Discussion: The Doctrine of Mutual Responsibility, Nonconformity, and Deviance Versus Cultural Change and Stability
Discussion: The Doctrine of Mutual Responsibility, Nonconformity, and Deviance Versus Cultural Change and Stability
This chapter argues that the religious doctrine of mutual responsibility propels Haredim to get involved in trying to persuade other Jews to act in pious ways because infractions invoke the wrath of the Almighty. This wrath is not necessarily directed at the perpetrators but can hit innocent others. Violence–verbal and non verbal-is part of these attempts of persuasion. Driving Israel to become a theocratic Halakhic state is what is behind most of this violence. The chapter argues that the concept of Haredi limited violence is inaccurate. Theocratic democracies can, and do, contain such pressures and tensions, but there is a limit beyond which this flexible structure may loose its flexibility and be driven to an extreme. The chapter ends with examining various trends that may press Israeli theocratic democracy towards a Halakhic state. Such trends consist of, for example, theocratic members of Knesset, large sections in the population that want such a state, existence of underground groups that were willing to use violent direct action to turn Israel into a theocracy.
Keywords: direct action, halakhic state, limited violence, mutual responsibility
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .