Friendly Focus

By: Jonathan Seidel

Particularizing universality: Leibowitz as a foil for Sacks—inverting globalism  

Leibowitz while praised by R Sacks in his foil. Leibowitz is the particularist to Sacks’ universalism. Sacks focuses on the Biblical values and Leibowitz on biblical law. It is Leibowitz who can help undo the Sackian trend.

R Sacks while a traditionalist joined the bandwagon of modern Jewish scholars on globalism. This is a usual style for liberal scholars from Mendelssohn to Buber. Liberal Jews use liberalism to alter their Judaism. Judaism needs to adapt to the global playing field. R Sacks accepted the playing field but not the rules. R Sacks uniquely promoted universalism while maintaining particularism. Following the cultural linguistic model each tribe has their model that they hold true. It is through these means that Judaism can enter the global game. Promoting Jewish values to other cultures. The globalized notion is subjectively enhanced.

Leibowitz derided the globalist affair. To some extent even the biblical use is deafening since it is shared a book. A religious rather than Jewish book but R Sacks does bring the Jewish perspective frequently. Still for Leibowitz, the halakha is the core and the tribal window is the promise of the new age. His nationalistic agenda seeks the Jewish values to remain enclosed to Judaism. Instead of focusing efforts outwards to the multiethnic world, focus instead on the Jewish world. There is much to be fixed and adapted there. R Sacks in his youth bemoaned untraditional Judaism but his sympathy for secular Jews differed for Leibowitz. His disdain for latter knew no bounds.

It is therefore no wonder each focused on a different aspect. R Sacks focused on biblical ethics and Leibowitz on halakha. The former included the overall fate of Jews while the latter focused on the chosen destiny. To some extent R Sacks’ remodelling of a community faith rather than destiny undermines the entire separation between Jews and identifying Jews. Though Leibowitz went further in classifying non-halakhic Judaism as idolatrous. A novel interpretation of idolatry but yet one that intuited observance as the key component. Yet even observance has a caveat. Observance that seeks to serve the self is perverted. Only pure observance along traditional lines is acceptable. 

Leibowitz’s model provides a fully new framework to utilize. While R Sacks was writing for globalism. Trying to recapture the lost particularist gems, nationalism was gaining traction. Neo-nationalism has been steadily increasing. More countries are promoting isolationism. Trump America may be the clearest sign but China and Japan have also displayed such themes. The resurgence of nationalism has included extremist xenophobia but for the most part has mildly contested globalist failures. Hoping to recapture the patriotism and determination to citizenry. For economic and political reasons nuanced isolationism and immigration protocols have been suggested. 

The nationalist pull concerns more with one’s own country before aiding another. It reminds of the classic airplane safety protocols. Buckle yourself before assisting another. No one is insinuating that such instruction is discriminatory. Applying the same logic people will assist their families before others and then their kin. Maimonides wasn’t racist against other nations but merely prioritized the care of kin over others. If otherness is secondary to personal care then kin will be better off. Accordingly that is at the expense of others but there is no line to where one crosses to prioritize the other. Kin comes first yet the universalists would place randomness ahead of blood. Strangers are idolized as spiritually linked. 

Globalists desire either non tribalism or a new worldwide tribalism. Neither one of these makes sense on biological nor historical grounds. People are who they are based on their upbringings. Their environments shaped them. Built on generations of ideas and actions. The fascination with one truth is a negligence on the part of the tribe. Assisting others before their own. One perfect example is the billions going to the Ukraine war effort instead of solving American poverty. Who is Ukraine and why don’t others assist. That taxpayer money is providing for non-kin. When did others supersede kin? When did others matter more than family? This is the painstaking reality. Caring for random strangers before one’s own citizenry. A state entrusted with its people’s security and prosperity, representatives voted for the people’s best interest shipped off that hard earned cash for nothing.

A failure such as this, is only the latest horrifying tactic of globalism. Parenting the world is not the job of any state or organization. People need to focus on their own citizenry before doling out to strangers. Globalism has failed everyone and it must be challenged. It must be halted. R Sacks’ applying particularism to the global match is not something new. While nuanced from previous universalists, it pertains to sink authentic Jewish values to the global sphere. Akin to states giving their share of expertise to the global market. The spirit of democracy became the spirit of American consumerism. American companies exist in all corners of the world. The world is an English based world, how universalist can you get?

While not entirely coherent on this point, it does seem R Sacks would promote a world of faith. He isn’t actively imposing his will like former imperialists but he does promote a faith based society or at least value wise. A more passive advocate. He doesn’t halt traffic but he does lecture at universities. He is more along the daily wire pundits than the ecological defenders. Education in the new persuasion instead of brute force, which is why the former are winning. Shagar takes a totally different perspective. In the spirit of the postmodern relativity, all possibilities are good. Whether one is a religious extremist or fascist. R Shagar may stop at Nazis but the absence of an objective nature whether codified or merely intuited inquires of the possibility of responding.  

In these cases R Shagar chooses to be silent while R Sacks protests. R Sacks stands up to honor killings while R Shagar is silent. Whether R Sacks would enter other nations and impose an ethic on them is different. R Shagar’s example is Druze murdering girls. Here he decides to be silent and in the imperial sphere he would also remain silent. Yet a clear distinction can be drawn between your values and among those you govern. For Nazis, R Shagar would pushback because they are hurting his people and imposing their will so it must be repressed. Either imposer must be regressed or merely halted. Also, if the Druze live in Israel they may be forced to cease since this is matters of the state. The state overpowers the religious ideas of yore. Yet Druze is Syria can persist in the practice. Silence is that which remains beyond the state. 

To this R Shagar is forcibly nationalistic but implores the globe to do so. The silence of acceptance is an objective matrix that accepts contradictions within. While R Sacks desires a cohesive communitarianism, R Shagar desires a hodgepodge of angst. Uncertain of what is correct and conceding to that element allows subjective evil to persist. It is a fascinating question whether one ought to speak up. Both R Sacks and R Shagar may be anti-imperialism but was ridding slavery wrong? At time it seems R Shagar doesn’t want to step on anyone’s toes. He wishes to live peacefully but such conversation is each to their own. The global dialogue is not one of compromise but of mere acceptance. If R Sacks confronted R Shagar and said he wished to live this way R Shagar would accept him but insofar as R Sacks didn’t continue to impose on others. Silence may just be a limit but then again where is that line?

No matter the scenario, R Shagar is invested in global affairs. He wishes to maintain his method and allowing others to live their way. He is an advocate by merely deflecting. He’d rather not contend with problematic actions. You do you. Quite libertarian but such libertarianism must have its limits. Nevertheless, his libertarianism speaks to the global age. In the American political sphere: R Sacks is a liberal, Leibowitz a conservative and R Shagar a libertarian. Leibowitz desires more state rights. While R Shagar values secular Jews and R Sacks sees hidden potential, Leibowitz is disdained by them. Leibowitz wishes for his area for his region to exist in its own form. For it to be the focus. Instead of Jewish values or anything goes, Jewish law should run the state. He was no reservist but he did see the Jewish nation acting on its own accord like a state on its own merit.  

Leibowitz wasn’t conservative in the political sense (some of his quotes will shock) so the metaphor isn’t entirely fair but he did believe in authenticity. For him being frum wasn’t conservative, strict or traditional. He wasn’t a spokesman for an ideology nor a preservationist. He merely saw the cultural ethos in halakha. To be Jewish meant to uphold halakha just as much as to be a model citizen was to uphold the constitution. While the debate surrounding the second amendment may be either accepted or rejected, the entire constitution doesn’t go in the garbage because there is a conflict of a single statute. The same goes for the halakha, to ignore all is to be vigorously problematic and to compromise is to defy the contract. A model citizen was a halakhically committed nationalist.

Leibowitz provides a paradigm where Jefferson pushes forth. Where internal focus matters more. The enlightened do not subject themselves to worldly affairs but to local issues. Following the famed R Salanter line before changing the world start with yourself and then your community. Universalists have gone straight for the jugular. Prioritizing strangers abroad than family at home. Prioritizing non-Jews before Jews. Particularism is not about racism nor a superiority complex. It is about looking after family. It is about caring for loved ones. The profundity of the globalist trade is skipping steps for a unified agenda. A global people forced to either accept difference or compel uniformity. The former falls and the latter fails. 

Leibowitz is ensuring the community is taken care of. The world is relevant by extension but not the overall focus of the life. The obsession with the universal has sullied dignity for those at home. Not thinking twice before sending off soldiers to die. Fighting endless wars for profit and false dreams. The universal is propaganda. Lies fed to the aspiring youth. Hoping for potential change. Sworn on a Bible for the Bible to be burned. The answer isn’t neglecting the world or shooing it away. The world matters but not the obsession with universal. Not the interventionist complexes and liberation hopes.