OCR Text |
Show City, Community, and Purity: Mormonism's Evolution of Zionism and Place M. Todd Ethington govern its surrounding rural areas. The polis was notable for its small size, which allowed a form of participatory government to flourish (Ball and Dagger 2002, 20-21). Pericles saw the self-interested and publicly disengaged individual in Athenian society as "useless" (2002, 18), pointing out that one can contribute to the benefit of the polis "whatever be the obscurity of his condition" (2002, 17). Aristotle spoke of the virtues of a participatory polity that would govern in the interest of the common good. Participation was important because men "meet together," and "a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse" (Aristotle 2002, 22). Athenians were seen as capable of self-governance when they could find the time to gather in assembly and vote directly upon policy (Ball and Dagger 2002, 21). To these early thinkers, community, participation, and place were inseparably intertwined in the ideal community. For John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau, certain conditions needed to be met before community or society could exist. One of these conditions, said Locke, was for men to agree "together mutually to enter into one community, and make one body politic" (1994, 7); and, said Rousseau, for every member of a community, when it is created, to give "himself to it as he then is, together with all his resources, of which the goods he possesses are part" (1994, 60). Central to community, then, are the elements of physically coming together and having public possessions, lands, or "community goods" (1994, 60). We further see the centrality of place to community in the political thought of Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville. In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke praised the role of the "little platoons" in society-family, neighborhood, church, and voluntary associations- organizations that required localized membership and participation. These platoons are communities of place that endear citizens to their society (Burke 2002, 139-45). In his work Democracy in America, de Tocqueville admired two aspects of American democracy that helped provide an "equality of conditions" (2002, 39): the New England town meeting and jury duty. These institutions provided opportunity for all citizens to "participate directly in local government," and enjoy a "shared responsibility" (Ball and Dagger 2002, 36). Communities of place have recently been attacked by some critics as being inadequate in describing current trends in community and political thought. Scholars like Friedman argue against the "situated self," advanced by communitarians like Sandel (1996, 3-24) and others, in favor of a more "transcendental" individual. Friedman contends that most communitarian notions of communities of place tend to favor "morally troubling politics of gender" (1995, 194). By advocating communities of place, Friedman maintains, one's identity is defined by the community and not by the individual (1995, 197). She prefers instead to promote "communities of choice" as an alternative to supplement, if not entirely dis- place, traditional communities of place (Friedman 1995, 197). This notion of choice in community and self actualization is described by other researchers as the "therapeutic self (Bellah, et al. 1996, 127). In emphasizing choice, however, this critique fails to recognize that humans are fundamentally social, and are unable to not define themselves in some way by the communities into which they are originally embedded. Jewish Zionism and Community of Place It is clear that though we are a distinct people, we are a non-possessing one; that though we are spread all over the world, we are without a centralised force; that though we are everywhere prominent, we are nowhere in the majority; that though we are governed by every people and are loyal to every government, we possess no government of our own. J. de Hass4 Jewish Zionism was largely a political movement and, to a lesser extent, a religious one. Although it has its modern roots in the late nineteenth century, the movement itself can trace its traditional roots back even farther. The name Zion first appears in the biblical account of David's conquest of Jerusalem in 1000 BC (2 Sam. 5:6-10). "Zion" referred to a stronghold built on a hill in Jerusalem called Mount Zion. In time, Jerusalem became David's capital city, and Mount Zion became home to King Solomon's temple. As this temple came to house the Israelites' Ark of the Covenant and, in consequence, symbolically house the Hebrew God Jehovah, Mount Zion became a mythically holy place for Israel. Zion and Jerusalem eventually became completely synonymous place names, with Zion thereby becoming an entire religious capital. The city was destroyed by the Assyrians in the first century AD, and the Jewish people were subsequently displaced (Henrie 1972, 51-52). While an initial Zionist theory had been formulated in principle in 1882 (de Hass 1901, 48), it was not until 1897, when Theodore Herzl organized the World Zionist Conference in Basle, Switzerland, that a formal Zionist movement was initiated (Allison 1996). Proponents of the Zionist movement at the turn of the century touted "Zionism as a complete theory of Jewish life" (de Hass 1901, 3). The movement addressed three elements of Jewish strife, namely: "that the political position of the Jews tends to become worse, that there is a decline in religiosity, and that every new [government and social] restriction lowers the economic position of the Jews" (de Hass 1901, 23). J. de Hass articulated the Zionist position regarding the above-mentioned elements. The quest for a Jewish nation and identity was in response to the intense and growing anti-Semitism experienced by Jews throughout Europe and Russia (de Hass 1901, 4-9). The need to preserve religious and cul- 4 In Zionism: Jewish Needs & Jewish Ideals. 35. |