The Jewish Family

Hartman, Harriet

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46122-9_13

Cited by 18 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a significant negative relationship between immigrant status and Jewish identity for the first three factors among the non-Orthodox men and women: immigrants have multifaceted Jewish engagement, stronger social Jewish identity, and stronger communal religious identity than US born. This reflects their sense of communal solidarity that has been noted in previous research (Gold 2003;Hartman 2016;Knopp 2014). It is the American-born who have a stronger sense of cultural identity among Orthodox men, probably reflecting the need for more resources needed (financial, social, language, etc.)…”

Section: Explaining Jewish Identity For Men and Women Separatelysupporting

confidence: 75%

Gender Differences in American Jewish Identity: Testing the Power Control Theory Explanation

Hartman

2016

Review of Religious Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses discrepancies in previous research about whether there are gender differences in Jewish identity. Four factors of Jewish identity are examined: multifaceted Jewish engagement, social Jewish identity, communal religious identity, and cultural Jewish identity. Using the 2011 New York Jewish Community Survey, gender differences in Jewish identity in seven denominational groups of American Jews are examined. The power control theory (PCT) is tested as an explanation for the gender differences, and found to be lacking. Measures of power imbalance in current family situations are used, in addition to measures related to socialization; the rationale for this variation is discussed. According to PCT, the Orthodox would exhibit greater gender differences in Jewish identity, but the opposite is true: significant gender differences are found for non-Orthodox denominations more than are found for the Orthodox. Being raised Orthodox does not contribute to the gender differences. Measures of power imbalance within families do not contribute to the explanation of variance in any of the Jewish identity factors. Possible generalization of the findings is discussed, as well as directions for further research.

show abstract

Section: Explaining Jewish Identity For Men and Women Separatelysupporting

confidence: 75%

Gender Differences in American Jewish Identity: Testing the Power Control Theory Explanation

Hartman

2016

Review of Religious Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hypothesis 3: are endogamously married or partnered. This is grounded in extensive research revealing that endogamously married or partnered people have higher levels of Jewish engagement than those married or partnered exogamously (Cohen 2012;DellaPergola 2011;Hartman 2017;Hartman and Hartman 2009).…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tongue Ties or Fragments Transformed: Making Sense of Similarities and Differences between the Five Largest English-Speaking Jewish Communities

Bankier-Karp

2023

Cont Jewry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The subjects of Jewish identity and Jewish communal vitality, and how they may be conceptualized and measured, are the topics of lively debate among scholars of contemporary Jewry (DellaPergola 2015, 2020; Kosmin 2022; Pew Research Center 2021; Phillips 2022). Complicating matters, there appears to be a disconnect between the broadly accepted claim that comparative analysis yields richer understanding of Jewish communities (Cooperman 2016; Weinfeld 2020) and the reality that the preponderance of that research focuses on discrete communities. This paper examines the five largest English-speaking Jewish communities in the diaspora: the United States of America (US) (population 6,000,000), Canada (population 393,500), the United Kingdom (UK) (population 292,000), Australia (population 118,000), and South Africa (population 52,000) (DellaPergola 2022). A comparison of the five communities’ levels of Jewish engagement, and the identification of factors shaping these differences, are the main objectives of this paper. The paper first outlines conceptual and methodological issues involved in the study of contemporary Jewry; hierarchical linear modeling is proposed as the suitable statistical approach for this analysis, and ethnocultural and religious capital are promoted as suitable measures for studying Jewish engagement. Secondly, a contextualizing historical and sociodemographic overview of the five communities is presented, highlighting attributes which the communities have in common, and those which differentiate them. Statistical methods are then utilized to develop measures of Jewish capital, and to identify explanatory factors shaping the differences between these five communities in these measures of Jewish capital. To further the research agenda of communal and transnational research, this paper concludes by identifying questions that are unique to the individual communities studied, with a brief exploration of subjects that Jewish communities often neglect to examine and are encouraged to consider. This paper demonstrates the merits of comparative analysis and highlights practical and conceptual implications for future Jewish communal research.

show abstract