PROBLEMS IN STUDYING HIDDEN PEOPLE
Considerations in Sociology by Abraham D. Lavender, Florida International University From HaLapid, Summer 2007 Crypto Jews can be studied from several perspectives, including the historical, the literary, the anthropological, and the sociological. Sociology, defined as the study of society, usually emphasizes such “standard” topics as social stratification (class structure), ethnic identity, demography (how a population is divided among major categories such as age and gender), family structure, religion, education, etc. These four perspectives are not mutually exclusive. For example, let’s look at the relationship between sociological and historical research. Philip Abrams, in Historical Sociology, argues that good sociology is historical by its nature, and suggests that the researcher try to ask “serious questions about the contemporary world and see if you can do it without historical answers” (p. 1). Historian Peter Burke, in Sociology and History, argues for the interaction of sociology and history. And, Richard T. Vann, a social historian, states that history “completely shares its subject matter with sociology and anthropology. There are no uniquely historical events. History is not a subject; it is a mode of thought” (p. 222). As I have argued in an earlier work, “The good genealogist must do what most historians and sociologists have not done: consider both history and sociology, as well as the interaction between them” (1990, p. 3). Having decided to attempt to obtain information on sociological topics, however one defines it, how does one conduct sociological research? There are four basic types of sociological research: surveys, secondary analysis, observation, and experiments (Schaefer, 2006, pp. 36-40). Let’s look at each one, especially the first two, and see how each does or does not apply to the study of crypto Jews. A survey, depending on the people to be studied, the topic being studied, the time allowed for the study, and the amount of money available, can be an in-depth lengthy survey (usually administered in the form of a structured or unstructured interview) of a small number of people, or a “surface level” short survey (perhaps with only a few questions) of a large number of people. Government or foundation agencies which award large monetary research grants generally are impressed by large sample sizes for sociological research, and universities and professors seek grants from these agencies because of the money brought to the university and the prestige and job-marketability brought to the professor. Awarding of grants usually are heavily influenced by the topic being researched, with groups or topics varying in interest and likelihood of being funded depending on the size of a group, the political power of or support given to a minority group (perhaps an oxymoron, but generally the smaller a minority group is the less likely it is to be the subject of funded research because of lack of power), positive or negative interaction between the group and the society, the current “hotness” or lack thereof of a group or topic, and/or the political party in power. Because of the funding bias, these studies usually have large samples but little depth. Those interested in the study of crypto Jews are a small group without political power, the larger society cares little about crypto Jews, and the topic is not “hot” among foundations or government agencies. Academic researchers with monetary concerns follow the money and study the groups with large funding. Hence, within most universities and departments of sociology, there are few if any professors who take seriously the study of small nonpowerful minority groups such as crypto Jews, Melungeons, or Lumbee Indians. Hence, those who study the topic of crypto Jews usually will operate on a small budget. Working with a limited budget and probably with limited time for research (working without a grant to “buy off” their other duties, they must also continue teaching, advising students, serving on departmental committees, serving on doctoral and master’s committees, etc., instead of being free to conduct full-time research), they frequently will attempt to obtain a balance between the number of people questioned or interviewed and the depth of the knowledge obtained. There are other problems. Descendants of crypto Jews themselves frequently have mixed reactions to their “hidden” pasts, and this can complicate the type of research that is feasible. Nevertheless, despite these and other problems, there are projects which have in effect provided impressive sociological data on descendants. An example of research which has provided sociological knowledge about contemporary descendants of crypto Jews is the 264-page book by Gloria Golden, published in 2005 as Remnants of Crypto Jews Among Hispanic Americans (see my book review in HaLapid, Spring 2006). Golden is not a sociologist, but a professional photographer with a background in education. Nevertheless, her research followed standard sociological techniques of using interviews to obtain sociological information. She interviewed eighty people, and discussed sixty-one of them in her book. Most of the interviewees, from New Mexico or El Paso, TX, either knew of, or were suspected of, having a Jewish heritage. The Golden interviewees mentioned a number of things that suggest a Sephardic heritage: names and naming patterns, cousin marriages, family oral histories, Ladino elements in their Spanish, kosher slaughtering, lighting candles, importance of unleaven bread, sweeping to the middle of the room, mirrors turned against the wall, menorahs, lack of Catholic symbols in homes, lack of serious observance of Catholicism, quick burials, throwing dirt in graves, putting rocks on tombstones, mourning customs, and others. These are the topics frequently dealt with in sociological studies of descendants of crypto Jews. Responses ranged from those who remembered a number of practices to those who remembered none. Current identities ranged from those who have returned to Judaism and are serious practicing Jews to those who are practicing Christians (usually Catholics) and have no desire to identity as Jewish although, perhaps, having sympathy toward and respect for their Jewish ancestors. Other works, such as Hidden Heritage: The Legacy of the Crypto Jews, by Janet Liebman Jacobs, also provide much sociological information. Much of the sociological study of crypto Jews has been based on interviews. A second major way of obtaining sociological information is by using secondary analysis. As noted, “Sociologists do not necessarily need to collect new data in order to conduct research and test hypotheses. The term secondary analysis refers to a variety of research techniques that make use of previously collected and publicly accessible information and data” (Schaefer, p. 40). This approach can be used for either historical research, which can include much sociological information, or for sociological research on a contemporary group or issue. For example, David Gitlitz, in his historical study of crypto Jews in Iberia, Secrecy and Deceit: The Religion of the Crypto Jews, used Inquisition records, chronicles, rabbinical rulings, letters, eyewitness accounts, religious books, and other historical documents. By including voluminous direct quotes from these sources, on topics such as birth customs, death and funeral customs, educational activities, marriage and sexual activities, observance of shabbat and holidays, eating habits, reading habits, and many other examples of daily life, much sociological data was revealed. In effect, to a large extent the book was a sociological study of a historical group. The book could easily be considered historical sociology as well as history. Stanley Hordes, in To the End of the Earth, in studying the crypto Jew of the Southwestern U.S., also used much original research which helps describe social lives of crypto Jews. One of the specific techniques which is a part of secondary analysis is content analysis, defined as “the systematic coding and objective recording of data, guided by some rationale” (Schaefer, p. 40). A pioneering study using content analysis, for example, was Erving Goffman’s 1979 work where he counted and analyzed different words used to portray women and men in advertisements. The data obtained by Golden in her interviews are a rich source for possible content analysis. For example, which practices are most remembered, and how do other practices rank? Is there a relationship between the number of practices remembered and the likelihood of returning to a Jewish identity? Are some practices more important than others in influencing the identity of descendants today? Do those interviewees who identify as Catholic recall different things than those who do not ? Do women and men differ in what they give as important reasons for their attitudes toward maintaining a religious identity or returning to Jewish identity? Analyzing the detailed content, whether historical or contemporary, and whatever the reason for originally obtaining the data, can provide interesting and detailed sociological knowledge that can give a good portrayal of a group or an issue. The third type of sociological research, observation, would require that the researcher be in a situation where he or she can observe the people being studied. The people might, or might not, be aware that they are being studied. Either situation can raise ethical questions, depending on the situation and topic. Participant observation, where the researcher actually puts him/herself into the group being observed, is a specific type of observation. The group might know that the researcher is there to observe them, and the question then arises as to whether the observer’s presence affects the behavior of the group being observed. The group, or some members of the group, might change their behavior, consciously or unconsciously, to impress (positively or negatively) the observer. This is referred to as the Hawthorne Effect. In a classic study, workers increased their productivity no matter which variable was changed because they enjoyed the attention being paid to them (Schaefer, p. 39). There is also the participant observer who makes the group think that he is a real sincere member of the group, and does not let the group know that he is there only for the purpose of secretly researching them. This can raise all types of ethical issues, and especially where criminal behavior is involved, can even be dangerous to the researcher if the truth is found out by group members. Generally, observation is not used to study crypto Jews. Some anecdotal evidence exists from where an observer reported on a specific activity such as, for example, the characteristics of a religious service by a crypto Jewish congregation or by a Messianic Jewish congregation, but this usually is not the entirety of a major research project. The fourth possible type of research, experiments, also is seldom used by sociologists. Regardless of the type of sociological research used, what about the validity of the findings about crypto Jews? In effect, much of the research on one’s crypto Jewish ancestors is genealogical research, hopefully conducted within the framework of an accurate knowledge of history. The question of the validity of the research can be raised about any group. As the African-American historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr., wrote in Finding Oprah’s Roots: Finding Your Own, “Of course, the stories that families tell themselves about their past aren’t always reliable–or even always true. So many family tales reflect wishful thinking or family myth-making, ‘remembering’ things the way we would have wanted them to be rather than the way they actually happened” (p. 32). But, as Gates also notes, “Often these family stories–the stories that our elders tell us at family reunions or over ritual family dinners such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, or Kwanza–are, in fact, historically accurate, to some degree, containing a kernel of truth that can be built upon by diligent research” (p. 33). As David Cohen (1981, p. 49) has noted, in the early 1900s genealogical research frequently had a tendency to be filio-pietistic (glorifying one’s ancestors, often with inaccurate claims), but as early as the 1980s there was an increasing belief that genealogical research was becoming based more on objective research. “Kernals of truth” frequently are true, and, even if embellished or exaggerated, should not be treated flippantly or dismissively. Rather, they should be confirmed or rejected by using accurate objective research. People sometimes do have a tendency to exaggerate their family history, but seldom do they totally make up a false history. Researchers who live in “Ivory Towers,” out of touch with the real world, must keep this in mind. The history of crypto Jews, similar to a few other groups such as French Huguenots (Protestants), has special problems: it goes back five hundred years and often involves ancestors who were going out of their way to try to hide their identity by such acts as changing names, leaving false paper trails, and opening following false identities. Paul Revere, for example, of U.S. Revolutionary War fame, came from a family which had been openly Catholic but secretly Huguenot (p. 178). Regardless of the group, these acts cause many genealogical problems. In addition, the reluctance of many “born Jews” and much of the Jewish establishment to accept the return to Judaism or to Jewish identity of crypto Jews can add a level of frustration and even anger that can affect research if one is not careful. So, one must be careful to maintain one’s objectivity when researching a group which has been negatively treated, just as one has to guard against filio-pietistic research on one aiming to be elitist. Having looked at the general perspectives of sociological research, let’s look at a couple of specific areas of sociological concern for crypto Jews: genetics (DNA) and onomastics. The study of DNA can be approached from a biological, anthropological, sociological, or historical perspective, but can be of special importance to crypto Jews. Some researchers have used DNA to try to prove one’s Jewish ancestry, while I have used DNA to try to better understand the social migration patterns of the crypto Jews. DNA can sometimes provide valuable genealogical and sociological information, but there are also analytical and ethical concerns as described in an earlier article of mine (2006) in HaLapid. Onomastics, the scientific study of names, can be used in a sociological sense to try to understand the likelihood of names being Jewish, or to show how names can change as a measure of acculturation. This has been a major area of interest of mine for many years (see Lavender, 1988 and 1989). I must emphasize how often I hear inaccurate claims about a name “being Jewish” when there is no proof that the particular name is Jewish. For example, the claim that all Hispanic names ending in ez are Jewish is not accurate. Ez means “of”or “son of” and has been used by both Jews and non-Jews. Hernandez, for example, can simply mean the “son of” Hernando. Fernandez can simply mean “the son of” Fernando. But, there definitely are cultural, religious, racial, nationality, and social class naming patterns for both given names and surnames, and I fervently do not want to argue against the possibility of important Jewish findings involving family names. But, one must be careful to not over-interpret the findings. So far I have suggested how to obtain sociological knowledge of Iberian crypto Jews and their contemporary descendants, but what about flipping the coin, looking at the other side, and studying the people who question the validity of crypto Jewish returnees. As I have questioned previously (2006, SCJS), why is there a reluctance to accept, and even a tendency to criticize or stigmatize, descendants of Iberian crypto Jews who want to return to Judaism? In sociology, until the 1960s, the study of people who were viewed as deviant, as inferior, as outsiders, as being “not one of us” would be approached from the question: “Why are those people deviant? Why do they act like that? What makes them believe or do things that we ‘know’ are wrong?” But in the 1960s, another very different theoretical approach, referred to as labeling theory, gained credibility. This approach reversed the question, and studied the labelers instead of the labeled.: “Why do those people with the power view us as wrong, as outsiders? Why do they assume their beliefs are right and label ours as wrong? As is expressed in non-academic bottom-line street terminology, “Who appointed them to play G-d?” In 1973, in The Death of White Sociology, Joyce Ladner “called attention to the tendency of mainstream sociology to threat the lives of African Americans as a social problem.” Perhaps, she suggested, the problem was not African Americans, but, rather, the whites who labeled African Americans as the problem. There is a growing belief that crypto Jews should follow this perspective and move on with their lives, rather than spending their time beseeching the self-defined Jewish establishment to accept them. What will be the future of the sociological study of crypto Jews? Only time will tell. END NOTES Abrams, Philip. Historical Sociology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982. Burke, Peter. Sociology and History. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1980. Cohen, David Steven. “How Dutch Were the Dutch of New Netherland?” New York History, 62, 1, January 1981. Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. Finding Oprah’s Roots: Finding Your Own. New York: Crown Publishers, 2007. Gitlitz, David M. Secrecy and Deceit: The Religion of the Crypto Jews. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Goffman, Erving. Gender Advertisements. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979. Golden, Gloria.. Remnants of Crypto Jews Among Hispanic Americans. Mountain View, CA: Floricanto Press, 2005. Hordes, Stanley. To the End of the Earth: A History of the Crypto Jews of New Mexico. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Jacobs, Janet Liebman. Hidden Heritage: The Legacy of the Crypto Jews. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002. Ladner, Joyce. The Death of White Sociology. New York: Random Books, 1973. Lavender, Abraham D. French Huguenots: From Mediterranean Catholics to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1990. ——— “Hispanic Given Names in Five U.S. Cities: Onomastics as a Research Tool in Ethnic Identity.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 10, 2, June 1988. ——— “Identity and DNA Testing: Exploring Ethics and Crypto-Judaic Studies.” HaLapid: Journal of Crypto-Judaic Studies, Volume XIII, Issue 3, Summer 2006, pages 1, 8, 9, 14. ——— Review of Remnants of Crypto Jews Among Hispanic Americans, by Gloria Golden. HaLapid, Volume 13, Issue 2, Spring 2006, p. 10. ——— “U.S. Ethnic Groups in 1790: Given Names as Suggestions of Ethnic Identity.” Journal of American Ethnic History, 9, 1, Fall 1989. ——— “Why the Reluctance to Accept Spanish-Portuguese Returnees to Judaism? An Exploration for and Analysis of Possible Answers.” Sixteenth Annual Conference, Society for Crypto-Judaic Studies, El Paso, Texas, August 7, 2006. Schaefer, Richard T. Sociology: A Brief Introduction. Boston: McGraw-Hill, sixth edition, 2006. Vann, Richard T. “The Rhetoric of Social History.” Journal of Social History, 10, 2, Winter 1976. |
Society For Crypto Judaic Studies
|
