Among the multitude of practices and beliefs Goldschmidt considers, that hinder dialogue between the Jews and blacks of Crown Heights, I was particularly struck by his discussions of respect for diversity, and the anonymity of urban life.
Throughout the chapter, Goldschmidt highlights the inability of Hasidic Jews to partake in certain attempts at diminishing the social divide between them and their black neighbors, due to their religious laws. Although the Lubavitchers of Crown Heights did not have discriminatory racial intentions behind their resistance – as one Hasidic woman stated: “if we lived in Great Neck, we’d be the same way!” – Goldschmidt attests, Jewish “fear of religious pollution is inexorably tied to racial segregation.” In our society, diversification is defined as understanding others through static objects such as food, that are ideologically designated to be evident markers of “cultural” groups, and are also tied to societal views on race. To the Lubavitchers and others in the Hasidic community of Crown Heights, however, bridging the gap between the two communities could never be as simple as trying a black neighbor’s cuisine – for one, the food would have to be kosher (and that in itself constitutes complex guidelines for the preparation and consumption of the dish), but more importantly, this refers back to Jewish identity as a religious identity, and the overall ambiguity of “Jewish-ness,” as individual Jews have differing distinctions on keeping kosher.
As an individual who, prior to reading this ethnography, had little knowledge of the complexities of Hasidic Judaism, I understand why many in the black community and those outside of Crown Heights felt Lubavitch insularity was indicative of racial disdain. I was thus struck by a comment made by the Hasidic woman I cited above. In explaining her discontent with the integration programs, she contested “there really is no respect for diversity, there’s always a lot of pressure on the Jews to come across, and be open, and share.” Here, this Hasidic woman defined “respect for diversity,” not by efforts to learn about other “cultures” or by trying ideologically-defined “ethnic” food, but by acknowledgement and acceptance of differences – in essence, she saw no issue with the lack of conversation between the two communities, and sought respect for her religious choice of insularity. This characterization of respect for diversity had never occurred to me, because my definition is similar to that of most individuals in society.
In considering this, I recognize the difficulty Goldschmidt highlights in fostering relationships between the Jews and blacks of Crown Heights. Not only are there obvious differences in physical features, language, practices etc., but there are also complex and conflicting differences in each community’s definition of themselves, definition of each other, and definition of the ways to create unity – complexities that many “multicultural” and “cultural exchange” programs, though designed with good intentions, ultimately overlook. Moreover, Goldschmidt notes that the insularity attributed to Lubavitchers is not unique to their community, arguing social distance is prevalent throughout New York City. This statement also struck me, as I took the time to consider my own relationships with my neighbors. Although my family and I are somewhat close to the family next door and I often wave to neighbors and pause for small talk, it struck me, that like the Lubavitchers and the the blacks residing side-by-side, we, as New Yorkers, rarely get to know our neighbors on a personal level, and are absolutely at peace with this separation between private and public. These social situations are common and remain unnoticed, but even though the two scenarios are very similar, the relationships – or lack thereof – between black and Jewish neighbors in Crown Heights are highlighted and seen as a “problem” requiring a remedy. Ultimately, if those in Crown Heights desire to overcome the social divide between the Jews and blacks of Crown Heights, individuals would need to avoid oversimplification of the differences between the communities and work to revise, as Goldschmidt suggests, the “broader trends in American life” that serve to encourage insularity and anonymity in urban life.
