That is Sneetches, not snitches. For Jewish snitches you can read my post on Mesira, the Jewish Informant. Sneetches are a Dr. Seuss invention that teach us on of the simplest, yet profound lessons in bias, peer-pressure, segregation and of course capitalism. It is one of my favorite Dr. Seuss books.
Yesterday I wrote about the portrayal of chasidic Jews in The Good Wife.
I cross-posted a portion of the post to DovBear and a discussion developed about the nuanced differences within the Orthodox Jewish community. Different style hats, kippas and other subtle changes within each group exist and commenter G*3 thinks that these differences are like the differences between the sneetches.
I disagree.
For those of you that are unfamiliar with the story I have copied the Wikipedia summary:
Sneetches are a group of vaguely avian yellow creatures who live on a beach. Some Sneetches have a green star on their bellies, and in the beginning of the story the absence of a star is the basis for discrimination. Sneetches who have stars on their bellies are part of the “in crowd”, while Sneetches without stars are shunned and consequently mopey.
In the story, a “fix-it-up chappie” named Sylvester McMonkey McBean appears, driving a cart of strange machines. He offers the Sneetches without stars a chance to have them by going through his Star-On machine, for three dollars. The treatment is instantly popular, but this upsets the original star-bellied Sneetches, as they are in danger of losing their method for discriminating between Sneetches. Then McBean tells them about his Star-Off machine, costing ten dollars. The Sneetches formerly with stars happily pay the money to have them removed in order to remain special.
However, McBean does not share the prejudices of the Sneetches, and allows the recently starred Sneetches through this machine as well. Ultimately this escalates, with the Sneetches running from one machine to the next,
- “until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
- whether this one was that one or that one was this one
- or which one was what one… or what one was who.”
This continues until the Sneetches are penniless and McBean departs a rich man, amused by their folly. Despite his assertion that “you can’t teach a Sneetch,” the Sneetches learn from this experience that neither plain-belly nor star-belly Sneetches are superior, and they are able to get along and become friends. - Wikipedia
The reason Sneetches are not the same as different kippas in the Orthodox Jewish community is because there was nothing actually different about the sneetches with stars or without stars. They were the exact same creatures with one external difference. This is true of humanity. We are all the same on the inside to an extent, we tend to think the outside means a whole lot, when really it does not mean anything. That is the lesson of the Sneetches.
Within groups however, there are cultural, social and even theological differences. Sometimes an external symbol is used to show that there are nuanced differences that are meaningful. Like a chasidic Jew will dress differently from another Orthodox Jew because he does a different culture and slightly different theology. The external symbol only demonstrates that he is different. It is not the defining difference.
The Sneetches only difference was their stars or lack-thereof. Within cultural sub-groups there may be real, meaningful differences. It is okay for them to show these differences by dressing or acting differently. So long as we don’t give meaning to the external factor we can even point out the differences. Once we start to think the external difference actually means something, then we get into a Sneetches problem.
I think the subtle differences are good. They help people find other people with similar culture, social and theological sensitivities as themselves. It would be a travesty to limit oneself to people who are exactly the same as they are, but external differences don’t cause that. Foolish people cause that.
Related posts:
I inspired someone to write a post! This is a first for me.
I hear that the Sneetches are different than OJ becuase they are all essentially the same, except for the stars. Signifiers like yarmulka type really do reflect differences in hashkafa. This is silly, though, not because the differences aren’t there, but because the hashkafic differences are implied to be intrinisic to the material. As if leather is somehow a less valid material from which to make yarmulkas (themselves a recent invention), and wearing a leather yarmulka makes someone modern. That is, the not only will a modern perosn tend to wear a leather yarmulka, but wearing a leather yarmulka will in itself make a guy attending a yeshivish school modern.
Or the corallary, that velvet is a holier material and wearing a velvet yarmulka makes the person more religious.
Which is, as I keep saying, silly.
Now you get it!
> So long as we don’t give meaning to the external factor we can even point out the differences. Once we start to think the external difference actually means something, then we get into a Sneetches problem.
Exactly. Unfortunatly, many people only see the external signifiers, and think that those signifiers are an intrinsic part of, or worse, the cause of, affiliation to a particular school of thought. And that by supressing and demonizing the signifier, they can keep their communities from what they reagrd as a deviant philosophy.
Here in the Bay Area a knit kippah is considered the most normative type among attendees at Orthodox (errmm… ‘Modern Orthodox’ and ‘Conservative’) shuls. Have not seen very many leather kippot, nor velvet/silk so much either. Though they are there. I get the impression yekkes wear the non-knit, non-leather in the Bay Area. Or old-fashionniks.
No idea what is standard in Reform, Reconstructionist, New-Age, or Feminist houses of worship.
At our pro-Israel demos, the kippot most commonly worn are knit. But that is a conscious outward sign of affiliation and membership in a group – the branches of Jewry that are less ’separate from the nation’ are less likely to wear such things. The people who wear knit kippot wear them tag & nacht…….
Visible tzitzit are not at all common, black hats are rare, sheitlech and gartelen hob ich nit gesehn.
The point is, a knit kippah to me says ‘Jew’. Any other form of kippah says ‘Jewish’.
Veeeery interesting analysis.
Thanks for your contribution and come back soon!
Right, so the point is that people are morons. But the actual superficial differences are not inherently bad.
> Right, so the point is that people are morons.
Yup, all of them exceot you and me.
Realistically, its more that people are inherently xenophobic and have a tendency to see the world in black and white. Its just easier that way. We are all capable of thinking rationally about things, but we rarely do. I’m sure that if I tried to nail down a rosh yeshiva’s opinion on leather yarmulkas or other signifiers, he would tell me its about identification – they want their students to identify with the yeshivishe world, so they have to wear the uniform. But that’s not how it comes across when they talk to students, and that’s not how people tend to think. And of course, it goes the other way too, when modern people think that a hat means something.
Scene-asst Rabbi search committee
Someone says/asks- if ppl with hats should be considered
The comment bothered me but I am happy she made it, the Rabbi chimed in and said just bc someone at some point in their education picked up a hat does not mean we should hold it against them
I don’t recall if he added what is “wrong” with a hat
Wow. A frum shul would also be severely limiting themselves if they were looking for a non-hat wearing rabbi.
And btw the potential rabbi could have been given the hat at their bar mitzva and never took it off!
I straddle the line as I am certainly the yeshivishe type of Rabbi but I go hatless…