Springer Science and Business Media LLC

This paper is a summary and discussion of articles contributed to Contemporary Jewry's special issue (vol 30, issues 2/3) on trends in American Jewish attachment to Israel.

Barry Kosmin, Ariela Keysar, and Egon Mayer have observed an increase taking place in the number of Jews who identified with “no religion” during the 1990s. They have proposed two explanations. Kosmin and Keysar interpret this increase as part of a larger American secularization trend. Mayer understands it to be a specific “disaffection from organized Jewish life.” Implicit in both explanations is the emergence of a new secular Jewish identity that excludes identification with Judaism. As such, this new identification represents a radical departure from the American Jewish norm. American Jews have long been comfortable identifying with Judaism even though their outlook is as secular as the most secular of all Americans. Using the 2000–2001 National Jewish Population Survey and the 2001 American Jewish Identification Survey these two hypotheses are tested and rejected because secular Jews were found to be less “ethnic” than Jews by religion both in terms of attitudes and behaviors. Instead a third explanation is explicated which attributes the increase in the number of secularly identified Jews to a compositional change in the American Jewish population. Jews with no religion are overwhelmingly of mixed ancestry; and the number of such Jews increased dramatically between 1990 and 2000 as a result of intermarriage. Two OLS regressions show that both ethnic attitudes and behaviors are influenced primarily by Jewish background experiences. Jews of mixed ancestry are less likely to have these and thus score lower. A third OLS regression shows that these background experiences strengthen ethnic attachments which in turn influence ethnic behaviors. A logistic regression demonstrates that ancestry does have a direct influence on identification as secular above and beyond Jewish background experiences. Secular Jews choose the “no religion” option because it allows them to identify as Jews without having to choose between either of their parents’ two religions.

In response to Isaac Sasson and Sergio DellaPergola’s commentaries on our assessment of the validity of the Pew Research Center's 2020 estimate of 7.5 million US Jewish adults and children (Tighe et al. 2022), we address key points of agreement and contention in the validity of the estimate; in particular, how the Jewish population is identified and defined. We argue that Pew’s definition of the Jewish population is consistent with major studies of American Jewry, from NJPS 1990 to recent local Jewish community studies. Applying a consistent definition that includes the growing group of “Jews of no religion” with one Jewish parent, as Pew Research Center does, allows for a faithful comparison across national and local studies and a more accurate understanding of levels of Jewish engagement and expressions of Jewish identity.

This article is focused on the visions of pilgrimages to Rabbi Nachman’s site located in Uman, Ukraine. Research results are based on the analysis of in-depth interviews with eighteen Americans who have made the pilgrimage, supplemented by reading in secondary sources about pilgrimage and travel, especially American Jewish travel to Eastern Europe. Emphasis is made on the perception of both place and locals, as well as upon the leading motives and characteristics of pilgrimage. This research sheds light upon the role of existing stereotypes and personal encounters in cross-cultural issues. Dominant attitudes of pilgrims to locals in Uman may be characterized in the frame of the conceptual trio of “background fear,” “historical aftertaste,” and “learned neutrality.” Huge differences between the understanding of Uman as a place for pilgrimage and a space with inhabitants raise the questions of parallel historical heritages bound within the same territory and time.

This study examined Jewish ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) women doctoral students to analyze the shaping of their religious and academic identities, and particularly the coping strategies they use to reconcile them. It is informed by theories on the definition of social and collective identities and the way individuals assimilate upon encountering a new collective, as well as by actual processes of Haredi integration in Israeli academia over the years. The study concludes that in their academic development, these women challenge their traditional social worlds and enter the world of learning, which in their community is exclusively reserved for men.