Ethical Framework for SJCS
By Seth D. Kunin, PhD From HaLapid, Summer 2006 Some of the perennial issues that have been raised in many recent conferences and meetings relates to the ethical stances taken by the Society for Crypto-Judaic Studies. These issues have related to the conduct of our conferences, both in respect of the papers chosen for inclusion and the way that members respond to those papers and perhaps even more importantly to the stance taken by the society in relation to particular ways of expressing or developing crypto-Judaic identity. In this article I will address some of these issues and suggest a way forward for the society. The ethical issues that impact on the work of the society and the individual researchers who are members of the society can be divided into a number of interrelated categories. The first of these covers the relationship of the society and its work to various forms of community both existing and emergent. The second covers the impact of the research and the nature of the research upon the specific individuals participating in studies (this may have both direct impact on specific individuals interviewed or observed, and indirect impact upon individuals directly descended from people included in genealogical and/or historical research). The third covers the responsibility of academics within the society to their scholarly communities. It may be that some would argue for an additional area, responsibility of the society to particular religious communities. It will be one of the contentions of this article that this final area is precluded by the implications of the first three. In order to establish the basis from which the Society for Crypto-Judaic Studies’ ethical position emerges it is important to note from the outset some key issues in relation to the nature and foundation of the society. These issues set the fundamental parameters for the ethical positioning of the society in relation to the three categories (and indeed the fourth category) outlined above. The summary of the society’s mission statement reads as follows: The Society for Crypto Judaic Studies serves the following purposes: The fostering of research and networking of information and ideas into the history and contemporary development of crypto Jews of Iberian origins. As indicated in the statement the main purpose of the society is research and the dissemination of knowledge. The nature of the research is specified as both historical and contemporary, thus broadly including the academic disciplines of history and the social sciences. Each of these academic domains implies a set of ethical parameters. In relation to historical research it might be thought that the ethical issues were mostly in relation to academic integrity, particularly in relation to the data and the nature of the historical analysis arising from it. As indicated, however, in the 2004 ethics statement of the Royal Historical Society [UK], historians also have responsibilities towards living individuals or communities. The RHS ethics document states: The maintenance of high professional standards includes… taking particular care when evidence is produced by those still living, when the anonymity of individuals is required and when research concerns those still living. This statement emphasizes the need to protect the anonymity of living individuals and the need to have concern for how the presentation of the data may reflect on them and communities. This last implication might be seen as potentially being in conflict with the need for historical integrity. This might for example be found in the potential conflict between an individual or community’s understanding of its authenticity and the evidence provided by historical data. In such cases it is clear that the historian or other scholar cannot and should not ignore or hide the data. The scholar, however, has responsibility towards the individual or community both in respect of indicating the limitations of their data and in how they chose to present the implications of their data respecting the living communities or individuals. It might be thought that the historian has a responsibility for how others might use their data. This argument in the social sciences can be used as a means of censorship and limiting academic freedom. If we chose to limit our research to the safe areas which could never be used by others in an unethical way, social scientific research would in effect become a pawn of the status quo and thus abandon any basis in integrity or the search for knowledge. Social scientists must be responsible for their own ethical choices within the conduct of their research. They also bear some responsibility for making sure that their research is properly understood both in terms of its limitations and implications and that their research is not misrepresented and responding as necessary. If, however, taking these provisos into account, others chose to use the data for purposes other than research, for example, as building blocks for constructing their identity or community structures, this becomes their own responsibility and must be guided by their own codes of ethics or other means of making ethical decisions. In relation to the Society of Crypto-Judaic Studies, as opposed to individual researchers and research projects, it may be argued that there is an additional level of responsibility, that is, that the society is responsible for the content of the research and therefore to support communities and or individuals affected by the research conducted by members of the society. This view would suggest that the Society had responsibility for the research and its content. SCJS, however, in no sense has this responsibility. It does not fund its members’ research, nor does it vet the content of their research proposals or the outcomes of that research (qua research, its public responsibilities at its annual conference are a separate issue). Researchers (even if members) are independent from the society and are thus solely responsible for the content of their work. In general the researchers are bound by the particular ethical positions of their disciplines and/or the institutions within which they work or who fund the projects. As indicated in the society’s mission statement its primary role is as a forum for discussion and dissemination. Thus, its responsibility is to allow the research to be presented and discussed. It does have a responsibility to make sure of the quality of the research presented in either its newsletter (HaLapid) or in its annual conference, in terms of both data and analysis, but it cannot and should not take on any liabilities in relation to the content or position of the research undertaken and presented. Perhaps its only responsibility to the community beyond discussion and dissemination is to provide a locus for communities and individuals to respond to the research and explore for themselves how the research may affect their identity or position within their wider communities. As indicated above, some have argued that the society has an obligation or perhaps minimally a role in enabling people to make particular religious choices, for example, supporting or advocating for crypto Jews to “return” to “normative” Judaism(s). There are two primary reasons for rejecting this position. First, the crypto-Jewish community is composed of individuals who have made or are making a wide range of different religious choices; some choose to move towards ‘normative’ Judaism others do not; indeed some choose to remain Christian or indeed to move to particular Messianic groups that they believe allow them to express both aspects of their identity; other individuals reject any particular religious stance and see crypto Judaism as part of their ‘cultural’ or ethnic identity. Thus, there is no one religious tradition or direction of religious journey that would include a majority of those individuals identifying themselves as crypto Jews. If the society were to select one tradition or journey as opposed to others it would be marginalizing the validity of the alternative positions and journeys. The second reason for rejecting this view arises from the Society’s emphasis on research as its primary task. It is my view that high quality research cannot be motivated by a particular religious stance on the part of the researcher. It has long been recognized by the social sciences that an individual researcher’s own points of view or indeed values must be bracketed off for the purpose of research – this is often called methodological relativism. This view is also indicated in the RHS’s ethics statement specifically in relation to the past: The (RHS) Society recognizes the need for academic freedom of speech and writing. Since ethical standards are not constant, there is a need to eschew anachronistic value judgments when investigating and describing the past. The need to “eschew” one’s own value judgements in the context of research is even more important when one is dealing with living communities, the members of which may have very different understandings and values. This process of methodological relativism for some ends with the conclusion of the research, after which the individual may choose to make judgements and use the research to support some instrumental goal, for example, supporting the development of a center whose goals are to lead individuals to make a particular religious choice (and the research may give information on how this might be done). The individual may also choose to share the research with a society that has goals in relation to the development of policy or other instrumental ends. SCJS, however, has chosen to place research and open discussion as its primary drivers and thus it is my contention that as a society it needs to maintain a position of methodological relativism and not support any particular religious tradition or instrumental goal. This role as a locus for discussion and dissemination relates to both the annual conference and the quarterly newsletter. SCJS does have certain ethical responsibilities in relation to the content of both of these forums. The primary responsibilities lie in four areas: (1) the veracity and quality of the content of presentations or articles, (2) to insure that the content does not include approaches or that are specifically against the mission statement of the organization, (3) to insure that the tone of both presentations and discussion is appropriate to academic debate, (4) to ensure that the communities/individuals researched have a voice. The first of these responsibilities seems clear and unambiguous, and to an extent it is. There are vetting processes within both the conference organization and editing of HaLapid to ensure that these issues are addressed. It is important, however, not to let this criteria be used to silence alternative points of view. Thus, if an appropriate academic paper were offered that challenged the authenticity of crypto-Jewish origins we should allow it to be presented and appropriately debated. Equally if a paper which argued for the ‘truth’ of something we generally consider ‘true’ were offered but was based on a misuse of data that paper should be rejected. The society in its publications and conferences has an obligation to make sure that poor academic argumentation is not offered as acceptable or quality research. This responsibility arises from two interrelated areas – responsibility to the various academic communities that interact within the society and the broader academic community, and perhaps even more importantly to the wider community to whom the papers (published and presented) are also addressed. The first of these demands that papers are judged in terms of the highest standard of academic argumentation, so that their findings will be considered sustainable in academic debate and thus form part of an ongoing argument rather than the noise that obscures it. The second of these arises from our responsibility to the wider audience in terms of both communication of the nature of the data (and its limitations) as well as educating them in terms of what makes a good and therefore sustainable academic argument. If we ignore this responsibility we support the acceptance of books like the Da Vinci Code as scholarly historical products. The key point is that we must not censor the data or the conclusions of papers we publish or allow to be presented but we must insure that what ever the conclusions the arguments are academically sustainable rather than delusions or illusions created by poor argumentation. The second of these responsibilities is derived directly from the mission statement and its implications. The Society’s role is to research and discuss issues relating to crypto Judaism – which as suggested above includes both arguments for and against the historical authenticity of the phenomena or particular aspects of it. As discussed above a key implication of the mission statement is that the society is not and cannot be associated with any particular religious group or stance in relation to religious choices. Thus, it would be inappropriate for papers to be published or presented that have as their primary purpose the conversion of individuals or communities to any particular religious tradition. This, however, does not preclude papers discussing how different religious traditions have responded to crypto Judaism or the religious journeys of individuals or communities. The third responsibility presents a clear statement of the responsibilities of the society to ensure that its meetings (and publications) are conducted in a way that is respectful to all of the participants, both those who present papers and those who respond to them. This does not mean that questions and responses should not be challenging—this indeed is a key part of all academic debates—does, however mean that the tone of discussion should remain within the confines of accepted academic decorum. The final area of responsibility relates to the obligation of the society to allow the community that it researches to speak in its own voice and to address issues of concern to it. Historically, academic societies tended to privilege the academic voice as the only authoritative voice in relation to the individuals or communities being studied. Increasingly there is the recognition that this approach turned these communities into passive objects of study with no right to challenge or respond to the authoritative academics. Societies like the SCJS need to balance the academic analysis and discussion by allowing individuals from within the communities being studied to speak both of their own concerns and in response to the issues raised by the academics. The society therefore has a responsibility to give something back to the community being studied; by making the conference and publications a locus for expression from within the community and a place from which crypto Jews (and others) can draw on high quality research the society is able to make an important contribution to both individuals and communities. |
Society For Crypto Judaic Studies
|
