On Seams and Seamlessness

88 SHOFAR Fall 1995 Vol. 14, No.1 ON SEAMS AND SEAMLESSNESS by Rebecca Alpert Rebecca Alpert, Assistant Professor of Women's Studies at Temple University, has written extensively on contemporary Jewish themes. Her publications include Exploring Judaism: A Reconstructionist Approach and a forthcoming study of lesbian issues in Judaism. When Laura Levitt, my friend and colleague at Temple University, asked me to participate in thisforum, myfirst response was a categorical no. Laura and I have talked about our different perspectives aboutpostmodern approaches toJewish feminism infrequently over the last several years. The conversations always end with us restating our differences, agreeing to disagree. Because myfeelings are so strong about this subject, I was reluctant to have this conversation in public. Yet Laura persuaded me to consider participation, in full knowledge that this would be an airing of our differences, and I have taken the risk to do so. My contribution , a letter to Laura, is an effort to bring my love for her into the context of what is, for me, a passionate and acrimonious intellectual debate that has important implicationsfor thefuture ofJewish feminism.. January 1995 Dear Laura, I have read and re-read your questions and Miriam's essay many times now, looking for a way to engage in honest conversation. It is not an easy task. I have strong and positive feelings about our relationship and admire the work you have done. But these questions and this essay perplex me deeply. I fear we do not speak the same language and as a result efforts at communication may not be fruitful. Yet I am compelled to respond to you, to articulate for you what I don't understand, what I think is not unique about this work, what I disagree With, and where our visions part. On Seams and Seamlessness 89 I don't understand why you get so passionate about categories, definitions, and terms. Really, aren't there greater and more significant conflicts than those about what specific words mean? When you argue over words you run the risk of engaging in debates about words only. How I translate my beliefs into action is more salient than the words I use to describe my actions and beliefs. The words you use get in the way of my understanding as well. Why must you invent words like tropes and signifiers? Do you really expect people outside of the academy to benefit from your work when they can't understand what you're talking about? The beauty of the feminist enterprise has been its ability to make connections between activists and academicians, and of the Jewish feminist enterprise to enable those who practice Judaism in whatever way to have access to Jewish feminist ideas that emanate from the academy. However do we justify speaking in a language that is at best self-referential and at worst elitist and alienating to those we want to connect to? The other thing I don't understand is why you are so deeply disturbed about the Enlightenment. I believe as I'm sure you do that the Enlightenment served a useful purpose, opening up new ways of thinking about the world and about God. Without this perspective we could not be asking the questions we ask today. Yet you invariably look at the Enlightenment as the embodiment of all you disdain. I'm often troubled by how you repeat what you consider to be the Enlightenment's mistake ofcreating "binaries" by turning enlightenment consciousness into the "other" against which you react. I just don't understand your need to do this. While I appreciate some ofyour insights, I don't see what is so unique about them. Hasn't feminism for years contended that knowledge is partial, and that what is wrong with traditional approaches is that they universalize man? And didn't feminists come years ago to the realization that universaliiing women was also problematic? Acceptance of difference among us is an important feature ofJewish feminism, as we have struggled for years to accept one another's differences in religious perspectives, political orientation, sexuality, cultural background, class, and so on. We certainly agree that you cannot "add women and stir" to bring...