244 Arnold Dashefsky, Bernard Lazerwitz, Ephraim Tabory
INTERGROUP RELATIONS AND ANTISEMITISM
The traditional sociological approach to studying religioethnic identity and identifi-
cation has been to focus on intergroup hostility and prejudice and discrimination.
According to a formulation by Rose and Rose, group identification occurs when “the
members feel that they are the objects of prejudice and discrimination” (1965: 247).
In the same vein, the authors of a classic textbook in the sociology of minorities argued
that group identification is the product of discrimination (Simpson and Yinger 1972).
The consequence of this approach may be to define minority group identity as simply
the result of negative forces without any countervailing positive influences. Thus, as
Schoenfeld observed, “In popular culture, Jews seem to be represented as either vic-
tims, neurotics, or exotics. Consequently, Jewish identity is either a curse, an illness, or
something foreign – a source of shame” (1998: 111).
This theme was also readily apparent in the sociological literature about American
Jewry. Consider the following statement by Goldstein and Goldscheider: “Even if the
social exclusion of the Jew is declining, the fear of discrimination, and concomitant
insecurity, may be a powerful factor in the identification of Jews with their own group”
(Goldstein and Goldscheider 1968: 10). An even earlier formulation was provided by
Wirth inThe Ghetto: “What has held the Jewish community together...is...the fact
that the Jewish community is treated as a community by the world at large” (1928: 270).
Wirth continued in a prescient manner: “In the past, it was the influx of a constant
stream of Orthodox Jews that was relied upon to hold the community together and
to perpetuate the faith. Today, however, this force can no longer be depended upon”
(1928: 279). Outgroup hostility, then, clearly must be considered in the study of Jewish
identity and identification, but its relative contribution may be overstated especially
in the contemporary period. This point is emphasized by Lipset and Raab (1995: 199)
who assert that the ethnic (or “tribal”) identity of American Jews has been weakened
by the “inexorably integrative forces of American society” associated with the decline
of antisemitism.
MEASUREMENT OF JEWISH IDENTITY
Farber and Waxman (1999: 191) cited aLos Angeles Timessurvey of 1988, which re-
vealed the various conceptions of Jewish identity held by American Jews. The most
popular expression of the personal importance of Jewish identity reported by the re-
spondents was a commitment to social equality (54 percent), followed by support for
Israel (16 percent) and religious observance (15 percent). For most of the rest, there was
nothing specific they could report as to what was important to their Jewish identity:
“Rather it is just there, a part of them. TheyfeelJewish.”
Behavioral Dimensions
Popular conceptions of feeling Jewish, notwithstanding, social scientists have offered a
more detailed understanding of the dimensions of Jewish identity. Thus, a move from
a theoretical discussion of Jewish identity to empirical research requires operational
measurement of such involvement. Before one can assess the complex elements that
define Jewish identity, one has to have an operational measure of who is a Jew. Social
scientists are not limited in such definitions by rabbinic judgments or rulings by the
Supreme Court of Israel as discussed in previous sections. Thus, the National Jewish