Anthropologists on Israel: a case study in the sociology of knowledge

ANTHROPOLOGISTS ON ISRAEL

A CASE STUDY IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE

TOINE VAN TEEFFELEN

no.

9

PAPERS ON EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN SOCIETIES ANTROPOLOGISCH SOCIOLOGISCH CENTRUM

UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM

19n

p. 15 , 2nd p.,raITT"aph , 3r'~ line: p1edic;;!.rrent p. 19 penultimate line: tamed

p. 37. last line of quotation to read: genernl, fits tl c [!i)Deral model develop:xi by lIP.mndy . • . 11 p. 43 penultimate hnc of qaotntion howe\'cr, the two kinds of bonds

roll eshcn to read: of ten Si"' em confHctina"

p. 6 t , n. 36 t 2nd line to read:

.

. the fielc!work was not very int~nsivc.

p. 47 , 4th line: trJ_umph

CONTENTS

L~TRODUCTION

I. ISRAELI ANTHROPOLOGY - A SHORT SURVEY IJ. ISRAELI &~THROPOLOGY AND ZIONISM

- Anthropologii:;ts' comments on Zionist ideologies - Deep structures in Zionism nncl Anthropology

- The anthropology of Arabs Jn Israel and the occupied territories

III. FIELDWORK IN ISRAEL

IV. ISRAELI ANTHROPOLOGY ON CONFLICT AND

CLEAVAGES

SUMl\L\RY AND CONCLUSIONS }:OTES BIBLIOGRAPHY l 8 9 13 25 39 53 57 65

1 -INTRODUCTION

This cssa) is an attempt lo analyze the anthropological work on lsraeh

communities from a sociology of knowledge viewpoint. I am interested in the societal. specifically ideological origins and implications of the anthropology of Israel.

My choice of this particular scientific field rested on the following considerations:

a) Wilh one or two exceptions. nnthropological studies of Israeli communities are conducted by Jews (or Israeli's. when established in Israel). Thus, lo H certain extent. they study their own culture/ ociety, which is a rather exceptional situation in the field of anthropology, traditionally the study of 'other cultures'. Conducting fieldwork in one's own society raises important questions rclevnnt to the sociology of knowledge (e.g. , about the ideological content of fieldwo1·k relations), especially when this society itself possesses a large ideological content, as in the case of Israel.

b) Jewish anthropologists have studied both Jews and Arabs in Israel. In view of the pol iticnl history of Israel and current Jcwish-Arnb rcla.tions in the Middle East, one might expect differences in the study of both group~ as a result of the societal, specifically ideological background of Lhe anthropologist.

c) Anthropology was established in Israel du·rlng the late 1960s ns 'l result of n large-scale anthropological research project under the direction of the late Max Gluckman. Because of his formative influence on most of the participants, many anthropological annlyses of Israeli communities arc characterized by a 'Gluckmanian' methodology and theoretical

structure. The sharing of certain theoretical and methodological notions by anthropologl:sts who study the same culture gives additional reason for a sociology of knowledge of this particulnr scientific field.

Generally, it is not my aim in this essay to decide whether a given anthropological work is a good or a bad account of reality. My analysis starts with the assumption that the anthropologist, to a certain extent.

'constructs' reality by his choice of particular problems, methcxlolog1es and theoretical approaches.

Israel, t analyze in Chapter II the links between Israeli anthropology and Zionism: in Chapter ill the fieldwork situation of anthropologists in Israel (nnd its influence on the anthropological accounts); and in Chapter IV the uses of Gluckman 's theory and methodology by Israeli anthropologists.

l spent three months in Israel (February-April 1976), during which I spoke with most Israeli anthropologists. I thank the following anthropolo-gists for U1eir willingness to discuss with me matters concerning Israeli anthropology: M. Aronoff, S. Ben-Dor. J. Blanc, E. Cohen! S. Cooper. S. Dcshen, C. Drucker, M. Fcdida. J. Gin at, 11. Goldberg. S. Gundrus, D. Jlundclman. G. Hundt, S. Kananna. Y. Kntzfr. G. Kressel, E. Marx,

K. Nakhleh, J. Oppenheimer, P. Palp;i, IL nosenfeld. I. Shepher,

,J Shepher, M. Shokeid, S. Weil, A. Weingrod. Of course, none of them bear responsibility for the ideas ancl interpretations expressed in this essay.

For pragmatic reasons, I spoke almost exclusively with anthropologists and not with sociologists, etc.: also, I have restricted msself to the study of anthropological literature.

I was not able to read all the literature that is presented in the bibliography -- which is largely based on the work of Handelman am Oe~hen (1975) -- since some works hnvc only l·cccnt:ly come out, while olhers are (still) unpublished.

Work in Israeli anthropology is publ ishcd predominantly in English and Hebrew. Although I am not able lo read llobrew, I do not think that this shortcoming distorted the gencr:ll picture. since much of the Hebrew work has eventually been published In (revised) English versions.

B. Scholte. E. Bonsel. and J. Boissevain commented on earlier versions of this essay. T. Koer and J. Hoekstra corrected my element-ary English, while the latter also typed the final script. For their help I am grateful.

l

-1 I. ISRAELI ANTHROPOLOGY - A SHORT SURVEY

The first writings of a more or less anthropological nature on Palestine, as the country was called before the creation of the state of Israel, were directly linked with the Zionist effort to establish a new Jewish national culture in the so-called 'homeland'. In this conte:x-t ethnography was. by :ind large, a response to the Zionist need for a new Jewish identity in Israel, based upon the former Jewish existence in Palestine. Searching for the remnants of tradltionnl Jewish or biblical customs was part of n more general revitalization movement (including, for example, also linguistics and archaeology) to legitimate the Zionist enterprise.

During that period. several societies and journals devoted to the db covery of traditional Palestinian and Jewish folklore made their

appearance. Patai (1946) reviews the activities of the Palestinian Institute of Folklore and Ethnology in the years before the establishment of the state. Also. Zionist leaders like I. Ben-Zwi (second president of Israel) and the poet Bialik showed a strong interest in Jewish customs. A well-known work from this period is Brauer's Ethnologie der

Jemenirischen Juden (1934). Still mfluential in modern anthropology are the studies of the Finnish ethnologist Granqvist (1931. 1935) on customs in a Pa.lestiruan village near Bethlehem. Because of its largely descriptive character, however, ethnography from this period has influenced contem-porary anthropology only to

a

limited extent; its stress on the integrHy of ltaditional culture is shared by some modern authors (especially Deshen).

The ne>..1: stage in the development of Israeli anthropology was formed by the work of some American anthropologists in the 1950s, among others

M. Spiro

ands.

Diamond, who were attracted by the unique economic, political and familial organization of the kibbutz, which seemed to contra-dict several 'laws' in the social sciences. Theoreticall}, they were oriented towards the study of acculturation and socialization patterns,

reflecting the general interests then current in American anthropology. The fieldwork of these anthropologists was fin:inced by the Social Science Research Council (SSRC); no formal link existed with scientific institutions

in Israel.

By the end of the 19508 other American anthropologists got a foothold in the Land Settlement Department of the Jewish Agency. Both

2

-A. Wcingrod and D. Willner served for a time as directors of the Settlement Study Center. Together with rural sociologists from the Hebrew University at Jerusalem (e.g., S. Deshon and M. Shokeid, who later became anthropologists). they studied problems of immigrant absorption and settlement. More specifically. they had to deal with

'problematic' moshavs, collective rural settlements that were considered suitable to absorb the largo, post-state influx of Middle Eastern Jew::.. The studies resulting from this applied anthropological resenrch (Weingrod 1966, Willner 1969) ure characterized by a strong oricntntlon towards the practical problems of 'nation building' and

'modcrnizntion'; in this respect they followed the interests of the more mflucntial sociologists from the Hebrew University (especially

S. Eisenstadt).

The most important :stage in the estnl>Ushment of anthropology in Israel was the initiation in the mid-sixties of a large-scale anthropologi-cal research project, financed by the English Bernstein family ao::l directed by the late Professor Max Gluclonnn from the University of Manchester. Gluckman, himself a Jew and born of a prominent Zionist tamfly in South Africa, had strong links with Israel (where his closest relntives lived). The so-called Bernstein Scheme gave him lhe unique opportunity to combine his anthropological interests \\rith his concern for the Jewish condition in Israel.

W1th the assistance of E. Mi rx, who coordinaLed the research in ls ra.cl, he recruited and, in a broad sense. socio lizcd several young anthropologists from America (Abarbanel, Aronoff ₁ Handelman, Mars), England (Baldwin) and Israel (Deshen, Shokeid, I. Shepher) to do their Ph.D. fieldwork in Israel. Most of their studies were consequently strongly influenced by 'Manchester-analysis' 2 (the exception is Handel-man n. d. ). The project resulted in a more diversified anthropological picture of Israel: besides the study of several moshavs (including a

'veteran' one3), the works dealt with kibbutzim, so-called 'development' (i. c. new) towns, and interaction patterns in urban settings. All the studies treated. at least partly, problems of bureaucracy; several times we find the themes 'immigrant absorption' and 'nation-building' as focal points in the analyses (see Chapte1· II). The disciplinary scope widened: economic, political. religious and familial behaviour received close attention.

-3-Gluckman put his stamp on Israeli anthropology in more than one respect: because of his enormous scientific status he accellerated the. acceptance of anthropology at the universities. Also, he fostered the tdca of integrating anthropology in the departments of sociology, where he hnd close relationships with Israeli sociologists. Largely as a result of his

ini:luence, Israeli anthropology gamed some international acknowledgement as a scientific community of its own.

In general the Israeli sociological 'establishment' in the fifties nnd the sixties was reluctant t.o accept anthropology as a separate discipline at the universities. An exception was Prof. Y. Talmon-Garber. a

disciple of Martin Buber4, who wholeheartedly stimulated anthropological interests among her many students (among whom the anthropologii:;ls E. Cohen. J. Shepher,

s

.

Deshen and M. Shokeid). She also had strong links with EnJlish anthropology and wns a close friend of Gluclanan.

As a result of this process of institutionalization. another 'generation' of students could pursue their anthropological fieldwork in conjunction

with the Wliversities. With respect to their work. \\"e see a shift in interest from the study of. for instance, moshavs, to the study of Israeli Arab:, (Kresse!, Hundt. Blanc, Oppenheimer, Ginat) and urban setting:i (Izraeli, Katzir. Greenberg).

The following liRt of Isrneli anthropologists includes their title/ degree, place of work, main subject( s) of research and , in some cases,

main theoretical interest. Title/degree/name Prof. Dr. E. Marx* Prof. Dr. S. Deshen • Prof. Dr. M. Shokeid

*

Dr. M. Aronoff* Employed by5

Tel Aviv Univ.

Tel Aviv Univ.

Tel Aviv Univ.

Tel Aviv Univ.

Subjects of research. theoretical interest

Bedouins of the Negev and the Sinai; patterns of violence in a development town

Tunisian and Moroccan Jews in Israel (moshavs and

development town); elections, religion

.Moroccan Jews in Israel (moshavs); voting patterns of Arabs in Israel

Politics in a development town; Israeli Labour Party

Dr. I. Shepher• Dr.

P.

K..'ltZ Dr.

N.

Izraeli* 0. Greenberg M. Fedfda Dr. H. Goldberg Dr. D. Handelman* Dr. E. Cohen Dr. Y. Eilam Dr. U. Almngor Dr. C. Drucker l'rof. Dr. IL Rosenfeld Pr'-.,f.Dr. J. Shepher Dr. M. Saltman J. Oppenheimer Prof. Dr. K. Nakhleh Dr. ,J. Ginat A. Goldberg J>rof. Dr. A. Wcingrod Dr. G. Kresse!

Tel Aviv Univ. Tel Aviv Univ. Tel Aviv Univ. Tel Aviv Univ. Tel Aviv Univ. Hebrew Univ. Hebrew Univ.

Hebrew Univ. {visit. Tel Aviv)

Hebrew Univ. Hebrew Univ. Hebrew Univ. Haifa Univ. (vis it. Hebrew Univ.) Haifa Univ. Haifa Univ. Haifa Univ. Haifa Univ. (visit. prof. ) Haifa Univ.; Dept. of Prime Minister's

Advisor for Arab Affairs

Haifa Univ. Brandeis Univ. (Jerus. Branch) (visit. Tel Aviv and Hebrew Univ. Truman Inst. (Jerus.)

Work roles in a kibbutz American immigrants in Israel

Interaction patterns in an industrial setting in Israel Women in Israeli prisons Arab village in Israel Libyan Jews in Israel; Jewish folklore

Face-to-face interaction in bureaucratic settings in Israel; West Indians in Canada; Washo Indians Kibbutz; power structure in development towns; Arabs in Israel and on the West Bank; Arab Jewish relation::.; tourism East-African pastoralists; Georgian Jews East-African pastoralists (age groups) Philippines; religion; ecology; film

Arab villages in Israel; development of class relations in Israel Marriage patterns and fnmJly in the kibbutz Africa (law)

D ruzes in Israel

Arabs in Israel; political anthropology

Arab villages in Israel

Arab villages in Israel Moroccan Jews (moshavs); ethnic relations in Israel; Sardinia

Sedentarization of Bedouins in Israel (near Ram I eh); kibbutz Dr. S. Ben-Dor Dr. Y. Katzir G. Hundt Dr. S. Gundrus Dr. S. Cooper Dr. S. Weil P. Palgi Dr. A. Orent N. Friedman Dr. G. Steward Dr. J. Blanc Dr. S. Kanaana J. Fine

M.

Schonberger A. Ben-Shaul J. Halper Bcershevn Univ. Beersheva Univ. Beersheva Univ. Bar llnn Univ.

Dar Dan Univ.

Oar llnn Univ. Mentnl Health Clinic (govt. ) Mental Health Clinic Mental Health Clinic

Bir Zeit College (West Bnnk)

Eskimo's~ biblical society; ghetto society; ethnic groups in Beershevn;

psychological anthropolog;>

Yemenite Jews in an Israeli town

Bedouin women in a settle-ment near Beersheva

Yemenite Jews in Israel: folk medicine;

psychological anthropology North African Jews m n development town

Bene Indian Jews in Israel

Mental Health aspects of

immigrant absorption (especially Yemenites and Moroccans in Israel) South Ethiopia; Mental Health in Jaffa

Sinai Bedouins (age sets) Arab village on the West Bank

Psychological adjustment

of Arabs in Israel

Ohol Sn rn College Development town;

psychological nnthropology Ethiopia

Bukharian Jews; academics

in Jerusalem

Education of Oriental

Jewish children in Jerusalem.

Note: ProbablJ not all social or cultural ruithropologi::.ts arc mentioned here, :since I could not find a complete list of anthropologists in

Israel. Another difficulty concerns the sometimes arbitrary

distinction between social and cultural anthropologists and, e.g. , sociologists, folklorists, etlmomusicologists, etc. I included those persons in the list, whose mnin works are of a social/cultural

6

-The following conclusions can be drawn from this list:

36 of the 40 anthropologists mentioned have done re.search in Israel or the occupied territories;

9 anthropologists have worked (or work) outside the col.llltry; 5 of them in Africa;

15 anthropologists6 have done fieldwork among the Arabs in Israel or the occupied territories; 6 of them have studied both Arabs and Jews.

Not indicated in the list is tho national (ethnic) identity of the anthropologists: two researchers nro Arabs, born in Israel: K. Nakhleh and S. Kanaana. The others are Jews.

As far as the organization ot the study is concerned, the largest three universities (Hebrew University, Tel Aviv and Haifa) each have a department of 'sociology and anthropology'. Tel Aviv has the 'strongest 1 anthropology-branch in the country, as is indicated by its three professor-ships (Marx, Deshcn and Shokeid). Haifa, under the direction of

H. Rosenfeld, a pioneer In the anthropological study of the Israeli Arabs, has chosen for an holistic conception of anthropology (thus including physical anthropology, archaeology and linguistics). Two smaller universities (Bar Ilan and Beersheva) both employ some anthropologists in, respectively, a sociology and a behavioural sciences department.

Forms of applied anthropology nre not highly developed in Israel. I

hnve already mentioned some applied work done nt the Land Settlement

Department of the Jewish Agency, a quasi-governmental institution. The other case of a regular form of applied anlhmpology is the work of

P. Palgi and others in the governmental Health Department, concerning mental health aspects of the ndjustmcnt of immigrants in Israel.

Several anthropologhits have also done some temporary work for governmental institutions, in the form of research, lectures or advising. Mnrx was a member of a governmental committee, set up after the SLx-Day War to investigate the social and economic conditions of refugee camps on the West Bank (see Marx 1971); E. Cohen did applied work on West Bank Arabs. Some ministries financed anthropological research: the Mrnistry of Education (studies of A. Goldberg and K. Nakhleh on Israeli Arabs). the Ministry of Absorption (Y. Eilrun on Georgian Jews; A. Ben-Shaul on Bukharian Jews), lhc Depa.rtment of the Prime Minister's

7

-Advbor for Arab Affairs (J. Ginat and G. Hundt on Israeli Arabs).

Several anthropologist:) give (gave) lecture::. for teachers, social workers, 7

etc.

On the institutional level, we see the building up of an Israeli Anthropological Association. Initiated by the physical anthropologist M Goldstein it includes not only social and cultural antlu;opologists, but

• I 8

also practitioners of other branches of anthropology. But it is problem-atic to speak about Israeli anthropologists as a scientific community in a limited sense. In respect to the Bernstein Scheme, Gluckman spoke about

''a group united in exciting discourse about shared problems' (foreword Gluckman in Deshcn 1970b, p. x.xviii). But today, some feel intellcctunlly isolated, owing to u lack of opportunity nnd the absence 01 institution.al meeting places.

Compared with other Israeli national scientific communities. there i a high level of outwardness: contnct is maintained with English

(especially Manchester) and American universities (e.g .. Brandeis University). Another indication in this respect is the high priority given to English as the scientific language. This outwardness is reinforced by

D. ISRAELI ANTHROPOLOGY AND ZIONISM

The aim of the following discussion is to find out the various ways in which lsrneli anthropology can be related to Zionist Ideology. I do not wish to suggest that Zionism is the only ideological influence on Israeli anthropol-ogy, or that this particular body of writings can only be understood ~within the conte>.1: of Zionism. The subject of Zionism is far too broad and complex a topic to be discusbed here in a synthetic way. Instead. J shnll select three different perspectives on Zionism that I find convenient because they provide different •contact-points' with anthropology. These will not exhaust the subject, to say the lenst. Other legitimate

perspec-tives on Zionism have developed. Also, the perspectives that I have selected deserve in themselves broader attention. However,

a

more general treatment lies beyond the scope of my problem here.

First, l will deal with some of the ideological principles of Zionism which appear e::\.'J)licitly in anthropological writings. The creation of the Jewish state was meant, on the one hand, to guarantee the physical safety of Jews all over the world by giving them n last refuge, and on the other hand, to further the moral regeneration of -- what was called -- the Diaspora Je\ . a creature con::sidered to be almost mentally deformed by his permanent minority position. This second principle -- the moral regeneration of tbe Jews -- is relevant for a discussion of some anthro-pological work dealing with Jews from Middle Eastern countries.

Furthermore. several 'images of the good society' have developed within the iionist movement. Different ideological groups had sometimes complementary, sometimes contradictory ideas about the strucutre and culture of the newly-founded Jewish community in Palestine (later Israel). Various socialist, social-democratic and religious groups contributed to its ultimate form and, of course, it is sometimes arbitrary to label a particular ideology or structure as 'Zionist'. The Zionist movement incorporated many social ideas and practices that are only vaguely related to its basic principles. More clearly Zionist ideologies are:

- the cultural fusion of Jews m Israel, I.e., the\\ iping out of non-Jewish ethnic behaviour;

- the libertarian-socialist ideal of pioneering;

- the collective and democratic principles of rural settlements in Israel like the kibbutz and the moshav.

n lly these ideologies were revised and readapted in accordance with Kl encics of reality at different moments. Several pieces of anthro-lo teal work comment more or less explicitly on these ideologies and nfront ideal with reality. A~ such. they play a role in the contemporary d vclopment of Zionist ideology and practice.

Next J will treat Zionism and anthropology in their 'classicist' and •romantic' aspects. Thi::. distinction ic: borrowed from Gouldner (1973:

323) and will be further defiued below. Suffice it here to say that Zionism has a strong romantic component in that it has created a romnntic picture of the 'new' Jew, longing for bis homeland, trans-cending societal and physical limitations. As with many nationalisms

1 developed both a romantic picture of the past (especially in its religiou:; variant) and of the future. The metaphysical distinction between the

'GenLiles' and the Jews, borrowed from Jewish tradition, and the bibl1cal concept of the 'chosen people', found a strong romantic expression in both religious and secular Zionism.

On the other hand, the Zionist movement in Palestine, and later Israel, over time created a large bureaucratic apparatus to con:,,olldate the Jewish communHy there and to integrate the various social groups into ono national framework. In that ~ense 7.ionism (especially post-statehood

Zionism) has a strong 'classicist' component. in its need fo1· stability and integration.

we find both orientations also in anthropology. My aim is to point out the resemblance between some anthropological writings and Zionism, a:> seen from thts perspective. Here I treat Israeli anthropological

writings not as a comment on Zionist ideology. but as an expression of it. Finally, I give attention to Zionism and anthropology in their

implications for the Jsraeli Palestinian Arabs. A comparbon will be made between the anthropological study of Jews and that of Arabs in Israel.

ANTlffiOPOLOGISTS' COMMENTS ON ZI0!'-41'.ST IDEOLOGIES Zionism was principally a western ideology and movement: Jews who came to Israel from Middle Eastern countries had to adapt themselves to western-shnped ideologies and institutionB. Most had to change their profession and lifestyle in order to safeguard a minimal living. They occupied the lower positions in the Israeli economy and were. by and large,

10

-deprived of political power and cultural stntus.

As students of 'other cultures', a number of anthropologists felt attracted towards the study of these exotic-looking Jews. By their association with these people, they developed n capacity to regard Israel from an 'Oriental' viewpoint. Thus there are several examples in which these anthropologists 'protect' Oriental Jews against western stereotypes and prejudices, and in which they highlight lhe Orientals' valuable contri-bution to Israel. It is important here to realize that these anthropologists speak as western Jews to a western audience. They wish to convince the western (Jewish) readers of the Orientals' net Ive and legitimate partici-pation in the pursuit of Zionist ideals. They apply a basic ideological theme in Zionism -- equality for all Jev. s in Israel -- to the actual situation of the Oriental Jews. As such they strive for the cultural and social regeneration of the (Oriental) Jews In Israel, which is a basic aim of Zionism. I will give three examples of this protective stance.

Stress on the cultural heritage and identitv of Oriental Jews

A positive appreciation ol traditional Jewish culture is especially apparent in Deshen 's work on Tunisian and Moroccan Jews. In a short evaluation of the culture of a 1\misian (Djcrba) settlement in Israel. he \\rites:

"The community seems actually to hnve consolidated its traditional fabric. With time. religious institutions have been elaborated. New synagogues have been erected with considerable care and at great cost; rol1g1ous occasions are celebrated lavishly. Considerable care is taken by parents about the religious education of their children.

Finally the community evinces great ethnic pride" (1966: 49).

Elsewhere (Desben 1970b) he looks critically at the use of a western-oriented slogan to win the Moroccan vote in n local election campaign and he pleads for

"· . . true respect for Moroccan immigrants and their culture as they are -- fruits of the .Judneo-lslamic symbiosis of the Near East -- indeed oriental11 _{(p. 181).}

Of all Israeli anthropologists, Deshen seems to be closest to the idea of cultural pluralism in Israel as inherently valuable. For example, Weingrod is much more pragmatic when he writes about the educational

11

-problems of Oriental Jewish children:

"So long as these children are approached as if they were Europeans. the students are unlikely to perform well . . . Similarly, approaching these children as if their ov.n . cultural heritage were empty will also not lead to the desired results" (1965: 66).

Also, one may note that some anthropologists have an ethnographic or folklorist interest in traditional Jewish customs and names (Strizower 1962; Goldberg 1972a; Weil 1975).

Criticism of western stereotypes and prejudices about Oriental Jews

Strizower. studyit1g the Bene Israel JewA of Bombay (India), comments on the controversy in Israel about the 'Jewishness' of this particular

group. 9 It was a severe psychological and social attack on this community and Strizower takes here n clearly protccti ve stance: she finds any doubt on that matter 'distasteful' (1971: 9 and 165).

Goldberg notes a less serious issue (also concerning identity),

namely. "a widespread stereotype of Middle Eastern moshavim. as fraught with kin-based political rivalries" (1972b: 92) and ''a common stereotype of the various 'mountain' Jewish communities as being 'just like the Arabs'

10 . . . , implying the impo1·t:mcc of lineage organization'' (p. 118). His study pictures a politically harmonious community of Libyan 'mountain' Jews.

Other criticized stereotypes reflect the 'European elhnocentricity of many Ashken..'lzim: the Orientals 1 _{supposed lack of independence, initiative,}

public responsibility, clc. In other words, their lack of western liberal (or for that matter social democratic) attitudes. Weingi.·od, in a somewhat patronizing voice, tries to correct this image, without, however, abandon-inrr the same western standards:

"

11_{• • • when placed in positions of trust. Middle Easterners} perform with competence and skill. Nor are there grounds for questioning their sincerity or morality; like Europeans. Middle Easterners also express social ideals a.Id public sensibilities" ( 1965: 76).

He argues that the oriental immigrants actually participate in the achieve-ment of Zionist aims:

" . . . it is mainly these immigrants who have fulfilled the old dreams. Middle Easterners predominate in the classical

zones of pioneering: more than any other segment of the population they personally experience and achieve the pioneering goal!>" (p. 77).

Other writings implicitly reject the stereotype, current among some officials in Israel. that Oriental Jews are helpless creatures that need continuous guiding in theJ r adaptation to modern Israeli life ( e. g., Deshen 1966).

Criticism of some Zioni:st conceptions nnd practices

While Weingrod gives the Oriental Jows a promjnent place in the pioneer-ing effort, he calls them also 'reluctant pioneers' (1966), pointing to the fact that they acted as 'pioneers' because they had no choice. Apparently, he regards old slogans Uke 'national service' and 'worker led society' increasingly irrelevant to contemporary llfe (1965: 76)~1 Most anthropological criticisms of Zionist ideology, however, are directed to the melting-pot model. which in practice amounts to the forced westerni-zation of oriental immigrants. H. Lewis reflects this mood in criticism when he infers from Goldberg's book Cave Dwellers and Citrus Gro\\ers (l 972l>) that "national identification need not be accompanied by complete assimilation" (1972: 158). For further explicit criticisms on this point. sec Deshen (1975: 2) and E. Cohen (1973: 16-17).

The comments of anthropologists on the position of Orientals in Israel quoted above have two things in common: firstly, by and large12 they focus on the cultural deprivation of Or iontal Jews; secondly, they do not give evidence of a radical critique of Zionism. The absence of a rndicnl stand is clear, for instance, from the quotations of Weingrod and Lewis. In their criticisms the anthropologists mentioned dismiss only those ideologies (pioneering, complete culturnl fusion) which they regard as not relevant or necessary for the consolidation of basic principles (national identification; the integration of Israeli society). Forms of polltical ethnicity -- a practice that is Jn opposition to the supposed unity of the Je\\1sh people -- are thus treated ns negative phenomena. T'nus Deshen speaks about political ethnicity (i.e. , the political expression of ethnicity) as "a potentially disruptive element . . . in the heterogeneous Israeli society'' (1974: 303). He states that polltical ethnicity has declined in recent years. while cultural ethnicity (i. c. , the cultural expression of ethnicity) is concurrently flowering (ibid. : 305-6). Ile does not

comment. however, on the emergence of the Black Panthers in the early cventies as an ethnically based political group with broad. radical aims (nmong others: a change in the balance of power between A::;hkenazim and Orientals -- in short, n.n nttack on the ideology of national unity).

Those anthropologists who explicitly treat ethnic relations in Israel, do not conceive western and eastern Jews as opposed groups with different, conflicting interests (Wcingrod 1965; P. Cohen 1968; Willner 1968), in contrast to the politicnl ideas of, e.g., M. Selzer, the Jerusnlem Sephardi Council nnd (later) the Black Panthers, who stress opposition between both groups. A complementary ideology -- that it is in the interest of Israel to become 'Oriental' -- is also strongly rejected by Weingrod (1967) and P. Cohen (1967, 1968) in their reviews of publications of M. Selzer. Selzer and some Black Panthers argue that the Oriental Jews in Israel could form a bridge towards the Arabs and thus contribute to the elimination of the conflict. In line with this argument, another Israeli anthropologist, the Arab Kanaana. e>.']>resses the idea that the transformation of Uie Israeli culture into a Middle Eastern culture is ''the best possibility for a solution to the Middle East situation" (1967: 144).

DEEP STRUCTUflES IN ZIONISM AND ANTHROPOLOGY

Anthropology has often been characterized by pointing to its dual quallly as both a human and a scientific discipline (e.g. , Wolf 1964). Thus dual quality has been systematically explicated by Gouldner (1975: 323 ff.)

in his treatment of Romanticism and Classicism in the social sciences. According to Gouldner,

"Romantic and Classical syndromes refer to enduring deep structures that underlie the theories of sociology even today. They are embedded in and help to differentiate various

schools of thought and, also, various professional s~bcultureh. !n short Romantic and Cla1:>sical syndromes are m my view pr~mising intellectual tools for the empirical study of the ongoing social sciences today -- i.e. , they are as valuable for a sociologv of sociology (or anthropology - v. ~. ) as for a history of sociology" (1975: 358; author's emphasis). Well-known myths in the romantic or human tradition have been the idea of a supposed almost unlimited variability of human culture (see Wolf 1964: 20, referring to American nnthropology before World War Il) and complementary notions such as the i:;trcss on the integrity and uniqueness

14

-of culture (cultural relativism). Although most anthropologists will reject these myths in their most extreme form, they still appear implicitly in mnny monographs on particular cultures.

Basic to the romantic traditlon is an Image of man as a creature that f s able to transcend his social and physical limitations. Man gets individuality and uniqueness as he is not totally determined by culture; more precisely, man create~ culture. in an unending process of change. Anthropology resembles the hwnanities especially in some of its uses on the methodological level. Many anthropological writings are characterized by a so-called 'narrative quality' (Bennett 1964: 71). The subjects of research arc shown in their full humanity, experiencing disappointments and succes$es; especially when the material is organized into 'cases'. \Vhen writing about the various meanings of a culture, the anthropologist furthers the impression that he has experienced his data. Romanticism in anthropology is to a large c>."tent n result of the fieldwork experience of the anthropologist; in the ne>.'1: chapter I will deal ln detail \\ith this subject.

The scientific or classicist tradition is cxempliHed by such mvths as the supposed inherent order of the world nnd the universality of social phenomena: stabilitv instead of chnngc is emphasized here. This

tradition has been especially influential in Bdth:;h :social anthropology. where structural-functionalism dominated until the nineteen-seventies. On the methodological level, we find n tendency to search for general

-izations and to apply more or less rigid methodologies to solve theoretical 'problems'. The comparative method is still one of the tenets in anthro-pology tcx:iay.

The different emphases of romanticism n.nd classicism might be clear from the following diagram:

Romanticism Relativity, historicism Uniqueness Deviancy Conflict Emotion Classicism Universality Generality Normality Order, integration Henson 15

-With thi;:) short e>.-position of two logically polar conceptions. 13 I do not wish to suggest that all soci 1 theories and methodologies can be placed easily in one of the traditions mentioned; in nearly all cases we see a particular combination of romanticism and scientism or classicism.

A review of a bibliography of Israeli anthropology shows the presence of several books with more or less romantic titles: The predicatement of homecoming (Dcshen and Shokeid); Cave dwellers and cilrus growers (Goldberg); Fronticrtown (Aronoff); Reluctant pioneers (Weingrod); The dual heritage (Shokf'id); Kibbutz: ventnre in Utopia (Spiro). A romantic Litle attracts the attention of potential readers, but that is not the only explanation hore: several anthropological writings about Israel possess a large romantic component.

A characteristic that strikes the reader is a special dramatic qualitv of some books. Compare, for example. the following passages that conclude two books, both about a development town in Israel:

{The central concern of the book are the various strategies of political parties to win votes during the election campaign; Deshen ends the book with a description of the actual election).

"When election dnycamc the people of Ayara (a pseudonym for a development town - v. T.) went to vote in force. Election day all over Israel was a public holiday. At the Tzitkat llayim synagogue leisurely morning prayers were held. After the prayers the congrcgants joined the queues of gay people who. dressed ln their holiday clothes, were patiently waiting their turn to enter the polling stations.

After election day I heard of a couple of women who had had a fight over something or other connected with the voting, but in general there was n feeling of relaxation, celebration and · festivity in the air. The acrimony and the pettiness of the past weeks seemed to have gone. There was a sensation of straight-ening of shoulders and raising of heads. The immigrants, poor. inexperienced. uneducated. had been assiduously courted by officials and functionaries who, Rs candidates, had sought their votes.

On election day. dozens of taxicabs hired by the parties to convey voters to nnd from the polling stations sped along streets filled with people enjoying their day off. The volume of t1.·affic was remark3ble: it was the closest thing to a traffic jam that l ever sa''" in Ayara. People went to vote; and thus they marked their emnnclpntlon and sovereignty" (Deshen 1970b: 219).

And Aronoff concludes his book about 1_{the politics of community-building'}

'The efforts of the original. settlers to control their own dest~cs and their own political affairs by re.:sisting all out:side pressures \\ere not successful. However their mvol vement in the affairs of the community through

competition and rivalry helped to crente not only roles for themselves in the community, but was also directly related to the emergence within a remnrkably short time of a sense of community spirit and pride. If the criterion of success is whether or not Frontiertown has emerged as a community abo~t. wh~cb it.s res.idents care, and with which they make pos1t1ve identification, then it would seem clear that the experiment in community building in Frontiertown was an outstanding auccesH. Even the apparent failures of the co~munity. i.e. the inability to maintain local autonomy and a high level of participation in public affairs. are evidence of the integration of the community into the institutions of national Israeli society. So thnt even the limited local fail-ures \\ere a part of a greater national success" (Aronoff 1974a: 282).

Wnile differing in style (Deshen writes in a literary way; Aronoff uses more scientific concepts), both passages resemble each other in the structure of their content. Both Deshcn and Aronoff ~ve their accounts the form of a 'success story': despite limitations nnd drawbacks, there fs an ultimate succe~,;;:. Deshen contrasts 1 _{the acrimony and pettiness of} the past weeks" (the subject of the rest of the book) with ''a feeling of relaxntion. celebration and fe::;tivity'' during election day; while being poor, unexperienced and uneducated, people "ma1·ked their emancipation and sovereignty" at election day. 14 Aronoff contrasts the limited failure of the community (in "the inability to maintain local autonomy and a high level of participation in public nffnirs") with the broader success of Isrncli society at large. The dramatic qunlity of both passages results from the contrasts between drawbacks/failures and successes.

Deshen implicitly contrasts in his book the e~-perience of Oriental Jews in their countries of origm with their new life in Israel. Their marking of ''emancipation and sovereignty" in h.Tael is ultimately the validation of their migration.

The highly dramatic contrast between the (traditional. isolated) communities of Jews among the Arabs and the (modern, dynamic) state of Israel is sharpened by the recurrent use of polar concepts (traditional -modern; static - dynamic; isolntcd - open) in books on Oriental Jews in Israel (cf. the suggestive title of Goldberg's book about an Israeli moshav ot former Libyan cave dwellers: Cnvc Dwcller8 and Citrus Growers; see also Shokeid 1971a; Deshen nnd Shokcld 1974; Weingrod 1966; Willner 1969).

Aronoff's book gets a dramatic quality because he gives special

n Is to the ideal out of which Frontlertown was born, i. e. , pioneering.

1 annl}ses in Israeli anthroJX>logy present the Israeli reality from the

pcctive of Zionist ideals. Herc I only wish to point at the dramatic ion that is generated when questions are raised about the viability or vance of basic ideals. The reader is presented with a picture of people ruggling with difficulties on their Path to Destiny -- in line with the

mnntic tradition described nbove.

Two other anthropologists, Wcingrod and Rosenfeld, express their 11 ml concern in ₁ respectively, a book about ethnic relations in Israel in

mid-sixties and an article about the culture of kibbutz Ein Harod. lngrod concludes his book with tho following words (quoting the novelist

cob.::.on: Zion Revisited. Commentary xxviti, 1959: 3): "· . . he finds that there is 'a constant and unending struggle

.. to keep up standards ••. the Israeli:s have not forgotten that there are standards. nnd are trying fitfully, erratically, wrongheadedly often, but always determinedly, to find out what the standards are'. With this moral concern, a multj-ethnic Israel m:i.y \\ell discover imaginative ways to resolve the issues that she. and indeed so many other nations, now face" (1965: 80). nd Rosenfeld ends his article ns follows:

"Tne more the socialization and education of its children, the books they read and write, the holidays they celebrate, the music they play and compose 1 the rooms they live m and build, the politics they struggle over their attitudes towards their work and interpersonal relations are expressed in ideas shared by all and critically reappraised time and again, the more the culture of Eln Ilarod's men and women will be genuine. But the less they invest ln the group and in its ideas. the greater will be their cultural loss" (1971: 25).

Whereas each author expresses different values (Weingrod speaks generally of a 'moral concern'; Rosenfeld more specifically about investment 'in the group and its values'). both show a basic commitment to the people concerned and point to the crucial matters, according to their values, to

nfcguard these people's future.

Although the passages arc romantic in their commitment, there 1s however also a difference in approach. Weingrod speaks of 'issues' that

must be faced by the Israelis; Rosenfeld gives his conception of a 'genuine' culture. Weingrod 1_{s approach is prngmnlic, though he allows much room} for a 'moral concern' nn<l 1_{U1e discovery of imaginative ways' in the} solution of issues. But Rosenfcld's approach is more basically romantic:

18

-he is concerned with ultimate values, Instead of mean::>. His romanticism is also apparent in his conception of the culture of Ein Harod as forming a whole, demonstrated by his almost rhetorical summing-up of its various facets. He is particularly interested in the uniquesness of Ein Harod; he commences his article, asking himself: ". . . whether fifty years have fashioned a local culture with specific attributes of its own" (p. 14). Weingrod is less concerned with the uniqueness of Israel: the problems of Israel resemble the problem~ of "many other nations".

Leaving these differences askle. I think it is now legitimate to draw the following conclusion from these quotations and those of Aronoff and Dcshen mentioned earlier: the way in which the various ideas are presented, i.e. , making use of contrasts and a literary or rhetorical style, forms evidence for the presence of romantic myths, described above: n dynamic conception of social life in Israel and stress on the creativity and imagination of the lsraeli Jews. It is interesting to see, at this point, how some methodological principles of the 'Manchester School' (in Israel especially exemplified by the works produced by the Bernstein Scheme) also generate a romantic picture of social life in Israel.

Well-known methods like the 'extended-case-study' and 'situational nnalysis' were developed by Gluckman nuu hil) students in Africa to dramatize the inherent conflicts of a social system: by way of these methods people could be pictured as full humans in their enduring con-frontations and quarrels. A significant point is that, according to Kuper (1973: 184), Barnes has compared this sort of study to a Russian novel in its diversity of actors and complexHy of motives. This way of analyzing15 and presenting the data is apparent in nearly all the works of the Bernstein Scheme. Shokeid gives the following relevant account:

"These works describe Israelis, veterans nnd newcomers, not in terms of abstract performers of specific roles and holders of various predispositions correlated with some general group and cultural characteristics, but as full persons. They were presented ns ncting and striving through various socinl frameworks. sometimes in conflict. such as with their close families, their kin groups,

territorial and occupational organizations. They were observed struggling with 1 and m:mipulating, Israeli

bureau-cracies. parties, and associations. The clash between the cultural heritage of Jewish trnditional groups and the new Israeli Western-oriented norms, modes of behaviour, and thinking were minutely recorded and nnalyzed. These

19

-studies revealed the discrepancy between ideal and reality" (1976: 12)16

t here that Shokeid implicitly criticizes the abstract and general (i. c. , icist) notions of structural-functionalism: man should not be

cribed as a role-performer but as a full person, acting. striving nnd truggling.

Zenner (1973: 303-4) gives another comment on Manchester m thodology as applied in Israeli anthropological works. He states that this methodology is characteristically oriented to the analysis of events. Jndoed, most works out of tho Bernstein Scheme give detailed accounts of v rious sorts of events, like political gatherings. economic enterprises

nd religious festivities.

More basically, 1 think it is nlmost impossible for any analyst to treat Israel as if it were n structure out of time: it has been just too 1 ccently established to afford such a mental loop. Of course, the event of the establishment of Israel looms large in any analysis of the migration of Jews from l\;liddle Eastern countries to Israel, especially when this event

is viewed from the perspective of the Oriental Jews themselves. Suffice It here to say that 'event analysis'. with its logical concern for the unique and the historical, fits the romantic t rachtion in anthropology.

Besides romanticist lendencies, there are also classicist notions in Israeli anthropology, for example when empirical material is ordered in such a way as to illuminate general anthropological theories. Several nnthropologists show nn jnterest In general theory formation. Most explicit are: Deshen (197011) a.bout religious change; Shokeid on factions (1968) and familial networks (l971a); Handelman (1973. 1976, 1977a, b, n. d.) on face-to-face intcrnction; Shepher (1971b) on incest; Marx (l 976b) on violence and E. Cohen (1971) on tourism. Whereas a general theoretical interest is more or less a function of individual attributes and orientations, we also find some shared theoretical problems in the anthropological

literature.

A basic theoretical concern ls the question of the integration of Israeli society. Compnrc the following three quotations:

''. . . one of the most intriguing sets of problems that confront the student of Israeli society: how do sentiments of national and civic identity under conditions of great social heterogeneity actually emerge? And, in pnrt.icular, how is such a potentially disruptive element ns othnicity tames in the heterogeneous Israeli society?" (Deshon 1974: 302-3).

Weingrod a3ks himself the following question::. in his book about group relations in Israel:

'How much social interaction ls there between persons living in different zones -- between Algerlan3 and

Rumanians, for example? What positions do immigrants and veterans hold vi:s A \tis one another? Do the immigrants retain their cultural differences -- or are immigrants and veterans drawing closer together? Or (to put it differently), how many Israels arc there? W11at is the significance of the social cleavages and soclnl bonds that criss-cross Israeli society? (1965: 21).

P. Cohen, writing about a Yemeni community ln Israel: "Tlle aim of this article is to analyze the factors which promote and di:srupl social cohesion in a Yemeni community. The problems raised are of more than mere specific inter-e~t. The basic ideological goals of Israeli society are "the ingathering of exiles" and :the creation of a unified society and culture in which nll groups participate equally. Tnls en.tails the partial breakdown of ethnic and communal allegiances which might impede the formation of national associations and interest groups, or nt least the formation of strong, broad ties which cut across narrow ones" (1962: 14).

Interesting in all these quotations is the way in which a

structural-functional approach stressing integration 'fits' with Zionist goals such as the ingathering and fusion of exiles, or, more prosaically. the absorption of immigrants. It is not dlffioult to find passages in anthropolog1cal literature about Israel lhnt express the same theoretical concern in a similar way.

To conclude: Romanticism in Zionism and Israeli anthropology is apparent where Jewish life in Israel ls described as a 'human' and 'transcending' experience. This is especially clear when authors make use of contrasts and a literary rhetorical style to stress the creativity and imagination of Israeli Jewish communities in face of their predicament. Classicist notions are pre:scnt where Zionism and Israeli anthropology share a basic concern for the Integration of the existing Israeli society. Structural-funcrionalism is the theoretical expression of this concern. In Chapter IV I will argue how both notions, romimtic and classicist, are 'reconciled' by the use of a particular theory.

TUE AJ~THROPOLOGY OF ARABS IN ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

t deep structures, the 'Jewish' anthropological study of Israeli Arabs different from that of Israeli Jews. With the former there is no lrnma.tic description of people struggling on their path to a more

satis-r

ctory .. vorld nor a classicist concern for their integration in a larger

ystcm. Zionism was not meant as an emancipatory movement with 1• gnrd to tbe situation of the Palestinian Arabs {to say the least), and thus, with an incidental exception, no ideals or ideologies were developed lhnt aimed at the improvement of the Arab condition in Palestine and later 1 rncl. Material and educational improvements in the Arab sector were

t the result of a planned policy, but more or less a by-product of the Zionist effort to establish a Jewish nation on western lines.

Whereas a large part of the research on Jews investigates reality from the perspective of Zionist principles and ideology. Jewish studies of l raeli Arabs are relatively more characterized by a specific theoretical Interest; data are selected and used to develop general theories about

particular sectors of social/cultural reality (some reasons and implications of this orientation toward theoretical problems will be discussed in

Chapters III and IV). Thus we see studies of marriage patterns and the fnmily (Rosenfeld 1957, 1958, 1D68a and b; Kresse! n. d.; Ginat 1976;

Marx 1967; Palgf and Fuchs 1970); lineages and factions (Kasdan 1961;

A. Cohen 1965); rites (Marx 1973n); religious sects (E. Cohen 1972b);

tourism (E. Cohen 1971); ethnic st.creotypes and humour (Zenner 1970,

1972); and the forthcoming studies of Blanc {house as property and spatial organizer) and Steward (age-sets).

While studies of Jew~ lose their idiosyncrasy because of the anthro-pologists' broader. explicit or hidden concern with Zionist principle::>, Jewish studies of Arabs lack this holistic dimension. In contrast to studies of Jews. where the tension between local or ethnic affiliation and national Identification and integration appears often in the analyses, there ls almost no concern with the tension between local/religious/ethnic affiliations of Israeli Arabs and a broader, national or cultural identification. 17 I think lhat this can partly be explained by assuming an overall basic sympnthy of .Jewish anthropologists for Jewish national values and not for Arab

22

-have conflicting goals, a concern with Jewish nationalism means in practice a rejection of Arab Palestinian claims.

Congruent with the above-mentioned theoretical orientations and sympathies is the treatment of the Arab Israeli's problems as individual

(l. c., not social) ones. Thus Handelman and Deshen (1975). in a prelimi-nary statement about the anthropological literature on 'traditional villages and nomadic groupings' in Israel. write;

''. . . although the anthropological evidence is highly tentative given the marginal political, economic, and social roles of Israeli Arabs. pressures for change and adaptation have probably fallen moro heavlly on indiy~dunl Arabs than they have on communities per se" (p. 3)

The same definition of the situation can be seen in the following normative

account by E. Cohen of the existential predicament of Arab youth in Acre: ''By clutching to the hope that one day, somehow. the) will

find a foreign girl

am

get away from all this. the Arab boys gather strength to continue to cope as best they can with their predicament and not to succumb to either of two extremes: extreme activism (found in nationalism) or extreme passivity (found in drugs)" (1071: 232).

Nationalism is both an expression of psychological problems and divorced from reallty:

''Some of the youths are driven by tho circumstances to extreme nationalism. coupled with n rather nominal

attachment to Communism, and find their peace of mind and security in the Arab Communist Party (Rakaoh). But such extreme nationalism is mainly negati vistic and largely barren,

since it drives the individual into extreme isolation and breaks nll possibilities of any accommodation wJth the Jews, whilst it Js unable to cause any real change in the predicament of the Arabs themselves. Only some vague, eschot~logical hope remains, divorced from reality" (ibid.: 219).

The anthropologist here defines what is realistic and what not for the Israeli Arabs. The supposedly irrealistic behaviour is here explained in crude psychological terms: in a comparable account, Marx explains the

seemingly 'irrealistic' behaviour of UNRWA officials20 from a refugee

camp on the West Bank by pointing to the interests involved:

"In conversation with officials about possible solutions to the refugee problem, I was repeatedly impressed by their extreme standpoints. They generally advocated 'the return' as the only acceptable solution. The link between the professional interests of the officials and their ideological standpoint was made clear

- 23

-in one incident. During a conversation with a~~ audien~c

d officials in a Jalazon cafe, an off1c1al explained

~~e:;~:~y~ssfble

solution to the

re~gee pro~lem w~s

fot

each man to return to his former home l~ Palest1:~' h~ ci~~ to accept compensation. In support o~ h~s ar~oreign

w aper report that Abba Eban, t e srae

~:s~r

hnd announced thnt bracl wished to_ empty

~~h

the

refugee ~amps in the nrea and resettle the retugee~~

f

:~~~c~;n~~~t~~:~:s~~.

0

'/Jt~i~~:·~~i':n~e:~1:°:!t

app:~ently

it was associated in his mmd.

The solution proposed by the Foreign M~ister' ?r ~.Yother realistic solution, would have deprived ~1m of ~~~v~~:~ em t . g the campi:;. To prevent this, emus

xt~e~

position and demand a solution that cannot be

~mplemented"

(1971: 29; emphasis ndded).

E>.tremism, -- in the above quotations respectively the ideologie~ of . and 'th ... return' -- is treated as both unrealistic and mauthen-coillD1un1sm. "'

th i oalism of U1e •return' Marx notes elsewhere

tic. As if to stress e rr · ln the same report:

''If no political organization of former co-villagers exi~t?

this means that the refugees have made no provisions

;:a:

~eturn

to th.eir land. The prevalent

ideolo·g~

of

a

~:iturn

to the village is thus not matched by nn appropria e soc1 organization" (ibid.: 17).

By and large. Jewish anthropologists refrain from an expli~it . f nt policy towards the Arabs in Israel. Th1s may

cv.Jluat1on o governmc

be exemplified by the following quotations about the prevention of contacls

between Arab boys and tourJst girls by the police:

,, the chief motive of tho policy of isolation. to my mindf i~ ~t.political -- the prevention ~f free. speech~ venting o

com laints -- but rests with cons1derah?ns _?~ na~onal r seetfr.ity. Whether such suspicions are 1ustified is a matte which I cannot judge'' (E. Cohen 1971: 231).

. lim1.ted definition of politics' Cohen seems to suggest that

By usmg a ..

'con~iderations of national security' lay outside the sphere of le~timnt~

political discussion' in the same way as British anthropo.logi.sts m Africa

were generally reluctant to discuss Dritish political domination there. The following diplomatically formulated statement of H. Rosenfeld

is from a report' made for the Ministry of Health' about the patterns of

' The government utilizes its power ln a number of way~- it

del~gat_es

_

to

particular people in the vUlage the

privile:~

of actmg m its name; it utilizes the mllJtary government to k"'Cep order, to pass on the rulings of the council to control the mo:emcnts of the villagers. to fo~ter whatev~r measures it considers practical for its own purposes (or for that

matter to_ the best intere::;t of the village -- but that's not the question here); it dictates policy Wlder threat whether veiled

?r

?pen. The list could be continued. but as this is not an inchctment of government policy, but an attempt to analyze som~ of the effects of government policy in order to understand village authority, this will suffice" (1956: 18). 21

Because of the ignorance of possible broader (cultural or political) inter-ests between Israeli Arabs themsel vcs nnd with Palestinian Arabs outside the country, either as a reality or n potentiality, the Jewish anthropological

P cture of Israeli Arabs indeed contrasts wilh that of Israeli Jews as described above.

Both Israeli Arab anthropologists, S. Knnaana and K. Nakhleh have. on the other hand. a strong interest in the reality or potentiality of a'

national consciousness among the Israeli Arabs respectively Palestinian Arabs. Speaking about the different 'survival strategies 1 of various

'clnsse::>' within the Israeli Arab community. Kanaana concludes: ". . . the. middle peasant survival strategy which has come to predominate among_ the Ar~bs Jn Israel is the emergence of a sense of community and identity at a level above that of the hamula or villa~e, i.e. of nationalist and class solidarity" (1975: 16).

And Nnkhleh asks himself the following question in an article about "the direction of local level contlict in two Arab villages in Israel":

'l\Vhy does the political bch:tviour of Arab villagers in Israel manlf~st an al~ost total absence of a level of political c?nsc.1ousness higher than personal utility. the utilit f th kmsh1p group, or the utility of the sectarian

organiz~~on

?~

(1975: 497).

While completely differing in their judgement of the factual situation, both anthropologists focus on the tension between the local/sectarian and the national. In this way, they resemble the Jewish anthropologists studying Jews. The implications of this problem orientation will be treated in Chapter IV.

LOWOUK IN ISRAEL

umber of writings on the problems of participant observation in rk, written both by sociologists and anthropologists, have appeared the la::.t decades. 22 Most nre written from a methodological view-• T'\ey are concerned with the potentialities and the risks of this

od , as seen from a particular epistemological position; various

t•c presented about the preferability of different sorts of problems carch strategies with ttn eye to the prevention of 'biases' that are alt in participant observation. 'I'hls approach does not g-o further tlrnn thodological presuppositions perm it: no analysis is given of tho Re ct of the fieldwork sit:uation that are not directly relevant to questions

ty and reliability. My concern here is the problem how a particu-ld\\ork situation influences the deep structure of the story told by lhropologist, independent from the questio~ whether particular deep tures (romanticism, classicism) imply 'bias' as seen from a specific odological viewpoint.

Apart from these theoretically oriented articles we find also a Ing number of biographical accO\mts by anthropologists about their \\Ork e~'J)erlences. indicating the 'emergence of self-consciousness In

graphy' Nash and Weintrob 1972. 23 They deal mainly wi.th the

i Ucal and ethical problems of the researcher in his relations to the t l cts of research and other relevant persons and groups. With some

<: •ptions (Berreman 1962; Fabian 1971), no explicit theoretical

frame-rl has been applied in these writings Lo account for the peculiarities of t UcJpant observation. However, they are important in themselves as

I nee of the fact that k"llowlcdge grows out of the concrete process of t 1 nction (Berreman: 'i mprcssion-management ') between the researcher

the people studied (which will be a basic notion in the rest of this pter).

My own approach can thus be seen as an applied form of the sociology d psychology of knowledge: 1 am interested in the way in which the

l lwork situation of the anthropologist influences the ultimate

anthropo-1 ical picture of the people studied. As noted, this implies that I am nol

1 lmarily interested 111 methodological questions. However, I implicitly bandon some extreme positivisUc assumptions about the nature of fieldwork,

26

-11_{·1tsiclc' (without} influcncin~ _{it) or thnt it is p.,>ssible to detach oneself from} cJn •'sown culture in interpreting another. My starting point is the rather self-evident notion that inlcractlon in the field does not take place in n vacuum. I focus o:i how the different socio-cultural background and inter-ests of both parties in the field 'generate' in some specific instances a concern for the fulfilment of some Zionist ideologies. I am especially concerned with the involvement of IsraelI anthropologists in their fieldwork, <md the specific quality of this involvement, because I suppose that this facto1· is highly relevant in examining tho ideological content of the field-work relations and its Influence on the ultimate anthropological account.

rn

Chapter I I noted thnt most Israeli nnthropologists study their

1

own' society, and thus nrc relatively more 'involved• than other anthro-pologists in the field. This is a statement that must be qualified in several respects. First, the 'Jewish' study of Jsrneli Arabs cannot be interpreted a:; a study of 'one's own society'. \\fj1 Uc the Israeli Arabs are, to some extent. integrated into the Israeli economy, they still possess a common cultural identity largely distinct from that of the Jewish majority. More-over, Israeli Arabs do not share Zionist values and ideals, that arc basic to the Jewish existence in Israel. Second, a distinction must be made between anthropologists who have lived a long time in Israel before their fieldwork and new immigrant anthropologists, or Jewish anthropologists from abroad who do not Intend to stay longer in Israel than the period of Lheir fieldwork. 24 Strictly spcakjng, it f:; only the first category who study their owrn society. Third, there is quite a difference between, for lnstnnce, the kibbutz member who studies a kibbutz, and the western Jew who studies oriental immigrants in Israel. Of course, the first is closer to the study of his own society than the second.

Leaving these differences aside for the mo:nent, it is important now to specify why the anthropologist's involvement in Israeli society or, more precisely. in the socio-cultural system of the Jewish people studied, is a relevant factor from the perspective of a sociology of knowledge. Tne most important consideration here ls that lsraeli anthropologists share with other Israeli Jews a certain 'stock of knowledge 125 , of which a common knowledge of and interest in some Jewish traditions a00 Zionist ideologies is a significant constituent. Not the whole common stock of knowledge is acLivated in the fieldwork gftuntion. However, the processes of interactJon in fieldwork are largely conditioned by lhc quality of this body of shared

- 27

-\ledge.

Generally, a large amount of shnred knowledge about Israeli life (or rhcular Israeli socio-cultural system), its experiences ~'ld ideologies, d c pecially the shared knowledge of the Hebrew language, will

contrlb-Lo a more intimate contact and a more equal relationship between the cnrcher and the researched. Moreover. it creates the possibility --lcnst in the Israeli context -- of n common cultural/ideological 'enler-l r.Ll_'. When this possibility is actualized, when the fieldwork relations

t on ideological content. the ultimate anthropological account will be

1 • lhably more committed, more 1romtu1ticlsi' in its deep structure (sec h 1pter

n

for the notion or n 'romantic' deep structure). These ideas wlll

leveloped in my spccilic treatment of western - oriental Jewish ) tions and Jewish - Arab relations in the context of anthropological ·ldwork.

Two instances of a relatively large involvement in fieldwork arc the udles of Shokeid and Deshen on respectively a mosha\' inhabited by Jewish nmigrants from the Atlas mountains, and a development town with an

hnica.lly mixed population. Both anthropologists are 'veteran' Israelis nd have done relatively long and intensive fieldwork. Moreover, they n\c extensively published on the subjccl (De::;hen 1970b, 1D72b, 1974; hokeid 197la and c; Deshcn and Shokeid 1974). Shokeid especially has lctniled his fieldwork experiences in a chapter of Deshen and Shokeid (1 U74) about 'Involvement rather than speclucle in fieldwork1• From his

Lecount it seems juslHiccl Lo infer lhnt the interaction between himself nnd 26

the Romemite.s (a pseudonym for the people concerned) were governed h) an ambivalence that is generally characteristic to western - oriental

, elations in Israel. Their rncetinJ activated the basic ideological concern for a fusion of exiles. at least among the Romemites, according to Shokcid:

"To the Rome mites, my association with them, especially because of our close relationships, epitomized. to some extent. the aspirations toward integration of the returning exiles. They insisted that I partake as an eqaal of their food, particularly of their drinks, during Sabbath meals and on other occasions. This l>cstowal of equality lo them became

symbolic of the hridije thnt could span the social distance between '.13" (p. 55 )-7

Probably the fusion of exiles embodied for the Romemitcs two related 1tlcals: on the one h.nn<l, Lim experience of a common national and cultural iclentlty, and on Lhe other hand, tho bridging of the statu.s gap between