCecti'e%# measurability and the religious impulse
H

Gompare to Sosis) idea of Signaling+ a sort of innate need to show-off an ad'antage o'er fellow members of the group in terms of their (potential# contribution to the welfare or security of the collecti'ity (who is the superior male in the hordeK# (e.g., Sosis 2 H#. B 8n interesting comparable case is that of the !Ath century 5ietists. A In 0ebrew+ .+a-i,im or 8hasi-im.

(subCecti'e e'aluation# to tac/le the issue of religiosity le'els. This topic recei'es less than its deser'ed attention in academic discussions of contemporary religion.9

*esearch on *eligious 9ariation The psychology of religion has been dominated by issues of measurement. Dot only ha'e psychologists of religion long recogni2ed the importance of good measurement and ha'e placed a high priority on it, but in the !9A s a leading specialist in the field pronounced measurement to be the current hegemonic paradigm, that is, the foremost perspecti'e or concern of psychologists of religion (7orsuch !9A4#. In the !99 s a widely-read te&tboo/ in the psychology of religion identified !2> measurement scales a'ailable to psychologists of religion(0eel and 0ood 2 reasonably reliable and 'alid (0ood et al. 2 9#. 1any more ha'e been de'eloped e'er 9#.! The abo'e is in contrast to the state of since and the rich professional literature claims that on the whole measurement scales are the art in the sociology and anthropology of religion. The issue of religious measurability in disciplines still inspired by @eber and <ur/heim is in need of further empirical research and conceptual refinement. The social scientific study of religion literature seems to ac/nowledge the significance of the issue, but its treatment is mainly implicit, partial and dated. 8 noteworthy e&ception which is highly rele'ant to the present argument is the Star/ 6 7loc/ School of sociology of religion (7loc/ and Star/ !9H>#. Its foundations go bac/ to the !9H s and it arri'ed at the 2enith of its influence during the !9B -A s when many such studies were based on analy2ing the Dational Sur'ey data, while in the !99 s basically one wor/, impressi'e in itself, represented this producti'e research legacy. In an ambitious research proCect, ?ainbridge (!99B# e&amined answers to 7SS (uestionnaires along a se(uence of twenty years in an attempt to measure 8merican religiosity. *or this purpose he used a model J (uite self-e'ident by now J that distinguishes between
9

*or an e&ception see Spiro (!9AB#. 8n e&amination of scales of ,ewish religiosity in Israel may be partially and implicitly found in ;at2 et al. (2 #. ! The $reliability% and $'alidity% of the scales were found satisfactory though most measures are selfreported scales.

different dimensions of religion (e.g., 1c7uire !992#.!! In his study of religious mo'ements he discussed fi'e 'ariables indicating the degree of religiosity of an indi'idual or a group in different aspects of religion. The first is Religious ?elief+ the reported willingness to accept with no reser'ations the tenets of a religion ((dogma, theological principles etc#. The second is Religious 5ractice+ religion-related beha'ior, that is, rituals or cultic actions. The third is Religious ;nowledge+ ac(uaintance with the essential information about religion (mastery of the bible, e&pertise in the details of rites etc#. The fourth is Religious 3&perience+ authentic subCecti'e sense of the presence of the sacred. The fifth is Religious 3thos or Gonse(uentiality+ the impact of religious commitment on the 'alues and norms that guide the life of belie'ers (e.g. the degree that one)s choice of spouse, profession, children)s school, political party is determined by his religiosity#. 8nalysis of the findings of studies that measure the different dimensions of religiosity promotes our understanding of the nature of religion but shows that the measurability itself is a complicated tas/. Thus, a measure of religiosity on a certain dimension is not necessarily correlated with the measure on another dimension. This increases the difficulty to compare the religiosity of two indi'iduals or groups in an attempt to determine which one is more religious.!2 Gan we determine, for e&ample, whether one who goes to church on wee/ly basis but doesn)t belie'e is more, or less, religious than one who ne'er attends the mass but declares to be a de'out belie'erI Is the one who meticulously performs the delicate nuances of the rite, more or less religious than the one who disregards the details of worship but enthusiastically manifests signs of being infused with a holy spiritI 0istory of religion is rich with fascinating illustrations of such dilemmas that Cu&tapose and compare the (super# religiosity embedded in ,ewish, Ghristian or 1uslim hypernomy 'ersus antinomy. !"

!!

See a summary of eight different methods of conceptuali2ing the 'arieties of religiosity in 0ood et al. 9# Table 2.". !2 *or e&ample, it was found that 5rotestants are much more religious than Gatholics according to the criterion of church affiliation, while Gatholics are much more religious than 5rotestants according to the criterion of participation in wee/ly prayer (?ainbridge !99B4 !A. Table !.2#. !" *or especially interesting paradigmatic case see the!B-!9th Sabbatian and *ran/ist 1o'ements (Scholem !9"B#. (2

!!

Daturally I became interested in this school)s fifty years old .rthodo&y Inde& (7loc/ and Star/ !9>H#. 8fter all, my thesis concerning the measures of religiosity is applied to the case of (,ewish# ultra-.rthodo&y. 8merican sociologists found that Gatholics double the .rthodo&y of 5rotestants.!4 ,ews score 'ery low on the .rthodo&y scale. The latter finding shows the deficiency of these studies and pro'es that its rele'ance to issues raised in this essay is limited. The implications of more recent studies are similarly problematic. 8 research of religiosity in the !9B -9 s concludes that the religious creed according to which the ?ible is the authentic @ord of 7od J a doctrine that could be labeled Scripturalism or literalist fundamentalism - is accepted by "9L of the 5rotestants, 2"L of the Gatholics and only 4L of the ,ews. <oes it mean that ,udaism is less religious than GhristianityI .r that ,ews) religiosity is lesser than Ghristians)I 8t most, this means that the proportion of religious (.rthodo&# ,ews in -S population is relati'ely 'ery low.!> True, recent sociological studies pro'e that religiosity, measured by such scales especially attendance J is an important social predictor of political positions. 1oreo'er, it is the degree of religiosity, rather than specific religion that increasingly matters. *or e&ample, high-attending ,ews and high-attending 5rotestants in the -S tend to 'ote Republican. 8nd yet, for the sa/e of answering (uestions raised here, the pre'ious studies concerning the measurability of religion are not satisfactory. The present study tries to rectify their shortcomings. !. The data need updating. It should be noted that earlier research preceded the religious resurgence that has characteri2ed mainly the two 8brahamic traditions (,udaism and Islam# and to a lesser degree Ghristianity in the last generation.!H 2. The data relate e&clusi'ely to the Dorth 8merican (or @estern# religious scene. The conspicuous absence of research that measures religion in other countries and other cultures, li/e ,udaism and Islam in the 1iddle 3ast, cannot be e'en partly compensated for by application of the -S studies or by e&trapolation of their conclusions. ". The measures of religiosity discussed in pre'ious studies are $obCecti'e%, that is, hypothetically construed or scientifically constructed, and should be complemented by findings that relate to the subCecti'e side of measurability+
!4 !>

1uch more substantial was the difference in .rthodo&y between Southern ?aptists and 5resbyterians. ,ews score 'ery low on attendance, belief in 7od and literalness of the ?ible. !H Gontrary to impression, there is no e'idence of religious resurgence in the general 8merican population.

!2

reflecting religious people and groups) notion of the measures of their own religiosity relati'e to others). 4. The pre'ious studies of religious measures analy2ed grand sur'eys based on formal $closed% (uestionnaires addressed randomly to samples of the general population. !B .nly recently (ualitati'e, interpretati'e (verstehen-type# attempt has been made to detect the subCects) $definition of the situation%4 to attend to their ta/e on the issue of religious measurability, by open-ended, in-depth inter'iewing, e&tensi'e field obser'ations and content analysis.!A 1easures of religiosity were applied in the past to large heterogeneous wholenation collecti'ities, mainly to the 8merican and 3uropean societies. Research found out the distribution of uni'ersal populations according to the degree - actually /ind J of religiosity. In a similar 'ein, studies conducted in Israel sought to determine the relati'e proportions of 'arious groups of citi2ens according to their type of religiosity (along a continuum ranging from Secular at one pole to 0aredi at the other# on the basis of selfidentification in standardi2ed (uestionnaires or on demographic e&amination of political 'oting patterns, neighborhoods, schools etc.!9 1y study, on the other hand, does not relate to the whole population and conse(uently has nothing to say about distribution, or about secular people. I focus on religious indi'iduals and religious J (uite homogenous J groups, and in'estigate the measures of their religiosity including their self-measurement. This focus brings to mind further (uestions relating to religiosity, i.e. is the difference between the con'entional moderate religiosity and the more e&treme one, a matter of degree (the latter is Cust more of the same#, or is the difference (ualitati'e.2 The 'arious religious groups discussed in pre'ious studies are actually only nominally 5rotestant, Gatholic and so forth, while implicitly these groups are more ci'il than religious (representing ethnicity, class, locality etc#, and as such they are di'erse and include many who are not religious at all. Thus, while 5rotestants are by far the most
!B

The abo'e discussed studies, especially ?ainbridge)s, tend to be inspired by a utilitarian perspecti'e that led them to use Rational Ghoice principles to construct a theory of religion which is rather incongruent with the spirit of the present essay (Star/ and ?ainbridge !9B9#. *or a critical re'iew of this perspecti'e, see Riesbrodt and ;oniec2ny (2 >#. !A Dote the current trend of Galifornian research in the footsteps of the Habits of the Heart (e.g., Tipton !9A4#. !9 Summary of these Israeli studies shows the following distribution+ >!L Secular, " L Traditional, !!L .rthodo&, and AL 0aredi ( Israel <emocracy Institute 2 A#. See also+ Fe'y et al. (2 2#. See earlier studies by 5erry ;edem and Eehuda ?en-1eir. 2 Dote that while ?ainbridge studies *eligiousness, I define my subCect matter as *eligiosity. The former term is somewhat more concrete and connotes a demographic category, or affiliation.

!"

$orthodo&% in the -S,2! the relati'ely 'ery religious belie'ers are a minority among Gatholics. The maCority of them do not concern this study. This point is more stri/ing with regard to 8merican ,ews among whom the $orthodo&% are a tiny minority.

.wo Mo-els of *eligious *a-icalism It would seem that the issue of the measurability of religiosity has been obscured by a different issue which has become prominent o'er the past few generations, and which in the final two decades of the twentieth- and first years of the twenty-first centuries definiti'ely too/ o'er both political and scholarly agendas. The issue is the (uestion of the relations between religion and its contemporary, and largely secular, @estern surroundings. 8n e&amination of this issue will also relate to aspects of ran/ and intensity, although the latter is measured mostly in terms of the influence of religion on society and e&ternal culture. .ne must distinguish analytically between two parallel, potentially blending models for assessing religiosity, with one tending to o'ershadow the other. The first, well-worn model pertains to religion)s e&ternal front and focuses on the relations-particularly on the conflicts--between religion and modernity (e.g., Fawrence !9A94 8rmstrong 2 4 1a22ar 2 B4 ,uergensmeyer 2 A#. The phenomena of seculari2ation and the religious reaction thereto function as the bac/drop to this interface Joften implicit - model. It is repeatedly lin/ed to the phenomenon /nown as fundamentalism occasionally called the $Strong Religion% because of its intensity and militancy in challenging the world outside of its borders (8lmond et al. 2 "#. In contrast, the other model that I wish to e&plicate here and which is 'ital for the contention put forward in the present essay focuses on the intra-religious dimension of religiosity. 0ere the orientation is inward, with e&pectations and demands directed at insiders rather than outsiders. This model, though, stands in the shadows of the first which has attracted much interest because of its dramatic dimensions, political implications, and potential for 'iolence. The currently predominant model of religious radicalism is concerned with the relationship to $the .ther,% be it someone secular or a member of a competing religious group. The .ther is the obCect of criticism and spite and is the target of aggression.
2!

*or instance, 4"L of them belie'e that the ?ible is the @ord of 7od

!4

Goncealed at the foundations of this hegemonic model of religiosity which emphasi2es religion)s outer boundaries, are assumptions of modern secularism which define religion through the prism of its implications for the ideal modern nation-state (e.g., 8sad !99"4 1arty et al. !99"#. The pre'alent mode of delineating religious e&tremism is generally reduced to pointing to religion)s propensity to threaten @estern ci'il principles and institutions, and the (uality of life of @esterners. This definition, which stems from secular ideology, feeds not merely the attac/ against but also the e&tensi'e corpus of scholarly literature on fundamentalism (1arty and 8ppleby !99!->#. 8 different cultural history and attention to religious imagination offer possibilities of an alternati'e definition of religious e&tremism. @e are thus presented with two different perspecti'es on e&cessi'e religiosity or religious radicalism. The distinction between them may be sharpened with the help of the concept of martyrdom (<roge and Tabor !9924 ?oyarin !9994 =an 0enten 2 Salisbury 2 martyrdom 44 Goo/ 2 is left partly unintelligible, and its significance--and 24 B#. 8ccording to the first archetype, the phenomenon of e&treme 9#.

characteri2ation--deri'es only from its offensi'e nature, i.e., its harmfulness to secular li'es and 'alues (Israeli 2 24 Reuter 2 44 Eu'al 2 H4 ;epel 2 A4 Si2garich 2 8ccording to the intra-religious archetype of e&tremism proffered here, martyrdom is remar/able in that it brings the endea'or for religious e&cellence to its conclusi'e end.22 1artyrdom is intended, first and foremost, to impress 7od. It is an act aimed at the hea'ens, the purpose of which is to pro'e, and thereby pacify, and principally to shoc/ the di'ine. .f course, this deed will later affect fellow members and leaders within the religious community, and perhaps members of competing communities as well. 8 martyr is one who sacrifices himself, self-sacrifice being the highest possible price that can be paid as a test of religiosity. There are lower prices+ 'oluntary concession not of one)s life, but of one)s (uality of life, such as self-imposed religious discipline which goes against one)s nature. This is the phenomenon of asceticism in which we may detect elements of mitigated sacrifice. @hereas asceticism as a measure of religiosity is somewhat meaningless in terms of the first model, it ma/es much sense in the conte&t of the second.
22

*or a discussion of martyrdom as an inde& of superior religiosity in ancient and medie'al Ghristianity see ?rown (!9A!#4 ?ynum (!99>#.

!>

3&treme religiosity according to the religious-interface model, i.e., religiosity which threatens its modern, secular surroundings, generally 'iews itself as e&treme from an intra-religious perspecti'e as well, and therefore has pretensions of being more religious than its a'erage religious en'ironment. De'ertheless, the religiosity of the intrareligious model need not necessarily demand that of the religious-interface model, as the two models lac/ full correlation. The comple& function that connects the two models of religiosity may be elucidated somewhat with the help of the concept of sacrifice. .ne sort of e&tremism is tested with the sacrifice of others, while the other is tested with selfsacrifice. There is a tight, but comple& bond between the two types of e&tremism -- and sacrifice (0ubert and 1auss !9H44 7irard !9BB4 Fincoln !99!4 ?loch !994#. 1any religious groups stri'e for e&cellence in accordance with both models in tandem, and they percei'e the two types of e&tremism as interconnected. In many cases the e&ternal and internal fronts of e&tremism ha'e the tendency to merge. *or e&ample, in (uite a few cases the 'ery-religious, including -ltra-.rthodo& ,ews, will ta/e the spectrum of those of lesser religiosity, pac/age them all together, and assign them to the category of the secular. It is in this manner that the di'ision and conflict between the True ?elie'ers and the rest of the world are created. The greaterMless schema drifts naturally toward an eitherMor schema. 8gain, notwithstanding the differences between them, the two models can certainly become intertwined+ it would appear that outward religious aggression is also an important resource in internal competition for the status of the most religious. :rthopra;is 8n additional factor contributing to the tendency to o'erloo/ the full implication of the measurability of religiosity is the almost complete monopoly of 5rotestantism in @estern culture, and particularly in @estern scholarship.2" The 5rotestant perspecti'e has gained a strong foothold, though generally without official recognition, in religious traditions outside of the countries of the Reformation, and has been internali2ed not merely among the religious, but among secular spectators as well. This phenomenon is nowhere more
2"

This has somewhat changed in the academic world o'er the past !> or so years, with the ad'ent of crosscultural psychology, cultural psychology, and writers such as Shweder, 0aidt, ?el2en and others on religion.

!H

e'ident than in the mainstream of the (mostly 8merican# sociology of religion which continues in the footsteps of the tradition beginning with @eber and de'eloped by 7eert2. Indeed, in the latter)s characteri2ation of religion which runs through the blood of most social scientific students of religion, the measurability of religion hardly ma/es sense (7eert2 !9HH#. The ideal type of 5rotestantism has become the implicit model of religion, 24 the implications of which are the tri'iali2ation of the ritual dimension of religion, and, in its place, an o'eremphasis on the dimension of belief (@eber !92 #2> ?ut belief is presumably personal, subCecti'e, diffuse, and conse(uently e'asi'e. 8ccordingly, 5rotestantism is a religion of interiority, an indi'idualistic, $democratic% religion. 8nd of course, 5rotestantism lac/s an authoritati'e, legalistic, and te&tual standard--a canonical code of sorts--the dictates of which are meant to guide one)s beha'ior. 0ow, then, may we measure and compare degrees of 5rotestant religiosityI This tas/ is e'en more difficult gi'en that there is generally no well-defined sacred 'alue common to the 'arieties of the religion. @e may assume that the characteri2ation of a certain camp as more religious than others will, in many cases, arouse protest and contro'ersy stemming from the contention that un'erifiable (metaphysical# belief, does not lend itself to measures of intensity. Gan we /now a person)s inner feelings and thoughtsI 8nd can we rely on person)s testimonyI Glassical scholarship has already noted that the case of 5rotestantism stands so typically in the realm of uncertainty regarding the religiosity of its adherents, that this uncertainty has become a doctrinal principal and springboard for a dynamic with far reaching implications.2H The tormenting (uestion concerning one)s sal'ation deri'ing from 5rotestant J mainly Gal'inist - belief in predestination may be e&pressed in terms of the (uestion of one)s le'el of religiosity 'is-N-'is the religiosity of others. The lac/ of a reassuring answer concerning one)s sal'ation is intolerable (e.g., 3ri/son !9>A#. .n the bac/drop of 5rotestantism)s inherent inability to measure religiosity, a system of e&ternal signs of religiosity, e.g., church attendance, has de'eloped. In the end, it is the 5uritanism Test that determines one)s religious status in the community, i.e., one)s performance in a
24 2>

8lthough it is conflated with the 5rotestanti2ation of other religious traditions (at least in the -S#. True, one can 'iew the capitalist entrepreneurship as a cultic worship (ritual# of sort. 2H Standard sociological interpretation of @eber)s thesis on the 5rotestant 3thic emphasi2es the role of the belie'er)s insecurity as a central source of religion (e.g., 5arsons !9HA#.

!B

'ariety of Ghristian tas/s such as cleanliness of language, modesty in dressing, patriarchality, abstinence from premarital se&, etc (e.g., 8mmerman !9AB# . 8s we will soon obser'e, these and similar parameters function as typical religiosity inde&es among -ltra-.rthodo& ,ews as well. 3'en in cases of religiosity with emphases li/e those of 5rotestantism, religion is ne'er limited to belief alone. Religion possesses additional dimensions including ritual and the religious e&perience (e.g., .)<ea !9A"#, or the religious ethos and world'iew (7eert2 !9B"#. There are a number of instances where the ritual aspect is as, if not more, important than that of belief (<ur/heim !9A2#. 0ow can we e'aluate the ritual le'el of a religious person, and how can we compare ritual commitments to beliefsI The problem of religious measurements is simpler when it comes to other religions+ those that specifically emphasi2e the ritual principle, the normati'e-ritual, at the e&pense of faith. Such religions include rabbinic (.rthodo&# ,udaism, and to a great e&tent, Islam (e.g., Duesner and Son !9994 ?rinner and Ric/s !9A94 7oitein !9B44 0awting 2 H#. The organi2ing a&is of Islamic life, in addition to the Ouran and 0adith, is the shari3a, the parallel to its ,ewish predecessor of fi'e hundred years, the hala/hah. The latter is a detailed, multi-dimensional corpus which includes sacred laws, and it is accepted as unifying and binding for all 'arieties of ,ewish orthodo&y. The hala/hah dictates how a ,ew is to beha'e in any situation+ not only how one is to pray on a sacred day or at a sacred site, but what one should drin/, when, and how4 what one should do when wa/ing up and going to sleep, and what one should do, or primarily what one should not do, when asleep4 how one is to sit or wal/4 how one may enCoy a fruit or a shadow from the branch of a tree that was planted by a neighbor, the trun/ of which is on the neighbor)s property but with branches reaching o'er the fence into his own yard4 the status of an egg which was laid on the Sabbath but is /nown to ha'e gestated in the hen one day prior, when it is permissible to eat only what was prepared before the Sabbath4 the order in which one is to tie one)s shoelaces4 and when, where, and how one is to ha'e se&ual relations (7an2fried !9H!4 3lon !9B>4 ?leich !9BB-A94 ?en 1enachem and 0echt !9994 Stei2anlt2 2 H#. .rthodo& doctrine considers the source of these laws to be di'ine and regard the

!A

laws as ha'ing been transmitted to the ,ewish people in a re'elatory act at 1ount Sinai. The laws were initially recorded in the Torah (i.e., the .ld Testament, and particularly the 5entateuch#. Thereafter, they were interpreted by the Sages (2 -4 G3# and were canoni2ed as the tradition of the .ral Faw, culminating with the 'ast legal corpus of the Talmud. *rom then until today generations of rabbis ha'e interpreted, de'eloped, and implemented these laws. The sum total of these 'enerated, comprehensi'e te&ts is called hala/hah. 8ccording to traditional sources there are H!" biblical commandments, both positi'e and negati'e, deri'ed from which are an e&ponentially greater number of rabbinic rulings. 7enerations of rabbinical rulings, rendered generally as answers to the (uestions of members of 'arious communities (responsa#, analy2ed the commandments and adapted them to the changing situations with which ,ews had to contend. In this manner a rich corpus of hala/hic literature co'ering almost e'ery concei'able topic was compiled. 8n authoritati'e digest, the Shulhan Aru,h, was completed in the si&teenth century but has since undergone rewor/ing and updating and has been perpetuated in thousands of wor/s which collect countless rabbinical rulings.2B There are norms that guide ritual beha'ior in a strict sense, li/e the punctilious prescription go'erning the angle and proportion of the ape& of the letter yo- that is inscribed on the parchment inside the me+u+ah at the entrance to one)s home. 8nd there are norms that appear to be outside the realm of religion proper, such as agriculturalprofessional laws of the li/es of the law of 'ineyard- ,il3ayyim (hybrid plantings#, which dictates that a row of 'ines must not be planted with anything other than grapes due to the possibility of root entanglement. Since the latter practice, howe'er, is thought of as possessing a ,ewish religious rationale (the obsession with distinct categories and the taboo on cross-breeding and blurring of borders, etc.#, and formulated in religious language appearing in a religious te&t, we may 'iew it as a ritual as well. The same applies to norms with a social orientation li/e (e3ah (lit.+ corner#, i.e., the prohibition of reaping from the edges of one)s field in order to lea'e that produce for the poor. In essence, the -ltra-.rthodo& lifestyle consists of a continuum of rituals, i.e., there is almost nothing in the -ltra-.rthodo& world that is neutral or tri'ial, and their beha'ior is loaded, predetermined, and monitored.
2B

8n illustration of the massi'e and 'ariegated dimensions of the hala/hic corpus can be witnessed in the computeri2ed $Responsa 5roCect% (SHu.#

!9

.rthodo& ,udaism, and primarily -ltra-.rthodo& ,udaism, is a ,udaism of hala/hah.2A Its (male# adherents de'ote themsel'es to studious scholarship of the Talmud--the source of inspiration for later rabbinic rulings--and they subCect themsel'es to this all-inclusi'e hala/hic code which encompasses e'ery aspect of their personal and public li'es, to the e&tent that no facet of their li'es is e&empt from regulation by religious law or super'ision by a traditional authority. In a certain respect, the 'ery accomplishment of routine obser'ance of the commandments is less important than the a priori resolution to completely subCugate oneself to the rule of the Torah. Thus the center of gra'ity is not in theological recognition or internali2ation of principles of faith, but on unconditional loyalty to the Torah and complete identification with the commandments (Ra'it2/y 2 H#. @e can see the test of this religiosity as attested in a total commitment to that which represents the hala/hah, i.e., the community and its institutions, and primarily the rabbis and heads of the religious academies who are identified with the Torah itself (-a3at .orah#. *rom the perspecti'e of the rabbinical establishment, one)s faith--essentially the reporting of feelings and consciousness--is of secondary importance, while what one $does% is of critical importance. 3'en if a ,ew were to swear that his intentions are lofty and that he is of a pure heart, so long as he does not obser'e the commandments, he will not be considered $/osher.% @hat really matters is whether he indeed practices the dietary laws, obser'es the Sabbath, etc.29 In other words, the ultimate test of ,ewish religiosity is beha'ioral. 8 widespread descriptor for a religious ,ew is shomer mit+vot (lit.+ obser'ant of the commandments#. @hen doubts are raised regarding a ,ew)s le'el of religiosity, it is as/ed behind his bac/ whether he has prayed the afternoon prayer (the least prominent of the three daily prayers#, much li/e how an obser'ant 1uslim, in the local 8rabic Cargon, is said to $pray fi'e times a day.% Some e&perts ha'e called for
2A

.f course, there is a ,ewish theology but it is typically rather implicit and often inconsistent, 'ague, contro'ersial and practically marginal. The mystical corpus of ;abbalah is a prime e&ample of the problematic nature and status of such theology as 7ershom Scholem)s seminal wor/ shows. In any case, one cannot spea/ in terms of ,ewish doctrine (or dogma beyond the consensual but too general 1aimonides Thirteen 5rinciples of *aith. 3.g. $I belie'e with perfect faith that the Greator, ?lessed be 0is Dame, is the 7reater and the 7uide of e'erythingK I belie'e that all the words of the 5rophets are trueK% etc.#. 29 8ccording to the 7uttman study, H L of Israeli ,ews belie'e in the e&istence of 7od, and > L belie'e that the Torah was gi'en from the hea'ens to 1oses at 1ount Sinai. The maCority of those belonging to the two latter statistics are either completely non-obser'ant or only partially obser'ant. In the eyes of the ultraorthodo& rabbinate, they are secular, and their ,udaism is fundamentally blemished.

,ewish .rthodo&y to be renamed as .rthopra&y. " High *esolution Measurement of *eligiosity ?eing founded on practice, religiosity is subCect to obser'ation. .rthodo& ,udaism may be e&amined empirically, and thus the religious and their coreligionists may estimate their ran/ings. @hen religiosity is measurable, not only are conditions suitable for its effecti'e communal monitoring, but the possibility of comparison becomes feasible as well, eliciting e&tra'agant religiosity, conspicuous religiosity, and, in its wa/e, competition o'er the title of the $most religious.% 3'idently, the beha'ioral and obser'able foundations of such religiosity are associated with its 'ery noticeable public and communal nature. -ltra-.rthodo& ,udaism is indeed characteri2ed by a strong collecti'e, cohesi'e interpersonal relationships, and institutional density. Fi/e other ritual-normati'e religiosities, the -ltra-.rthodo& tend to emphasi2e discipline and embodied practice."! In a sense, super-religiosity, li/e that of the ,ewish -ltraJ.rthodo&y amounts to a particular habitus. ,udaism ta/es pains to inculcate the idea that obser'ing the Torah is not a mere cultic duty, but a lofty spiritual and ethical proCect. *urthermore, as emphasi2ed in -ltra.rthodo&y, a hala/hic way of life has a symbolic dimension and the beha'ioral test of religiosity is reflecti'e of a moral le'el as well. That said, in the eyes of the authorities of the -ltra-.rthodo&, one who dons tefillin (phylacteries# each morning is, without a doubt, on a higher plane of religiosity than one who does not. "2 There are, howe'er, a number of ways to don tefillin. The difference is in the details of the performance, i.e., the e&tent to which the act is correct and complete. It is also constantly emphasi2ed, howe'er, that the e&ecution of this as well as other commandments, must be accompanied by deep, solemn ,avannah (spiritual intentions#, without which the act is merely mechanical with no meaning or obCecti'e. 0ere we are again ensnared by the
"

*or e&ample, the late 5rof. Gharles Fiebman in his lectures on Ghurch 6 State in Israel. The term orthopra;is is a transliteration from the 7ree/ meaning Pright practice.P It is used also in (mainly 3astern .rthodo&# Ghristian churches to denote worship emphasi2ing Sunday 1ass, ?aptism, etc. "! Gompare to 3ngland and Dew 3ngland 5uritans (c. !H s# that were instructed to spy on each other for failures li/e not attending church. "2 8ccording to the 7uttman study, there is no basis to the rhetoric which di'ides all Israeli ,ews into two categorical poles+ religious or secular. There is a negligible minority of those who are not obser'ant of any of the commandments (e'en a 5asso'er ritual dinner, se-er, whate'er its particular meaning#, while the rest choose their path of obser'ance, be it more stringent or rela&ed.

2!

difficulty of e'aluating religiosity according to unseen benchmar/s. 1ore than Cust an academic challenge, measuring religiosity is a pressing problem for the religious. They are e'er eager to assess their own le'el of religiosity, that of their children, neighbors, and leaders, and that of their community relati'e to other communities. @e may follow the religious and assess the e&tent to which they are aware of and the manner in which they contend with the foregoing problems. It becomes e'ident from obser'ation that in the absence of an agreed criterion for e'aluating le'els of religiosity, spontaneous (though generally neither e&plicit nor official# substitutes e'ol'e and can be (uite effecti'e. Thus in ,udaism there are clear and widespread inde&es of religiosity, e'en if they lac/ authoritati'e institutional bac/ing. 8 well-/nown e&ample is that of the duration of one)s prayer. Rabbinic ,ews are commanded to pray a standardi2ed formula three times per-day (on regular days# -- on rising in the morning, before sunset, and later in the e'ening--preferably in the company of at least ten others (a minyan, (uorum#. The prayer procedure is set and uniform--there are portions that are recited aloud as well as silent components --but not the pace. It is not at all surprising that through the generations the assumption has ta/en hold that the longer the prayer, the more authentic and deep, and, in any case, the greater the supplicant)s le'el of religiosity (or pretensions to greater religiosity#."" @e will retain the e&ample of prayer in our (uest for additional signs of its 'isually imperceptible (ualities (0eilman !9A2#. It is not only among the ,ews that closing one)s eyes, contorting one)s face, or 'igorously swaying one)s body are accepted as a testament to one)s le'el of belief and lofty intentions (or, attempt to create such an impression#."4 These are the beha'ioral correlates of religiosity. 8 former student at a prestigious institute of Torah study reported that he was nearly e&pelled from the yeshi'a after being seen staying motionless while praying. 0e was accused of rebelling against the rabbis and of heresy. Some colleagues insinuated that his beha'ior betrayed infirm belief. 8 higher le'el of religiosity is e&hibited by means of physical manipulations (e.g., ,acob !99B#. This borders on an attempt to subdue oneself by abstinence or self-inflicted
""

Dote that .rthodo& and especially -ltra-.rthodo& prayer ser'ices tend to run shorter than Gonser'ati'e and Reform ser'ices which rely on greater theatrics and more group chantingMsinging. "4 The 5rotestant Dorth 8merican fundamentalists that physically $act out% their enthusiastic highreligiosity are characteristically labeled Gharismatic. In some denominations such religious beha'ior is considered $pagan%.

22

pain, i.e., it is a type of proto-mortification. 8 religious person pro'es his e&cellence in religiosity to himself and broadcasts it to his surroundings with the help of his physical appearance and beha'ior."> This is partly a test of and partly a testament to religiosity. The e&hibition of such o'erstated religiosity reaches its pea/ with martyrdom of the type /nown to us through the history of the three 8brahamic faiths. The $?inding of Isaac% and the crucifi&ion of ,esus are prototypes of martyrdom as a signifier of supreme faith. In Islam this phenomenon is called shuha-ah -- testimony. The true belie'er---the shahi---sacrifices his life in order to testify to the intensity of his faith and the supremacy of his religious beliefs. There are of course less dramatic and more tempered 'ersions of martyrdom, in the form of subCecting oneself to pain, strain, or destitution on the altar of faith (e.g., ;leinberg 2 A#. In the case of the -ltra-.rthodo&, for e&ample, one who dedicates all of his free time to the study of the Talmud is considered to ha'e $gi'en his soul% for 7od and his Torah (mesirut nefesh#. 0is dedication comes at the e&pense of sleep, eating, and other pleasures, and, most importantly, of finding a Cob and li'elihood, thereby imposing upon himself self-denial to the degree of ascetic indigence. Instances of ,ewish martyrdom throughout history ha'e been labeled $the sanctification of the name of 7od% (,i--ush haShem# (Gohen 2 44 8rad 2 44 7oldin 2 A#. It is therefore fitting that the -ltra-.rthodo& present their student-scholars who ha'e committed their wa/ing hours to the study of the Talmud as $sanctifiers of the name of 7od,% and those who $/ill themsel'es in the tent of the Torah.% In the -ltra-.rthodo& community, these students are considered the e(ui'alent to soldiers who perished heroically in battle, and they are therefore worthy of glorification and 'arious special benefits, including e&emption from compulsory military ser'ice in the Israeli <efense *orces, which is obligatory for all other ,ewish citi2ens (e.g., Stadler 2 4#.

8ccordingly, religiosity is measured in terms of the price paid for its fulfillment+ time, money, property, con'enience, health, and life itself."H Sacrifice, i.e., relin(uishing human life or a substitute of commensurate 'alue for the sa/e of 7od, is an open and
">

.f course, 3r'ing 7offman)s sociology is the classical discussion of such social rituals (e.g., !9>94 !9H"#. "H Gompare to the concept of the 0andicap 5rinciple de'eloped by the ethologist 8mot2 :aha'i (!99B# and its application to the case of religion in the wor/ of Richard Sosis (fn H#.

2"

reliable test of religiosity. .ne could contend that self-imposed obligations, difficult as they may be, are not sufficient for ma/ing one)s religiosity proper, e&emplary, or e&cessi'e. Gertain religious groups argue that ultimate religiosity is measured by the e&tent to which one is willing to impose these obligations not only on oneself, but on one)s surroundings as well. 8ll means are acceptable, including, if necessary, lethal 'iolence. 8 more modest iteration of such 'iolence would be the -ltra-.rthodo& ,ews who damage property and cause physical inCuries by hurling stones at Sabbath-'iolators who dri'e the streets of ,erusalem on Saturdays. In the course of these displays of aggression, they subCect themsel'es to the harsh battering by police clubs and are arrested--not unwillingly--and ta/en to Cail. The $truly% religious person is willing to sacrifice both himself and others. Gompetiti'e religiosity entails gi'ing one)s life for the sacred, or ta/ing other)s life (for his own good#, or both as in suicide bombing. "B ,udging by the weight of the burden or the obser'able price, the -ltra-.rthodo& (ualify as 'ery religious. In addition, there e&ists a religiosity hierarchy between 'arious groups within the community which is determined by the e&tent of the sacrifice necessitated by their religiosity. 1any in the community 'iew the establishment of the State of Israel as sinful and heretical (see below#, howe'er few are the members that physically and consistently act on the attendant conclusion, to the e&tent of forgoing the connection of their houses to the national electric grid (which generates electricity in 'iolation of the Sabbath# and using a pri'ate generator which entails additional costs and hassles. Those who do, though, are /nown as the most religious. In addition to the $price test,% we will suggest an additional pair of tests for the measurement of degrees of religiosity, by which we shall buttress the contention that -ltra-.rthodo&y is super-religious. .ne test is the specificity, rigidity, and e&cess of the religiosity."A In the case of the -ltra-.rthodo&, these are a function of punctiliousness (-i7-u7#"9 or enhancement (hi--ur#. The second is a test of the dominance, integrality, and totality of the religion. This test intersects with tests of religiosity according to the aforementioned religious-interface model. These three tests, or inde&es, are not mutually
"B "A

*or a discussion of (Islamic 5alestinian# Suicide Terrorism in terms of sacrifice see Strens/y (2 "#. This claim is founded upon a part of the thesis of Gharles Fiebman, $Religious 3&tremism as a Religious Dorm,% (!9A"#, which had, in its time, elicited many responses. "9 8 prominent e&ample is the $Dew Tradition% related to R) Gha2on Ish. 3.g.,. 2muna U30itachon, Gh. 4.

24

e&clusi'e. They possess similarities and partially o'erlap, and in reality they are interwo'en. @e will now turn to the first of the abo'e mentioned two additional inde&es+ The ancient and medie'al hala/hic te&ts are e&plicit, and the -ltra-.rthodo& tend to read them meticulously and interpret them literally. There remains, nonetheless, a wide and fle&ible arena of interpretation. 8 religious person or the rabbinical authority to whom he might turn for guidance, may in some cases interpret the hala/hah in a more or less - liberal, measured, or curbed fashion. The Torah states, for e&ample, that fasting on The <ay of 8tonement (4om 8ippur# is obligatory for all ,ews. ?ut what is e&actly a $day,% belie'ers as/, or what is the definition of food, and who is a ,ew in this caseI Goncerning the latter issue, the rabbis tend to agree that it is generally a mature, responsible person, of sound mental Cudgment. The con'ention says that males reach this status in ,udaism at the age of bar mit+vah (thirteen# and females--in a nod to their earlier psychological de'elopment--at the age of $twel'e and one day.% There are those who hold, though, that se&ual maturity is the criterion, and this is to be determined $according to Qsigns)% (e.g., the growth of two pubic hairs#. The fast may be imposed e'en earlier on children who ha'e reached the $scholastic age% (at either se'en or nine years of age#, or those who ha'e started going to school (age fi'e#, or e'en those who ha'e begun to spea/ (age three#. 8fter all, it is at the latter age that the -ltra-.rthodo& begin their stringent separation of the se&es. *amilies whose children begin to fast at increasingly younger ages are regarded as being more religious.4 Religiosity can apparently be measured by years of age4 it can occasionally be measured also by inches. 1any rabbinical te&ts record the imperati'e of modesty, and this sacred principle is applied, first and foremost, to the female body. Their modesty translates traditionally into the proportion of their co'ered limbs and the mas/ing of their silhouette. The .rthodo& agree unanimously that women are not to appear in public while wearing re'ealing clothing or slac/s. The (uestion of modesty re'ol'es around the length of slee'es and s/irts. 3&posure of the elbow and /nee is used to distinguish between the fallen or $wanton% and the stringent. @hosoe'er)s wife wears longer clothing is considered more religious. The husband of a particularly modest woman, who co'ers
4

8ccording to the code& of Shulchan Aru,h, one should start fasting (gradually# at age nine.

2>

e'en her wrists and heels, is considered 'irtuous (t+a--i,#. @e can thus percei'e a true measuring-stic/ of religiosity for the -ltra-.rthodo& (e.g., 7oldman !999#.4! Some signals of super-religiosity are easily obser'able and (uite demonstrati'e (li/e woman wearing a wig#, while other signals are subtle, sometimes hidden (li/e, did she sha'e her hair or Cust tuc/ it under the wig#. *or those initiated into the secret, the fine or co'ert signs count more.42 The -ltra-.rthodo& hierarchy of religiosity is connected to a parallel hierarchy of hala/hic norms, which are ran/ed not necessarily by their fundamental (doctrinal# significance, but by the difficulty of their obser'ance. 8ccording to -ltra-.rthodo& common wisdom, the more difficult a gi'en norm (often referred to as a hi-ur or syag4"#, the fewer ,ews actually fulfill it. 0ence, one)s religiosity will be measured according to the breadth of the social circle of those sharing a mutual standard of obser'ance. Those who fast on the e'e of the new month are far outnumbered by those who obser'e the *ast of 7edaliah, and therefore the former are considered more religious than the latter. The implicit assumption here is that those who obser'e the more difficult, e&clusi'e commandments are sure to obser'e the easier and more popular ones as well.44 It stands to reason that those who obser'e the $minor fast days% (li/e the se'enteenth of Tammu2 or the tenth of Te'et# will certainly obser'e the $maCor% fasts (li/e the ninth of 8'#.4> In addition to the aforementioned distinction in the obser'ance of hala/hic norms, one may also assess religiosity according to measures of e&plicitness or particularity. The more a person or community tends to function according to a strict, narrowly defined norm and relin(uishes the lu&ury of $free play% within a range of designated borders, the more religious they are considered. 8 good illustration of this is the issue of standardi2ed $measures% (shi3urim# which ma/es the 'ery-religious nature of the -ltra .rthodo& e'en more prominent. 8ccording to ,ewish ;abbalistic tradition, many commandments are assigned a (uantitati'e measure so that they may be imbued with the fullest possible
4! 42

Gompare to $=eiling% in the contemporary Islamic world (e.g. 7uindi !9994 Shira2i 2 !#. 7ossip relates to whether women wear stoc/ings underneath their long dress. 4" -sually a custom rather than commandment (mit+va# that is formally part of the halachic code&. 44 This phenomenon is sometimes called hi-ur mit+vot 4> This -ltra-.rthodo& logic runs parallel to that of the 7uttman Scale which guided 5rofessor 3lihu ;at2 and researchers at the 7uttman Genter in their wor/ on beliefs, obser'ances, and 'alues among Israeli ,ews (2 #.

2H

mystical meaning. Tradition has it that 1oses recei'ed the commandments at Sinai in this 'ery manner, and therefore many hala/hic norms are defined in terms of a specific si2e+ the si2e of man)s body (e.g., the forearmRcubit#, the si2e of animal products (eggs# and 'egetation (lentil, barley, etc.#. *or e&ample, at the 5asso'er Seder one is obligated to eat at least one oli'e)s measure of mat2ah (and e'en that must be done in a specific, brief time period, generally 2-4 minutes#. The assumption of the Sages was that where'er across the globe and in whate'er historical era the ,ewish people might li'e in the future, they would be able to calculate these measurements based on recogni2able standards a'ailable in their immediate surroundings. 8lready in the 1iddle 8ges the rabbis of 'arious communities interpolated the hala/hic measurements to lengths, 'olumes, and weights that coincided with their local natural resources, and this for 'arious needs, e.g., the amount of water and wheat /ernels re(uired for the ba/ing of /osher challah bread. 5roblems of 'ariability and uncertainty were soon to follow. The $thumb% measurement, for e&ample, underwent a substantial lengthening--li/e the human body in general--o'er the past few centuries (as a result of impro'ed nutrition, etc.#, and the measure was therefore lengthened from 2 cm to 2.> cm.4H Gommunities with more reformist tendencies interpreted these measures as e&pressing something general and essentially symbolic, as in the case of the $oli'e% measure which, in their eyes, is only meant to indicate something $small.% Traditional communities e&patiated on and argued o'er the measures, and concluded with a trend of minimi2ation. .'er the past two generations, though, the -ltra-.rthodo& ha'e generated new obligatory standards, both precise and enlarged. Dot without bitter disputes with a number of religious groups, was it decided--in a signal of super-religiosity--that the re(uired minimum 'olume of wine to be consumed in order to fulfill ,i--ush on *riday night or the minimum re(uirement per-glass of the four obligatory glasses of wine on the Seder night, formerly AH cc, would now nearly double (?rown 2 "#.

The third religiosity inde& relates to the dimensions of the area affected by ,ewish ritual norms, i.e., the perimeter of their application. The greater the number and scope of spheres of human e&istence guided by the commandments of the Torah and regulated by rabbinical rulings, the higher the degree of religiosity. 5erfect religiosity is thought of as
4H

8n illustration of the Gha2on Ish religious ma&imalism.

2B

an ideali2ed image of an ancient or traditional religiosity which is imagined to ha'e been uni'ersal both in terms of its encompassing the entire populace as well as all aspects of life. This outloo/ sees moderni2ation and its attendant deep seculari2ation as constituting a critical uphea'al, the ramifications of which were the loss of power and prominence of religion -- though not its utter dissolution, as was e&pected--and its fundamental transformation (?erger !9HA4 1artin !9BA4 1artin !99!#. It was not merely the masses (including figures close with and significant to religious indi'iduals#, who were liberated from the shac/les of religion, and not only the fact that religion lost much of its centrality in a world where it was once able to promote its interests and impose its will upon the authorities. It was rather most notably the change that befell the nature of religion. @ith the change of religion, religiosity changed as well+ fewer and not necessarily a&ial sectors of life were now guided by the logic of hala/hah. -ltra-.rthodo&y is so ambitious and demanding that it lea'es no aspect of human life free from the domination of hala/hah. This totalitarianism relates not merely to beha'ior in synagogue or at home, during holidays or leisure-time, but to a religious person)s beha'ior as a citi2en, material pro'ider, consumer, possessor of aesthetic tastes, and other areas which con'entionally are thought to be outside of the realm of religion. The broadening of religion)s reach beyond specifically religious areas has manifested itself among the -ltra-.rthodo& not merely in areas of religion)s interface with secular surroundings. Such ma&imalist religious authority dictates the manner in which one buttons a shirt, for instance. The greater the proportion of one)s life that is subser'ient to hala/hah, the greater the religiosity. 0e who follows the Shulhan Aru,h and the rulings of his rabbi for selecting the Cob of his spouse, naming his children and choosing the games he will buy for them, choosing the music to which he will listen, the ban/ where he will deposit his money, and the parliamentary representati'es for whom he will 'ote -- is truly religious, li/e the -ltra-.rthodo&. The comparison of and competition between religious adherents of 'arious le'els of religiosity according to the three aforementioned criteria can be carried out between both members of the same religious group and members of different groups within one religion. *or e&ample, comparison and competition within -ltra-.rthodo&y can

2A

characteri2e not only different rabbis and yeshi'as, but also residential communities,4B and e'en generations. This latter case is of special interest for it represents an instance of trend re'ersal or internal contradiction. 8ccording to the spirit of the ,ewish tradition, the $generations become progressi'ely lesser% (in their religiosity#, i.e., the further bac/ in time one tra'els and the closer he comes to the Sages of anti(uity or their prophetic predecessors, the more perfect one)s religious wisdom and conduct (Ha-or holech u3mitma3et #.4A Gonse(uently, the le'el of religiosity in modern times is presumably relati'ely inferior. 8nd yet, as we shall illustrate below, the -ltra-.rthodo& of the past two generations ha'e generated a pretension of greater religiosity, the parado&ical and somewhat embarrassing implication of which is that the religiosity of later generations is loftier than that of the earlier.49 Gomparison and competition may also be carried out between belie'ers or groups from different religions, and e'en between the religions themsel'es. Thus it is possible, for e&ample, to compare the le'el of religiosity of -ltra-.rthodo& ,ews relati'e to that of Dorth 8merican ?aptists, the Sunni ,amma)at of 3gypt, ,ordan, and 7a2a, the Gatholic .pus <ei, and other 'ery religious communities. ?eyond comparison and competition, lin/ing groups of 'ery religious adherents belonging to different religions generally carries negati'e connotations--confrontation and hostility--but there may occasionally be dimensions of strategic collaboration and e'en solidarity, an implicit pan-superreligiosity of sorts. 8n illustrati'e e&ample would be that of the tacit coalition of antiabortion protesters in the -nited States, which unites Ghristian fundamentalists with -ltra-.rthodo& ,ews.> Three final notes before the conclusion of this sub-section. *irst, the measurability of religiosity is dynamic and open for negotiation. The criteria for comparison and competition as well as the relati'e ran/ing of groups and indi'iduals are all subCect to

4B

3.g., the classic ri'alry between the two central concentrations of the -ltra-.rthodo&+ ,erusalem and ?nei ?ra/. The latter claims to be e'en holier than the former in contrast to formal and traditional hierarchy. 4A $ .r, Holech u3phochet ha-or$ 49 3.g., the issue of $measures% e&amined abo'e. > 8nother e&ample+ The recent surge in Greationist, anti-<arwinian, *lat 3arth attitude e&pressed in -ltra.rthodo& circles especially in 8merica.

29

change.>! Second, scales of religiosity may be challenged by other stratification principles according to which power and prestige are awarded in the religious world. In the -ltra.rthodo& community, for e&ample, there is a co'ert ri'alry between the 'ery religious, on the one hand, and the wealthy (gevirim# and local politicians (as,anim#, on the other. Dotwithstanding the fact that there is no official obCection to the supremacy of those who e&cel in religiosity, one can occasionally detect signs of a double standard which swaps spiritual and ethical 'alues with material and social ones. Third, while an ad'antage in religious le'el guarantees preferred status in communities li/e those of the -ltra-.rthodo&, it is also considered problematic, if not dangerous. 3&cessi'e religiosity of indi'iduals or of a group within a population threatens not only those who maintain a lower le'el of religiosity, but the authority of the religious leadership and the integration of the religious group, both of which re(uire homogeni2ation predicated on a religious standard. .ne can identify an optimum religiosity, stri'ing past which would be considered unacceptable. Intolerance toward e&treme degrees of religiosity, as in the case of martyrdom, is neither uncommon nor necessarily a function of religious liberal moderation. >2 .n occasion, internal sanctions are le'ied upon those who ta/e religiosity to an e&treme. 0umor, among others, is an effecti'e mechanism for social super'ision in 'ery religious communities, and is employed at the e&pense of those with both minimal and e&ceptional religiosity. In the -ltra-.rthodo& community, the Cibes directed at those whose silent prayers are considered short are less abrasi'e than those which ser'e to contend with the discomfort caused by those whose prayers e&tend for too long (8ran !99>#. >" Thus the more is not always the better. The precise proper le'el of religiosity is subtly determined and enforced.

Afterwor>!

See for instance, the mushrooming 0aredi concentration in the town of ?eit Shemesh, 2 1iles from ,erusalem. The -ltra-.rthodo& hard core of the local community systematically tries hard to set new records of religiosity and out-do the ,erusalemite 0aredi standards in terms of total 'eiling, total prohibition of secular people)s 'isits in the isolated neighborhood, etc. >2 See for e&ample, the traditional ,ewish ambi'alence towards sainthood.. >" There are also some formal attempts to challenge frum,eit, li/e the peculiar crusade of R) @olbeh.

"

@hile sub-groups within the -ltra-.rthodo& community continue to wage a fierce battle o'er the title of e&cellence in super-religiosity, new contenders for the crown ha'e arri'ed from the outside. In recent years the pre'iously uncontested position of 0aredim as the $most religious ,ews in Israel% has been challenged by groups that were always e'aluated as inferior in religiosity. The phenomenon collo(uially called har-al, is an illuminating e&ample. This term is an acronym for 0aredi cum nationalist. The latter o;ymoron refers to a ,ewish Israeli group that originated from Deo-.rthodo& Religious :ionists. They underwent radicali2ation in the past two generations. <uring the !94 -H )s the Israeli modern .rthodo& suffered from isolation and an inferiority comple& 'is-N-'is the secular :ionists J who did not allow them to share in the ?lood, Sweat, and Tears pioneer ethos of the sabra (8lmog 2 # / on the one hand, and in relation to the 0aredim who despised their allegedly lesser religiosity manifested in collaboration with the :ionists, as well as in compromising hala/hic commitments and e&clusi'e Torah study, on the other hand. The first phase of their drastic religious transformation too/ place between the !9H s and !99 s and consisted mostly of adopting a bold theological stance that allowed the spiritual appropriation of Israeli statist norms and the integration of :ionist 'alues within the bounds of ,ewish .rthodo&y. This religious mo'e had far reaching political implications in the guise of 7ush 3munim, an e&tra-parliamentary mo'ement embracing a haw/ish geo-political program effecti'ely implemented in Israel since the !9B s, identified with the settlements in the @est ?an/ Territories (biblical ,udea 6 Samaria# that are at the epicenter of the consuming rage of the contemporary 1iddle 3ast. The 7ush a'ant-garde of the enlightened is called upon to promote the reali2ation of its mystical-messianic 'ision by guaranteeing Israeli strategic achie'ements and e&panding Israeli so'ereignty o'er the $@hole% Fand of Israel. *rom here, it is Cust a self-e'ident short step to the establishment of the pristine 0ebrew Faw as the State Faw. The 7ush motto is the Torah of Israel to the 5eople of Israel in the Fand of Israel. The latter component J the territorial sanctity J is highlighted as a pi'otal religious tenet. 8ccording to the 7ush, contrary to Israel)s self-conception and public-image, the State is a holy entity. The 7ush $consecrates% Israel J as is - by assuming secular Israelis to be $saints despite themsel'es,% by defining :ionism an a priori millenarian pursuit,

"!

and by conceptuali2ing official organs J the go'ernment and military in particular J as sublime media whose true mission is to bring redemption. 0igh-'oltage religiosity charges Israeli foreign and defense policy. 1ore specifically, the con(uest and settlement of the mytho-historical 0oly Fand are regarded as critical preconditioning stages immediately preceding the sal'ation of the people, then of humanity and finally of the cosmos. Territorial politics turn into an act of worship, a manifestation not only of oldtime pioneer spirit, but also of rehabilitated $authentic% ,udaism. The marginality and humiliation pre'iously e&perienced by the precursors of the 7ush in relation to the -ltra.rthodo& on the one hand and the Qstatist) elite on the other hand, is replaced by the e&hilarating assurance of 7ush acti'ist-belie'ers that they are more pious than the former and more patriotic than the latter. In the last three decades of the 2
th

century, the 7ush was crucial in fashioning

both religion and politics in Israel and, to a large degree determined the 1iddle 3astern geographic-demographic, strategic and moral reality. 8t the turn of the 2!st century, the 7ush is in a crisis. The mo'ement is challenged by political setbac/s and theological impasse, the latter leading, among others, to 0aredi2ation+ formerly neo-orthodo& -ltra:ionists are gradually adopting -ltra-.rthodo& characteristics. In its more radical 'ersion this trend boils down to de-2ionisation, e'en anti-:ionist stance. The original broadening of the definition of ,ewish religiosity so as to enable it to be applied to 'arious (seculari2ed# Israeli national realms - or rather to $re-con(uer% ,ewish nationalism by its interpretation as fundamentally religious J pro'ed to be insufficient for liberating these 1odern .rthodo& from their apologetic position 'is-N-'is the -ltra-.rthodo&. Gonse(uently, many of them tend to relin(uish their (messianic# :ionist super-religiosity and replace it with 0aredi-li/e super-religiosity. The second phase of the Dational-Religious drastic transformation too/ place in the !99 -2 )s and consisted mostly of an attempt to be more religious than the 0aredim. They try hard to out-do the 0aredim in 0aredi-type religiosity manifested in isolation and alienation toward Israeli symbols, institutions and citi2ens, as well as in emphasi2ing Torah-centered life style and rigid hala/hic interpretation. The substitution of one /ind of super-religiosity with another push some e&-7ush belie'ers to culti'ate 0aredi beha'ioral indices of super-religiosity, li/e lowering the age of marriage to eighteen or less, raising "2

the number of children per family to ten or more, ma/ing the separation between the se&es much stricter and growing much longer side-loc/s. 8 remar/able sign of being 'ery, 'ery religious among them is the wearing of the talith (prayer shawl# and tefilin (phylacteries# in the open all day longS>4 8nother case in point is the change among 1i2rahi (i.e. from 1iddle 3astern and Dorth 8frican origins# 0aredim. Their orthodo&y, considered soft e'er since their encounter with 8sh/ena2i 0aredim, has been gradually changing. 5arado&ically, 1i2rahi 0aredim could ha'e been defined as relati'ely liberal (and compassionate or indulgent# as they were attuned to human needs and naturally adCusted to changing social contingencies. Thus they used to practice bicycle riding on the Sabbath. 8fter all it is not labor but leisure. This rela&ed beha'ior stopped completely. To ta/e another illustration, e'en the .rthodo& 1i2rahim used to eat lentils, beans and peas (,itniot# o'er the 5asso'er wee/, strictly forbidden by the 8sh/ena2i rabbis. The particularly 3uropean ,ewish custom J the origins of which are (uite coincidental>> - is now adopted by many 0aredi 1i2rahim. The latter)s original relati'e lenience may be related to their far less ad'anced modernity+ they were closer to the pole of tradition rather than traditionalism, entertaining moderate non-ideological orthodo&y. 8t the early years of the state, the 1i2rahim who came to Israel as part of the mass immigration from 1uslim lands had no Torah learning institutions of their own. *or a generation or two they studied at 8sh/ena2i yeshi'as, where they were tolerated as somewhat underpri'ileged students. .nly in recent years ha'e they been emancipated from the domination of 8sh/ena2i religious authorities and de'eloped an independent rabbinic establishment and distinct hala/hic legacy (:ohar 2 !#. 8t the fringe of the thri'ing no'el 1i2rahi Torah world there emerge peculiar manifestations of radical religiosity. 8mong them, a 'ibrant re'i'al of ,ewish mysticism, and, not unrelated, e&treme forms of asceticism (?ilu 2 4 2 ! 4 deshen !994##. 8t the 'irtuous periphery of 1i2rahi 0aredi culture, saintly men bid for championship in super-religiosity by imposing upon themsel'es 'arious monastic-li/e ordeals li/e long-term fasting and isolation, Fent-li/e 'ows of silence (ta3anit -ibur#, or, imposing upon their wi'es
>4 >>

Regularly .efilin and talith are only used for a few minutes during early morning shacharit prayer. In early times Ash,ena+i ,ews li'ing in 3urope stored pulse (Fegume# in pro&imity to $5asso'er non/osher% wheat grains thus ris/ing $defilement% during this wee/ of selecti'e diet.

""

unheard-of standards of 'eiling by dar/ tent-shaped cloa/s that co'er feet, hand palms, hair, face and e'en eyes. 8pparently the range of reference groups for these ,ewish fundamentalists stretches far beyond the 0aredi options. Ironically, they borrow, as it were, features of super-religiosity from Sunni and Shiite fundamentalists, presumably their arch-enemies. It seems that ,ewish super-religionists inad'ertently react to their 1uslim counterparts and the two tacitly compete with each other for recognition of who is more, or most religious. Incidentally, the ultra-'eiled ,ewish women discussed earlier are labeled by some Israelis .aliban Mammas. References 8lmog .2. 2 Galifornia 5ress. 8lmond, 7abriel. Scott 8ppleby. and 3mmanuel Si'an. 2 ". Strong *eligion) .he *ise of <un-amentalisms Aroun- the =orl-$ Ghicago+ -ni'ersity of Ghicago 5ress. 8mmerman, Dancy. !9AB. 0ible 0elievers) <un-amentalists in the Mo-ern =orl-$ Dew ?runswic/+ Rutgers -5. 8rad, 1otti. 2 4. (ed.#, Dying for 1o-) *ea-er. ,erusalem+ The 0ebrew -ni'ersity. . .he Sabra) .he 5reation of the 'ew Jew. ?er/eley+ -ni'ersity of

8ran, 7ideon. !99>. $Gan *undamentalism ?e *unny.% in 1artin 1arty and Scott 8ppleby (eds.#, <un-amentalisms 5omprehen-e-$ Ghicago+ -ni'ersity of Ghicago 5ress. -----. !9AB. <rom *eligious >ionism to >ionist *eligion. 5h< <issertation submitted to the 0ebrew -ni'ersity. 8rmstrong, ;aren. 2 . .he 0attle for 1o-) <un-amentalism in Ju-aism, 5hristianity an- #slam. Fondon+ 0arper and Gollins. 8sad, Talal. !99". 1enealogies of *eligion. ?altimore+ ,ohns 0op/ins -5. ?ainbridge, @illiam. !99B. .he Sociology of *eligious Movements, DE+ Routledge ?ayly, Susan. !999. 5aste, Society an- (olitics in #n-ia. Gambridge+ Gambridge -5.

"4

?en 1enahem, 0anina. and Deil 0echt. (eds.#,!999. Selecte- .opics in Jewish 6aw, Ramat 8'i'+ The .pen -ni'ersity. ?erger, 5eter. !9HA. $Religious Institutions,% in Deil Smelser (ed.#, Sociology. DE+ @iley. ?ilu, Eoram. 2 ! . .he Saints3 #mpresarios) Dreamers, Healers an- Holy Men in #srael3s Urban (eriphery, ?righton 18+ 8cademic Studies 5ress. ///// $ ?!!!$ =ithout 0oun-s) .he 6ife an- Death of *abbi 4aacov 9a+ana, <etroit, @ayne State -5. ?leich, <a'id. !9BB-A9. 5ontemporary Hala,hic (roblems, DE+ ;ta'. ?loch, 1aurice. !994. (rey into Hunter, Gambridge+ Gambridge -5. ?oyarin, <aniel. !999. Dying for 1o-) Martyr-om an- the Ma,ing of 5hristianity anJu-aism$ Stanford+ Stanford -ni'ersity 5ress. ?rinner, @illiam. and Stephen Ric/s. (eds.#, !9A9. Stu-ies in #slamic an- Ju-aic .ra-itions$ 8tlanta 78+ Scholars 5ress. ?rown, ?enCamin. 2 (0ebrew#. ". $0a)Gha2on Ish.% (5h< diss., 0ebrew -ni'ersity, ,erusalem.

?rown, peter. !9A!. .he 5ult of the Saints, Ghicago+ -ni'ersity of Ghicago 5ress. ?ynum, Garolyn. !99>. *esurrection of the 0o-y in =estern 5hristianity. DE+ Golumbia -5. Gohen, ,eremy. 2 4. Sanctifying the 'ame of 1o-. 5hiladelphia+ -ni'ersity of 5ennsyl'ania 5ress. Goo/, 1ichael. 2 B. Martyr-om in #slam , DE+ Gambridge -5.

<eshen, Shlomo. !994. $The Religiosity of the 1i2rahim+ Gollecti'e, Rabbis, *aith.% Alpayim, 9, (0ebrew# <roge, 8rthur. and ,ames Tabor. !992. A 'oble Death. San *rancisco+ 0arper. <umont, Fouis. !9A . Homo Hierarchicus) .he 5aste System an- #ts #mplications$ Ghicago+ -ni'ersity of Ghicago 5ress. <ur/heim, 3mil. !9A2. .he 2lementary <orms of the *eligious 6ife$ Fondon+ 8llen and -nwin.

">

3lon, 1enachem. (ed.#, !9B>. .he (rinciples of Jewish 6aw, ,erusalem+ 3ncyclopedia ,udaica. 3ri/son, 3ri/. !9>A. 4oung Man 6uther. Fondon+ *aber and *aber. 7offman, 3r'ing. !9H". 0ehavior in (ublic (laces, DE, *ree 5ress. ------ . !9>9. .he (resentation of Self in 2very-ay 6ife. DE+ 8nchor *ish, Ste'en. 2 !!. Are Muslim Distinctive) a 6oo, at the 2vi-ence. DE+ .&ford -5. ----- 2 !!. $1uslims Too 5refer Secular 7o'ernment.% Mercury 'ews, *eb. 2. 7an2fried, Solomon. !9H!. 5o-e of Jewish 6aw) 8it+ur Shulchan Aruch . DE+ 0ebrew 5ublications Gompany. 7eert2, Glifford. !9B". $3thos and @orld =iew.% in his #nterpretation of 5ultures, Dew Eor/+ ?asic ?oo/s, !9B". -----. !9HH. $Religion as a Gultural System.% in 1ichael ?anton @e-$A, Anthropological Approaches to the Stu-y of *eligion$ 8.S.8 1onographs ". Fondon+ Ta'istoc/. 7irard, Rene. !9BB. 9iolence an- the Sacre-. ?altimore+ ,ohns 0op/ins -5. 7loc/, Gharles. and Rodney Star/. !9H>. *eligion an- Society in .ension, Ghicago+ Rand 1cDally. 7oitein, Shlomo. !9B4. Jews an- Arabs) .heir 5ontacts .hrough the Ages$ DE+ Scribner)s Sons. 7oldin, Simha. 2 A. .he =ays of Jewish Martyr-om. Turnhout+ ?repoles.

7oldman, ?arbara. !999. $0asidic @omen 0ead Go'ering,% in+ Finda, 8rthur. (ed.#, *eligion, Dress an- 0o-y. .&ford+ ?erg. 7opal, Sar'epalli. (ed.#, !99!. Anatomy of 5onfrontation, DE+ 5enguin. 7orsuch, Richard. !9A4. $1easurement+ The ?oon and ?ane of In'estigating Religion,% American (sychologist, "9 7uindi, *adwa. !999. 9eil) Mo-esty, (rivacy an- *esistance, .&ford+ ?erg. 1uttmann 5enter Surveys 99!/?!!B$ ,erusalem+ Israel <emocracy Institute. 0assner, Ron. 2 9. =ar on Sacre- 1roun-s. Ithaca+ Gornell -ni'ersity 5ress. H. .he Development of #slamic *itual$ 8ldershot+ 8shgate.

0awting, 7erald. (ed.# 2

"H

0eilman, Samuel. !9A2. $5rayer and the .rthodo& Synagogue+ 8n 8nalysis of Ritual <isplay.% 5ontemporary Jewry, H (!# 0ill, 5eter. and Ralph 0ood. 2 3ducation 5ress. 9. Measures of *eligiosity, ?irmingham+ Religious 9. .he (sychology of *eligion) An

0ood, Ralph. 5eter 0ill and ?ernard Spil/a. 2 2mpirical Approach, DE+ 7uilford 5ress.

0ubert, henry. and 1arcel 1auss. !9H4. Sacrifice) #ts 'ature an- <unction. Fondon+ Gohen and @est. Israeli, Raphael. 2 Gass. 2. #slami,a+e) Manifestations of #slamic Martyr-om$ Fondon+ *ran/

,acob, Fouise. !99B. $The ?ody in ,ewish @orship+ Three Rituals 3&amined% in+ Sarah Goa/ly (ed.#, *eligion an- the 0o-y. Gambridge, Gambridge -5 ,uergensmeyer, 1ar/. 2 Galifornia 5ress. . .error in the Min- of 1o-$ ?er/eley+ -ni'ersity of

-----. 2 A. 1lobal *ebellion) *eligious 5hallenge to the Secular State) <rom 5hristian Militia to Al/Cae-a$ ?er/eley+ -ni'ersity of Galifornia 5ress. ;at2 3lihu et al. 2 . 0eliefs, :bservances, an- 9alues among #sraeli Jews. ,erusalem+ Israel <emocracy Institute. ;at2, 3lihou. and Shulamit le'y. 2 . A (ortrait of #sraeli Jewry) 0eliefs, :bservance an- 9alues Among #sraeli Jews. ,erusalem. 8'i Ghai *oundation and 7uttman Genter of the Israel <emocracy Institute. ;epel, 7illes. 2 A. 0eyon- .error an- Martyr-om, Gambridge+ 0ar'ard -5.

-----. !9A>. Muslim 2;tremism in 2gypt, ?er/eley+ -ni'ersity of Galifornia 5ress. ;leinberg, 8'iad. 2 A. <lesh Ma-e =or-) Saints3 Stories an- the =estern #magination$ Gambridge+ 0ar'ard -5. Fawrence, ?ruce. !9A9. Defen-ers of 1o-) <un-amentalist *evolt Against the Mo-ern Age$ San *rancisco+ 0arper and Row. Fe'y, Shlomit. Ghana Fe'inson, 3lihu ;at2. 2 ;eren 8'ichai, (0ebrew#. 2. #sraeli Jews) a (rofile. ,erusalem+

"B

Fiebman, Gharles. !9A". $Religious 3&tremism as a Religious Dorm,% Journal for the Scientific Stu-y of *eligion 22 Fincoln, ?ruce. !99!. Death, =ar an- Sacrifice$ Ghicago+ -ni'ersity of Ghicago 5ress. 1artin, <a'id. !9BA. A 1eneral .heory of Seculari+ation$ .&ford+ ?lac/well. ----- . !99!.$The Seculari2ation Issue+ 5rospect and Retrospect.% 0ritish Journal of Sociology 42 1arty, 1artin. and Scott 8ppleby. (eds.#, !99!->. .he <un-amentalism (ro&ect$ Ghicago+ The 8merican 8cademy of 8rts and Sciences and -ni'ersity of Ghicago 5ress. (*i'e 'olumes#. 1arty, 1artin. Scott 8ppleby. and ,ohn 7ar'ey. (eds.#, !99". <un-amentalism an- the State) *ema,ing (olitics, 2conomies an- Militancy, Ghicago+ -ni'ersity of Ghicago 5ress. 1a22ar, 1ichael. 2 B. Unmo-ern =ar in the Mo-ern =orl-) (olitical #slam, .errorism an- the =ar on Mo-ernity. DE+ Gambridge -5. 1c7uire, 1eredith. !992. *eligion) the Social 5onte;t, ?elmont+ @adsworth. 1itchell, Richard. !99". .he Society of Muslim 0rothers, DE+ .&ford -ni'ersity 5ress. Duesner, ,acob. and Thomas Son. !999. 5omparing *eligions .hrough 6aw) Ju-aism an- #slam. Fondon+ Routledge. .)<ea, Thomas. !9A". .he Sociology of *eligion$ 3nglewood Gliffs, D.,.+ 5rentice-0all, !9A". 5arsons, Talcot. !9HA. .he Structure of Social Action, DE+ The *ree 5ress. 5artner, 5eter. !99A. 1o- of 0attles) Holy =ars of 5hristianity an- #slam 5rinceton+ 5rinceton -5. Ra'it2/y, 8'ie2er. 2 5ress, 2 H. H. :rtho-o; Ju-aism) 'ew (erspectives$ ,erusalem+ 1agnes

Reichler, Fuc. !99B. $Religion and Gonflict.% .he #nternational Journal of (eace Stu-ies 2+! Reuter, Ghristoph. 2 4. My 6ife #s a =eapon) Mo-ern History of Suici-e 0ombing, 5rinceton+ 5rinceton -ni'ersity 5ress.

"A

Riesbrodt, 1artin. and 3llen ;oniec2ny. 2 >. $Sociology of Religion.% in+ ,ohn 0innels (ed.#, .he *outle-ge 5ompanion to the Stu-y of *eligion, DE+ Routledge. Salisbury, ,oyce. 2 4. .he 0loo- of Martyrs Fondon+ Routledge. Scholem, 7ershom. !9"B. $1it2'a 0aba)ah ?e)a'era.% 8nesset (0ebrew#. Seal, ,effrey. !999. $.urs Is the @ay of 7od+ Religion, Identity and Inter-7roup Gonflict.% Journal of (eace *esearch "H+>. Shira2i, *aegheh. 2 !. .he 9eil Unveile-) .he Hi&ab in Mo-ern 5ulture, 7aines'ille+ -ni'ersity 5ress of *lorida. Si2garich, Thomas. 2 9. 9iolence an- 0elief in 6ate Anti7uity) Militant Devotion in 5hristianity an- #slam, 5hiladelphia+ -ni'ersity of 5ennsyl'ania 5ress, 2 9. Sosis, Richard. 2 H. $Religious ?eha'iors, ?adges, and ?ans+ Signaling Theory and the 3'olution of Religion,% in 5atric/ 1cDamara (ed.#, =here 1o- an- Science Meet) How 0rain an- 2volutionary Stu-ies Alter :ur Un-erstan-ing of *eligion, 'ol. !, @estport+ 5raeger 5ublishers. Spiro, 1elford. !9AB. 5ulture an- Human 'ature$ Ghicago+ -ni'ersity of Ghicago 5ress. Stadler, Durit. 2 4. $Taboos, <reams, <esires+ 0aredi *antasies on 1ilitarism and the 1ilitary,% Sociologia #sraelit H+! (0ebrew#. Stadler, Durit. and 1asterman 3. and ?en-8ri 3. 2 >. $Terror, 8id and .rgani2ation+ The 0aredi <isaster =ictim Identification Teams (:a;8# in Israel.% Anthropological Cuarterly BA." Star/, Rodney. and @illiam ?ainbridge. !9B9. A .heory of *eligion$ DE+ Fang, 3rnest. Stein2alt2, 8din. 2 H. .he 2ssential .almu-, DE+ ?asic ?oo/s.

Strens/y, I'an. 2 ". $Sacrifice, 7ift and the Social Fogic of 1uslim 0uman ?ombers.% .errorism an- (olitical 9iolence !>+" =an 0enten, ,an. 2 4. Martyr-om an- 'oble Death. Fondon+ Routledge. >. (eds#., .he 5ultural (olitics of <oo- an- 2ating$

@atson, ,ames. and Galdwell, 1. 2 ?asil+ ?lac/well.

@eber, 1a&. !92 (!9>A#. .he (rotestant 2thic an- the Spirit of 5apitalism, DE+ Scribner)s Sons. Eu'al, Israel. 2 H. .wo 'ations in 4our =omb) (erception of Jews an- 5hristians in 6ate Anti7uity an- the Mi--le Ages$ ?er/eley+ -ni'ersity of Galifornia 5ress.

"9

:adra, <aria. !994. $Gommunion Fibera2ione+ 8 *undamentalist Idea of 5ower,% in 1artin 1arty and 8ppleby s. (eds.#, Accounting for <un-amentalism) .he Dynamic 5haracter of Movements$ Ghicago+ -ni'ersity of Ghicago 5ress. :aha'i, 8mot2. !99B. .he Han-icap (rinciple$ Dew Eor/+ .&ford -5. :ohar, :'i. 2 !. $The 7lory of .ld%, in+ Eoa' 5eled (ed#, Shas) .he 5hallenge of #sraeliness, Tel 8'i'+ Eediot (0ebrew#.