Introduction
R. Yosef Ber Soloveitchik in 1944
This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Daniel Herskowitz[1]—examines how certain elements of Germanic Volkish (volk = folk) thought, circulating in interwar Germany, are evident in the writings of R. Yosef Ber Soloveitchik, also known as the Rav (1903-1993). Volkism was a folk, cultural, and ideological movement which began in Germany in the late 19th century. R. Soloveitchik studied cultural themes that also appeared in Volkish and later National Socialist discourse, but R. Soloveitchik’s use was philosophical, not political. To be clear, although R. Soloveitchik adopted Volkish thought, he severely criticised it when it became politicised, adopted and weaponised by the Nazi party in Germany in the 1930s. Nevertheless, Volkism did indeed become the basis of the National Socialist movement in Germany.
Background to R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik
R. Soloveitchik was born in 1903 in Imperial Russia to a long line of important rabbinic figures dating back many centuries. After a traditional study period in elementary Talmud Torahs as well as private tutors, he journeyed to Warsaw in 1924 to study political science at the Free Polish University. In 1926, he went to Berlin to study at the Friedrich Wilhelm University, where he engaged with the work of European philosophers, particularly neo-Kantian thought, and earned his PhD in 1932, in the epistemology and metaphysics of the German philosopher, Hermann Cohen. R. Soloveitchik went on to become a leading Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University and was fundamental in shaping its intellectual development.
Volkish ideology
To understand how R. Soloveitchik was influenced by Volkish ideology, it is important to understand how the movement emerged. The term ‘Volkish’ was first used in late nineteenth-century Germany. It began around Germany’s unification in 1870, and became very popular around World War I. Volkism then re-emerged around the 1930s. Essentially, it was an anti-universalist movement that glorified ancient German heritage and traditions. The German nation as a whole was seen as one ethnic body or peoplehood. A Volk, according to the political philosopher, Isaiah Berlin (2013:431), reflects “the pattern of life of a society…similar to that of a biological organism.” While it comprises separate components, it still functions as a collective and unified being. All the people in the Volk are expected to “operate in a united and harmonious manner as if they were a biological organ” (Herskowitz 2015:2).
According to Johan Huizinga, a Volk was so ethereal that it took on a religious temperament where the people: “are aware of a mission, of having a calling, of being chosen for something” (Huizinga 1959:155).
Rural life was idealised, and a rural and agrarian way of life was encouraged. The Volkish movement was distinctly anti-modernity. It rejected liberalism, urbanisation, and cosmopolitan culture. In terms of religion, many adopted a Germanised form of Christianity, while others turned to a reconstructed German paganism.
The problem was that Volkish ideology led its followers to apply its thought literally, and therefore, they often resorted to racism and anti-semitism.
Already in 1907, a secret society in Germany used the image of the swastika on its flag. Many of these ideas were later adopted by the Nazi Party as Volkish ideology naturally led to the exclusion of the ‘other,’ particularly Jews. These ideas are perpetuated to this day by far-right-wing parties like AfD, who have rekindled Volkish discourse.
Before applying some of these Volkish ideas to R. Soloveitchik—who certainly rejected the radical racist elements that later began to define the movement—we must first understand how Volkish ideology divided society into two distinct categories: Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. This distinction was to have a profound bearing on his writings.
Two types of society: Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft
Gemeinschaft represents an ideal, well-integrated and
cohesive community that lives with a singular purpose. The members of this type
of society romantically share the same heritage and “are able to realize the
spiritual link between past, present and future generations” (Herskowitz
2015:3). In the extreme, such groups often resort to occultism (like the Nazi
Party), and they perpetuate a strong mythical folklore. Dedicated people from a
Gemeinschaft also tend to be prepared to sacrifice, struggle, and even
lay down their lives for the good of the community.
Gesellschaft, on the other hand—which literally means an ‘association’—represents a divided, impersonal, selfish and incohesive community. The ties to other individuals, when they exist, are usually contractual.
According to Herskowitz (citing Mosse 1970), many twentieth-century Jewish thinkers adopted Volkish ideology. Martin
Buber, for example, a great early Zionist, was indeed a:
“devoted advocate of volkish
ideology, though the volk he spoke of—the Jewish volk—was, in his opinion,
destined eventually to transcend its limited borders and encompass all humanity”
(Herskowitz 2015:2).
Echoes of Volkism in R. Solovetichik’s writings
We shall now examine four examples of R. Soloveitchik’s use of Volkish terminology and ideology:
1) The metaphysical entity of the community
R. Soloveitchik deals primarily with the individual and the existential and religious questions that arise around the individual. However, in his writings, that individual is always framed as living in a community. In fact, R. Soloveitchik sees the individual as formed by the community and, simultaneously, as one who forms the community (Horwitz 1997:50). His writings about the ‘community’ reflect Volkish definitions of a ‘community’:
“The community is not just an
assembly of people who work together for their mutual benefit, but a
metaphysical entity, an individuality: I might say, a living whole…[It] is not
a conglomerate, it is an autonomous entity, endowed with a life of its own”
(Soloveitchik 1978:3).
2) Adam I = Gesellschaft and Adam II = Gemeinschaft
In his 1965 book, “The Lonely Man of Faith,” R. Soloveitchik draws attention to two biblical narratives or two creation stories as found in the first two chapters of Genesis. Each story depicts a different version and vision of Adam or Man, and he calls them, respectively, Adam I (the conquering and majestic man) and Adam II (the man of faith). Each Adam establishes their own separate community. Adam I establishes his utilitarian and transactional community, while Adam II sets up his covenantal community. Adam I (conquering man) employs his creative faculties to subdue and master his environment, while Adam II (the man of faith) surrenders himself in submission to his Master. Adam I is tasked to “fill the earth and subdue it” and to “have dominion” (Gen. 1:28) over the environment. Adam II does not subdue the garden, but tills it and preserves it. He is introduced by the words “It is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18), and he seeks companionship (with community and the Divine) to relieve his existential loneliness.
This closely resembles the Volkish distinction between Gesellschaft (utilitarian and transactional) and Gemeinschaft (transcendent of the individual). Yet, R. Soloveitchik also expresses a departure from the Volkish understanding of a distinction between Gesellschaft (utilitarian) and Gemeinschaft (transcendent of the individual). In his interpretation, he maintains that both Adam I and Adam II have to inhabit the same world and learn to live together. R. Soloveitchik is also alluding to the need for secular Jews (Adam I) to live side by side with religious or covenantal Jews (Adam II). In a break from Volkism—and remarkably similar to the stance of Rav Kook—neither community alone fulfils God’s will. It is most likely that R. Soloveitchik’s references to secular Jews are generally to secular Zionists—although not exclusively—when read in the context of the 1960s. Religious Zionism only began to take root in the aftermath of the 1967 War [see: Kotzk Blog: 507) The rise of contemporary Religious-Zionism].
3) Gemeinschaft = Congregation (destiny), Gesellschaft
= Camp (fate)
In his Fate and Destiny, R. Soloveitchik again shows his commitment to Volkish thinking in his separation between two forms of society, which he labels as Congregation (Eida) and Camp (Machaneh). He writes:
“The camp is created as a result of the desire for self-defence and nurtured by the sense of fear; […On the other hand, a] congregation is a group of individuals possessing a common past, a common future, common goals and desires, a common aspiration for a world which is wholly good and beautiful, and a common unique, and unified destiny” (Soloveitchik 2000,58-59).
In this extract, Camp—with its need for self-defence—corresponds to Gesellschaft (utilitarian), while Congregation corresponds to Gemeinschaft (transcendent of the individual). The Camp is subject to its fate depending on the outcome of its defences, while the Congregation experiences its destiny. R. Soloveitchik goes on to explain how a nation can function as a Camp or as a Congregation. National fate is often the result of external and historical conditions, like the slavery of Egypt. In contrast, that same nation can choose a destiny which is represented by the Sinai experience, which followed the Exodus. Once again, as evident from this extract from Fate and Destiny, R. Soloveitchik uses the distinct Volkish language of ‘fate’ and ‘destiny.’
In R. Soloveitchik’s Lonely Man of Faith, the ‘lonely man’ seeks companionship, destiny, heritage, tradition and a community of like-minded members of the same covenant in order to coexist together. These members provide not just a temporary haven (that would be a Camp), but they share a history and destiny (which makes them a Community):
“Every covenantal time experience
is both retrospective, reconstructing and reliving the bygone, as well as the…anticipation
[of] the ‘about to be’ (Soloveitchik
2000: 42).
4) Prepared to die for, and belief in the community
The Volkish notions of sacrifice and laying down one’s life for one’s people are also reflected in probably one of the most innovative of R. Soloveitchik’s writings:
“The Jew who believes in Knesset Israel [the Community of Israel] is the Jew who lives as a part of it wherever it is and is willing to give his life for it, feels its pain, rejoices with it, fights in its wars, groans at its defeats and celebrates its victories. The Jew who believes in Knesset Israel is a Jew who binds himself with unseverable bonds not only to the People of Israel of his own generation but to the community of Israel throughout the ages” (Peli 2004:120).
While some might argue that this has nothing to do with Volkism, but is merely an age-old Jewish belief in dying al kidush Hashem [for the sake of God], this expression of R. Soloveitchik goes further. He personifies Knesset Yisrael, which feels pain and joy. The nation is not just a political entity but a living being with feelings. Furthermore, while in the past people gave their lives for God (al kidush Hashem), in R. Soloveitchik’s schema, one dies not only for God, but also for the nation!. One might even say that there is also a belief not only in God, but also in the nation, Knesset Israel! This is evident in his writing about “[t]he Jew who believes in Knesset Israel” (as per Peli, Ibid.).
Summary
We have touched upon four examples of R. Soloveitchik’s apparent adoption of Volkish thought, especially the dichotomy between Gemeinschaft (transcendent of the individual) and Gesellschaft (utilitarian). The notion of these two types of communities—the well-integrated, cohesive community and the divided, impersonal, selfish and incohesive community—is a recurring theme in Volkish ideology.
However, R. Soloveitchik went further and innovated a synthesis that did not exist in Volkish ideology, in that he didn’t see Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft as a binary choice of accepting Gemeinschaft and rejecting Gesellschaft. Instead, he maintained that a perfect society combined both elements of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. In other words, his view of society:
“grows from a volkish conceptual framework and simultaneously diverges from it… [This works well from a Jewish perspective because] [t]raditional and secular communities do, after all, together constitute the metaphysical entity of Knesset Israel” (Herskowitz 2015:8).
In fact, it could be argued that R. Soloveitchik went a step even further by actively innovating and incorporating the Volkish notion of dying for one’s people and incorporating that into Judaism! Before this, Judaism only had the traditional virtue of dying for one’s God!
By the same token, R. Soloveitchik boldly innovated belief, not only in God but also in the nation, Knesset Israel (as we saw in example 5)!
Analysis
The truth is that some of these Volkish ideas already existed in Jewish thought, in the writings of Maharal and some of the Kabbalistic and Chassidic writers, but it does seem that R. Soloveitchik, having been schooled in German universities, used them intentionally in a Volkish context:
“The years as a philosophy student in Berlin in the early 1930s were formative for the young Soloveitchik” (Herskowitz 2015:9).
He encountered the thought of Hermann Cohen as well as the schools of existentialism, which “left a lasting mark on him” (Herskowitz 2015:9). He was also interested in the pragmatic philosophy of Max Scheler, who earned his PhD in the relationships between logical and ethical principles. R. Soloveitchik wrote his PhD dissertation on Hermann Cohen, who developed a rigorous Marburg Neo‑Kantian approach that emphasised the role in Judaism of pure thought and ethics rather than metaphysical speculation. In other words, Hermann Cohen maintained that Judaism is a religion grounded in moral law and universal justice rather than supernaturalism. This, obviously, influenced R. Soloveitchik’s own thought.
R. Soloveitchik’s fellow student in Berlin was Alexander Altmann, who wrote his PhD. dissertation on Scheler.
These multiple, deep scholarly associations profoundly shaped R. Soloveitchik. Particularly, the German zeitgeist of the period—marked by an interest in Volkish thought—likely entered his intellectual capital and helps explain why Volkish themes recur in R. Soloveitchik’s influential writings.
This was not the first time that German folk beliefs were incorporated into Jewish thought. Chassidei Ashkenaz, or German Pietists flourished in the German Rhineland during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. They too adopted many of the prevailing German folk customs [see: Kotzk Blog: 228) CHASIDEI ASHKENAZ – ‘THESE ARE NOT SUPERSTITIONS’!].
Yet, there remains a great irony in R. Soloveitchik drawing
from general German Volkish ideas because “many of the thinkers held
intellectually responsible for the [Nazi] horrors of the time were volkish
thinkers” (Herskowitz 2015:12). R. Soloveitchik’s methodology, however, is
selective and corrective. He adopts the evocative vocabulary of Volkish thought,
but he reinterprets and restrains those concepts within reason and ethical
limits (as per Hermann Cohen), avoiding the dangerous binary interpretations that
can lead to fanaticism.
Bibliography
Berlin, I., 2013, ‘Nationalism: Past Neglect and Present Power’, in Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas, edited by Henry Hardy, Random House, Princeton.
Herskowitz, D., 2015, ‘Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s endorsement and critique of Volkish thought’, Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, Routledge, 1-18.
Horwitz, R., 1997, ‘Rav Soloveitchik’s View of the Religious Experience and Mystery’, in Emuna Bizmanim Mishtanim, Edited by Avi Sagi, Eliner, Jerusalem, 45-74. (Hebrew)
Huizinga, J., 1959, ‘Patriotism and Nationalism’, in Men and Idea: History, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, Translated by James S. Holmes and Hans van Marle, Princeton University Press, New York.
Mosse, G.L., 1970, Germans & Jews: The Right, the Left, and the Search for a ‘Third Force’ in Pre-Nazi Germany, H. Fertig, New York.
Peli, P.H., 2004, On Repentance: The Thought and Oral Discourses of Rabbi Joseph Dov Solo veitchik, Jason Aronson, Maryland.
Soloveitchik, J.B., 1978, ‘The Community’, Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, vol. 17, no 2. 7-24.
Soloveitchik, J.B., 2000, Fate and Destiny: From the Holocaust to the State of Israel, Ktav Publishing House, New York.
