This communal expression of disappointment at the failure of Jewish mothers was by no means limited to the French milieu but was articulated in all the societies which had experienced emancipation and assimilation, irrespective of the levels of social and political antisemitism. In 1875 the London Jewish Chronicle commented, “[P]ossibly there is no feature of the age more dangerous or more distressing than the growing irreligion of women.”72 Similarly, German Jewish spokesmen took women to task for failing in their sacred responsibility. “Women are giants who carry the world on their shoulders by caring for the home,” editorialized one paper. “If the religious home falls, so does the world of religion.”73 In commenting in an 1871 article on the historic piety of Jewish women and the inspiration they offered to their families and communities, Rabbi Kaufmann Kohler lamented the neglect by contemporary Jewish women of their time-honored noble task of bringing spirituality to their homes, and this at a time when Reform had granted them a larger role within the synagogue.74 And in Texas, too, in the late 1870s Jewish women were pointedly reminded of their responsibilities: “You as daughters of Sarah and Rebecca ought never to forget that it is your sacred duty … to instruct your children, to give them a religious and moral training.… [R]emember that there is a great debt of responsibility resting upon you, and that you are held accountable for the acts of your children.”75 Some women also participated in the critique of Jewish mothers of their time. In her speech at the 1893 Jewish Women’s Congress, Ray Frank, for example, castigated her peers:
Go to the synagogue on Friday night; where are the people? Our men cannot attend, keen business competition will not permit them.… Where are our women? Keener indulgence in pleasures will not permit them With whom lies the blame? Where are the wise mothers of Israel today? … That we are now in the position of backsliders is owing to us women.76
Fathers are absent from communal discussions about the younger generation, although as lay and rabbinic leaders of the Jewish community they continued to invest time and resources in educational institutions dedicated to the transmission of Jewish culture and identity. In my survey of the nineteenth-century Jewish press of England, France, Germany, and the United States and of public Jewish pronouncements, I have found no references specifically to fathers’ responsibilities for the education of their children or for the inculcation of a Jewish identity nor blame of fathers for the defection of their children from the Jewish community. In the gendered project of assimilation the female sex was at the center.
Yet within the preemancipation Jewish community the obligation to educate children, primarily sons, rested precisely upon fathers. In practice the father’s obligation was socialized, for the male heads of household within a community assumed responsibility for establishing educational institutions for all the children of the community. Indeed universal literacy in Hebrew and familiarity with the biblical text were communal ideals for all males, and many communities provided basic instruction in reading for girls as well. The transfer of the obligation to educate Jewish youth from fathers and communal institutions to mothers, with reduced supplementary assistance from communal institutions, was, as I have suggested, a major aspect of the assimilation of Western Jewry to the norms of the larger society. It permitted Jewish men to pursue success in the worlds of commerce and civic affairs and to assume leadership positions within the Jewish community while relegating the transmission of Jewish knowledge and identity to the domestic sphere and to women, who, incidentally, had fewer educational and material resources to accomplish the task. By focusing, in the case of Jewish communal critics, on the failure of Jewish women to fulfill their assigned role or, in the case of Freud and other Jewish men who had become highly secularized, on women’s eagerness to fulfill it all too well, Jewish men were able to ignore problematic elements within the project of assimilation itself, particularly as they related to their own behavior.
The project of assimilation contained an unacknowledged source of tension: the assumption that limits could be set to assimilation, that Jews would not disappear completely within the larger society, that individual mobility would not conflict with group survival. As the Jewish elite pressed for social and civic equality, their behavior belied that assumption. With each succeeding generation, Jewish learning and practice declined and signs of radical assimilation increased. Men predominated among those who converted and intermarried. Because the bourgeois ideal of female behavior restricted women’s access to the public arena and saw religiosity as a feminine attribute, assimilating Jewish women apparently retained more signs of Jewish identification than did the men in their families. The male leadership of the Jewish community would not renounce the social, economic, and psychological benefits of emancipation and adoption of Western culture nor could it devise an effective strategy for promoting Jewish communal persistence without setting limits to individual male ambition. Blaming Jewish mothers for the decline in Jewish knowledge and religious practice enabled Jewish men in western and central Europe to continue the process, and the project, of Jewish assimilation.
The Jews of the West were the first to confront the new political and social conditions that accompanied modernity, but they constituted only a small minority of world Jewry. The much larger Jewish population of eastern Europe was also compelled to redefine its identity and relationship to the larger society. The particular social, political, and cultural contexts of eastern Europe took the process and project of Jewish assimilation, and the gender relations encoded within both, in vastly different directions from the nineteenth-century Western model.
1. Isaak Markus Jost, as cited by Ismar Schorsch, “From Wolfenbüttel to Wissenschaft: The Divergent Paths of Isaak Markus Jost and Leopold Zunz,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 22 (1977): 110.
2. On the mutual compatibility of assimilation and retention of Jewish identity, see Uriel Tal, Christians and Jews in Germany: Religion, Politics, and Ideology in the Second Reich, 1870–1914, trans. Noah Jonathan Jacobs (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975). On the potential for multiple identities, see Gary Cohen, “Jews in German Society: Prague, 1860–1914,” in Jews and Germans from 1860 to 1933: The Problematic Symbiosis, ed. David Bronsen (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1979), pp. 306–37. On the ethnic component of nineteenth-century French Jewish identity, see Phyllis Cohen Albert, “Ethnicity and Solidarity in Nineteenth-Century France,” in Mystics, Philosophers, and Politicians: Essays in Jewish Intellectual History in Honor of Alexander Altmann, ed. Jehuda Reinharz and Daniel Swetschinski (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1982), pp. 249–74, and Phyllis Cohen Albert, “L’intégration et la persistance de l’ethnicité chez les Juifs dans la France moderne,” in Histoire politique des Juifs de France, ed. Pierre Birnbaum (Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, 1990), pp. 221–43.
3. A notable exception is the work of Marion Kaplan: "Tradition and Transition: The Acculturation, Assimilation and Integration of Jews in Imperial Germany—A Gender Analysis,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 27 (1982): 3–35; “Priestess and Hausfrau: Women and Tradition in the German-Jewish Family,” in The Jewish Family: Myths and Reality, ed. Steven M. Cohen and Paula E. Hyman (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1986), pp. 62–81; The Making of the Jewish