As I was doing some research for my final paper on brisket, I ran across a cookbook that used a metaphor that I never thought to apply to Jewishness.  In Arthur Schwartz’s Jewish Home Cooking, he explains, “as in any American home, a huge hunk of meat represents attainment of the American Dream.  That’s probably why brisket, the most impressive and, at one time, the most succulent kosher cut of beef, became idolized.”  I’m very familiar with the concept of symbols for the American Dream, such as big cars and houses, and even within the food spectrum of the large turkey for Thanksgiving.  Yet, that notion never crossed my mind.

Brisket symbolizing the American Dream is a perfect example of Judaizing a cultural concept.  On the one hand, we have the American Dream as the rags to riches story, where people come to the country poor but are able to work their way into wealth and they show that by buying large, extravagant things.  On the other hand, we have a largely poor immigrant population looking to have a better standard of living and quality of life.  What better way to show that they gained some sort of status in the new country than by purchasing the biggest, best cut of beef possible, something they only had on a rare occasion in their old country only if they could afford it.  Now, brisket is used in the Jewish home to designate any special occasion from Jewish holidays like Passover to birthdays and anniversaries.

Brisket Judaized the American Dream by taking something that is commonly agreed upon as Jewish and applying it to the basic framework.  I look at it almost as a way the new immigrants pronounced that they were just as American as anyone else, but they still have a strong sense of their Jewish identity that they will not let go.

So, that got me thinking about other ways that the American Dream has been Judaized.  I feel like one can argue that the monstrous sandwiches from Jewish New York delis are another symbol.  This is because in these delis Jews are the business owners, another aspect of the American Dream, and they can show just how well their business is doing by serving such large quantities of meat on a sandwich.  I am sure that one can find many other examples, however I cannot think of anything else so exemplary of the concept.  Or maybe my mind is just hooked on food.

As Caroline mentioned briefly in our penultimate class, Mortin Levitt, one of the fathers of the Modernist movement, and graduate from Dickinson came to give a lecture on “Jews and Modernism” last week. He spoke a lot about what we have been covering recently, concerning what makes a piece of art, or literature, or music Jewish. I thought his example of a person viewing an abstract painting that was declared to have Jewish content, yet not finding any visual Jewish content within the work, a great example of how the same object can be considered both Jewish and not Jewish at the same to examine within this debate. Levitt went on to explain that the same person turned to another work by the same artist and was able to see Jewish themes within that piece. It seems that the first piece of art can be considered both Jewish and not Jewish at the same time.

This analysis covers three ways of reading a text, widely studied within literary tradition: author’s intent, close reading, and reader’s response. Oftentimes, literary scholars also refer to the intentional fallacy, which dictates that it is incorrect to view the intended meaning of a text with primary importance. In the example of the modern art piece, the intentional fallacy is not relevant, since the painter was present to tell the viewer of his Jewish intentions. If the artist were not present, if the title was not related to Judaism, and if there were no known information about the artist, the piece of art would probably not be considered Jewish at all, and rather than thinking about what it might be trying to portray, the viewer would examine the painting as a text by itself (close reading) and their response to the work would be shaped by experiences within their own background (reader response).

Levitt seemed to be opposed to the reader response theory in terms of what makes something Jewish. In his view, if something was not created by a Jew, but had Jewish content, it cannot be classified as Jewish art. However, it seems to me that there are plenty of Jewish songs, and pieces of art, etc. that were not composed or produced by Jewish people that are very Jewish, since they have been used in Jewish contexts, for Jewish purposes. If all Jewish people adhered to Levitt’s conception of what makes a piece of art Jewish, Judaization in terms of art would never be able to occur.