A joint IJJER-IARJE special issue
IJJER
International Journal
of Jewish Education Research,
2013 (5-6), 177-202.
Multiplicity of identity expressed in
Jewish educational settings: The case
of summer camps in the US
Erik H. Cohen | ehcohen@biu.ac.il
Bar Ilan University, Israel
Abstract
The current article explores multiple expressions of Jewish identity as
expressed in educational settings affiliated with different denominations.
Further, it looks at expressions of identity among youth whose personal
religious affiliation corresponds with the setting’s organizational identity
and those whose personal identity differs.
The tool for examining this is a scale of symbols which I developed
in order to explore the multi-faceted nature of Jewish identity. The set of
symbols is used as a means for comparing between sub-populations of
American Jewish youth. Participants (N=731) in Jewish summer camps
affiliated with the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform denominations
variously emphasized different symbols, expressing distinctive ‘flavors’ of
Jewish-American identity.
It was found that each camp included a significant minority of
participants whose self-defined denominational affiliation differs from
that of the camp. Significantly, there are differences in Jewish identity,
as expressed through the symbols, between youth whose self-defined
affiliation corresponds with that of the camp (i.e. Orthodox youth at an
Orthodox camp) and those whose personal definition differs from their
camp's affiliation (i.e. Conservative youth at an Orthodox camp).
177
Multiplicity of identity expressed in Jewish educational settings in the US
Pedagogical and institutional implications of the multiplicity of
Jewish identities expressed in educational settings, and especially the
experience of individuals whose identity differs from that of the setting,
are explored.
Keywords: summer camps, Jewish identity, USA religiosity, SSA,
DISCO
Introduction
Multiple Jewish identities
This article explores the different ways an already hyphenated
identity may be expressed. According to Léon Askénazi (1984) Jewish
identity is by nature hyphenated, since it is always combined with
something else, particularly nationality.
This hyphenation or multiplicity of identity differs from the wellestablished concept of social identity complexity, the inter-related aspects
of identity expressed by individuals who belong to multiple social
groups (Roccas & Brewer, 2002; Jones & McEwen, 2000). Juggling
and integrating numerous identities associated with various social
groups, which overlap to greater or lesser extents, is a common feature
of contemporary society (Phelan, Davidson & Yu, 1991; Josselson &
Harway, 2012). A Jewish public school student who plays on a soccer
team, volunteers at a hospital, and attends a Jewish summer camp,
will express different aspects of a complex social identity in various
situations. Jewish aspects of identity may not be expressed at all in some
of them. As Waxman noted "…increasing numbers of American youth
view themselves pluralistically, in hybrid and fluid terms, …to the extent
that Jewishness is part of their identity and identification, it is but one of
their many different selves," (Waxman, 2008, p. 175).
Here something different is being explored: the multiple ways in
which a single aspect of identity—in this case Jewish identity—can be
expressed. Previous research has indicated the importance of national
variations in Jewish identity (Cohen & Horenczyk, 1999; Gitelman,
Kosmin, & Kovács, 2003). It is not simply that someone is simultaneously
Jewish and American (or French, Israeli, British etc.), expressing religious
and national aspects of identity in different settings. Rather, the Jewish
aspect of identity is itself expressed differently in various countries, as
Jews’ formulation of what it means to be Jewish is affected by the political
culture and value system of the surrounding society. An international
178
Erik H. Cohen
survey of Jewish youth found that the components of Jewish identity
differed among various populations: for example, American Jews
indicated that religion was a very strong aspect of Jewish identity while
language and memory of the Shoah were less emphasized; Jews from the
former Soviet Union put more emphasis on Shoah memory than either
religion or language; and for Israeli youth religion, language and Shoah
memory were all relatively important aspects of their identity as Jews.
Thus, Jewish-American, Jewish-Russian and Jewish-Israeli identity are
different ‘flavors’ of Jewish identity (Cohen, 2008a).
Another interesting illustration of this multiplicity within Jewish
identity can be seen among French Jews, who may define themselves
according to two commonly used terms: Juif (Jew) or Israélite. Each term
has different connotations. Though these connotations have shifted over
time, in brief Juif is understood as indicating religion and membership
in the global Jewish People, while the term Israélite connotes a synthesis
of Republican French values and culture with loyalty to the “Mosaic
religion” (Schnapper, 1980). It is not uncommon for French Jews to use
both terms, self-identifying and self-presenting as Juif among other Jews
and as Israélite in non-Jewish society (Cohen, 2012). Thus Jewish identity
has multiple context-specific presentations. Other minority populations
have been found to exhibit their identity differently depending on social
context (Assouline & Elchanan, 1987; Barvosa-Carter, 2001; Brewer,
1999; Kahana et al., 2003; Moos, 1987).
Further, within each country numerous Jewish communities coexist and interact, presenting situations in which different aspects of
Jewish identity such as ethnic background (Sephardi or Ashkenazi), level
of religiosity, or attitude towards Zionism, may be expressed. Jewish
youth may interact with different religious and ideological streams of
Judaism at home, at school, in synagogue, at summer camp, during a
visit to Israel, etc.
Various settings may also be internally heterogeneous, bringing
together individuals who express different types of Judaism. To the extent
that institutions have diverse constituencies, it is possible to recognize
multiplicity in ‘organizational identity’—the core values and culture
expressed by the organization (Cole & Slimath, 2012; Gioia, Schultz &
Corley, 2000; Holzinger & Dhalla, 2007). A Jewish community center
that serves a diverse Jewish population may offer a range of activities
to appeal to Jews who are Orthodox and secular, the strongly Zionist
and those who are apolitical, and so forth. On the other hand, a Jewish
organization or educational setting with a more narrowly defined
179
Multiplicity of identity expressed in Jewish educational settings in the US
affiliation may be utilized by some participants whose identity differs
from that of the organization. This happens when, for example, the
only Jewish Day School in an area is Orthodox, so some of the enrolled
students may come from less religious backgrounds.
Thus the situation can be very complex. The Jewish identity of
the individual youth is by nature multiple: a Jewish youth may be,
for example, a Conservative, Zionist, Ashkenazi American Jew who
participates in various Jewish organizations: Zionist youth movement,
Orthodox day school, Conservative synagogue, secular events at the
JCC. In each of these settings, this individual interacts with others
expressing equally complex identities.
Symbols of Jewish identity
Symbols are effective tools for expressing aspects of identity which
may not be consciously understood, particularly among an adolescent
population. The current article uses a new scale of symbols to explore
multiplicity of Jewish identity and the degree of correspondence between
individuals’ personal identity with the organizational identity of an
educational setting they attend. I developed this scale in order to explore
the multi-faceted nature of Jewish identity. The development of this
scale has been an ongoing process, part of an ongoing study of Jewish
identity, in which I have been engaged for several decades. The scale was
gradually expanded based on the results of subsequent surveys (Cohen,
1997, 2004, 2008a, 2008b; 2011; Cohen & Bar-Shalom, 2006). In
addition, as part of development of this list, I undertook a brainstorming
session on symbols of Jewish identity with Israeli high school students.
The students offered almost 500 names, concepts, events and so forth.
As many of these expressed similar ideas, the list was pruned to just over
100. This helped inform the current list.
The expanded scale was included in a survey of participants in US
Jewish summer camps affiliated with each of the major religious streams
(Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform). The survey of participants in
three streams of camps expands the investigation of multiple types of
Jewish identity in various settings.
A comparison of the relative emphasis placed on various symbols
by sub-populations gives insight into the similarities and differences in
how they express identity within a larger social group (the Jewish People)
and within the local community or setting (the summer camp). The
ways in which these various sub-groups define and express their identity
180
Erik H. Cohen
may be seen as a type of social representation (Moscovici, 1981; 1988).
Table 1: Questionnaire item. “For the following list of names, places
and concepts, please indicate all those that express your Jewish
identity? (Circle as many possibilities as relevant)
1. Soviet Jewry
34. Utopia
2. Talith
35. Memory
3. Moral values
36. Hannuka
4. Success
37. Development
5. Education
38. Dream
6. Talmud
39. Holy sites
7. Star of David
40. Refuzniks
8. Democracy
41. Sheva(mourning)
9. Lubavitcher Rebbe 42. National identity
10. Miriam(Moses' sister)43. Shabbat candles
11. Brooklyn
44. Hebrew language
12. Dreyfus affair
45. Holocaust (Shoah)
13. Citizen of the world46. Marc Chagall
14. Freedom
47. Pogroms
15. Light for the Nations 48. Ideology
16. Seder of Pessach
49. Fear
17. Solidarity
50. To feel in Exile
18. Barbra Streisand
51. Co-existence
19. Shimon Peres
52. Roots
20. Torah study
53. Ariel Sharon
21. Jewish food
54. Prayer
22. History
55. Separation
23. Danger
56. Community
24. Tourism
57. Birth
25. Progress
58. David Ben Gurion
26. Prophets
59. Social struggle
27. Jesus
60. King David
28. Territories
61. Home
29. Patriarchs
62. Circumcision
30. Anne Frank
63. Religion
31. YadVashem
64. Your parents
32. Pluralism
65. Esther the Queen
33. Discrimination
66. Tradition
67. Blessing
68. Hassidut
69. Matsot
70. Diaspora
71. Fullness
72. Victims
73. Future
74. Auschwitz
75. Studies
76. Challenge
77. Woody Allen
78. Jewish State
79. God
80. Aliyah to Israel
81. Friendship
82. Messiah
83. Emancipation
84. Sukka
85. Sefaradi
86. Bar/Bat Mitsva
87. Zahal (Israel Army)
88. Family
89. Tsedaka
90. Day to day life
91. Intifada
92. Sharing values 93. Ghetto
94. Tefilin
95. Jerusalem
96. David vs. Goliath
97. Moses
98. Ashkenazi
99. Palestinians
100. Tolerance
101. Pilgrimage
102. Healing
103. Humanism
104. Yizhak Rabin
105. Tel Aviv
106. Hope
107. Holy places
108. Concentration camps
109. Money
110. Bible
111. Ecology
112. Nationalism
113. Peace
114. Yiddish
115. Hillel
116. Wealth
117. Refugees
118. Steven Spielberg
119. Spirituality
120. Excellence
121. Masada
122. Theodore Herzl
123. State of Israel
124. Kosher food
125. Menora
126. Assimilation
127. Right of return to Israel
128. Immigration
129. Albert Einstein
130. Equality
131. Terror
132. Disorder
Which of the items listed above are the most important for you personally?
(Indicate the relevant code number)
First choice: #|__|__|__|
Third choice: # |__|__|__|
Second choice: #|__|__|__| Fourth choice: # |__|__|__|
Diversity of ideology in informal education
Summer camps are an informal educational setting. The impact of
informal education has been found to be positively affected by certain
181
Multiplicity of identity expressed in Jewish educational settings in the US
traits and approaches, as described in Kahane’s ‘code of informality’
(Kahane, 1997). One of these, dualism, is the simultaneous existence of
apparently conflicting ideological approaches, such as competitiveness
and cooperation. The acceptance of or resistance to diversity of ideology
in the summer camps is an important indicator of their functioning as
informal educational settings.
This article looks at differing expressions of identity among the
summer camp participants, the ‘students’ in this setting. In Schwab’s
typology of education, the students are one of four interconnected
common places: students, teachers, subject matter and social context
(Schwab, 1973). Jewish identity is also expressed in the camp setting by
the counselors and other staff, the activities and itinerary, and the larger
social setting in which the camp is located (in this case, the United States
and the US Jewish community).
Methods
The survey
A survey of participants in US Jewish summer camps was conducted
during the summers of 2005-2007. The questionnaires included the new
scale of Jewish identity consisting of 132 symbols of Jewish identity, as
given in Table 1. Respondents were asked to 1) indicate all the symbols
which express an aspect of their personal Jewish identity, and 2) indicate
the four which are most important for them personally.
The anonymous questionnaires were coded by camp affiliation.
In addition, respondents were asked to identify themselves as either:
Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, just Jewish, secular or not Jewish. A
binary variable was created distinguishing between campers whose selfdefined affiliation was the same as the affiliation of the camp and those
that differed.
Data analysis
Using standard distribution tables, the responses were compared
results were analyzed using a multi-dimensional technique.
Smallest Space Analysis. A multi-dimensional analysis of the
data was conducted using the Smallest Space Analysis technique, which
graphically portrays the underlying structural relationships among the
data. The first step in a SSA is the calculation of a matrix of correlations
between the selected variables.
182
Erik H. Cohen
The correlations are then plotted according to the principle that
strongly correlated items are close together and weakly correlated items
are far apart (Guttman, 1968, 1982; Levy, 1994). In this way the SSA
graphically portrays the structure of the data. Once the variables are
plotted, regions of semantically related variables are designated, based
on the theoretical approach of the study. In this case regionalization of
the SSA was guided by general knowledge of Jewish identity and my
previous research on symbols of Jewish identity.
Into this map, sub-populations of camp participants were introduced
using the External Variables procedure. This is a unique feature of the SSA
technique, distinguishing it from other multi-dimensional data analysis
tools. The external variables are plotted according to their correlation
with the set of primary variables. The placement of the primary variables
is fixed and not affected by the introduction of the external variables
(Cohen & Amar, 2002).
DISCO. The discriminant coefficient (DISCO) method was used
to measure the distance between the responses to the symbols by subpopulations of campers. DISCO varies between -1 and +1. Zero indicates
no difference (perfect overlap) among the means; +1 represents perfect
discrimination (non-overlap) in a positive direction, and -1 represents
perfect discrimination in a negative direction. For a mathematical
explanation of the DISCO procedure see Amar (2005a, 2005b).
Results
Portrait of the survey population
731 camp participants responded to this question: 210 from camps
associated with the Reform movement, 172 from Conservative (Ramah)
camps and 349 from Orthodox (Bnei Akiva and Moshava) camps.
Participants were between the ages of 12 and 17; most were
between 13 and 15. Those at the Orthodox camps were the oldest on
average; those at the Reform camps the youngest.
Like the US Jewish population at large, the majority were of
Ashkenazi background. Interestingly, about half of those in the Reform
camps were unaware of their family’s ethnic background. The gender
balance was fairly equal, with a slightly higher percentage of females
(54%).
The survey population gives a broad view of US Jewish adolescents.
183
Multiplicity of identity expressed in Jewish educational settings in the US
Most frequently chosen symbols
Thirteen symbols were indicated as expressing as aspect of
Jewish identity for at least 70% of the whole survey population. These
were (in order of popularity): education, God, bar/bat mitzvah, religion,
freedom, moral values, your parents, family, Hebrew language, Shoah
(Holocaust), State of Israel, Jewish State and tradition. These clearly
cover a wide range of aspects of Jewish identity: religious, familial,
cultural, historical, and national (Zionist).
Youth attending an Orthodox camp were significantly more likely
to select symbols related to religion, Israel and anti-Semitism. The largest
gaps between the Orthodox and Reform camps were seen in response
to symbols of traditional religious observance, such as Talmud study
(selected by two thirds of those in Orthodox camps and a quarter of those
in Reform camps) and tefillin (selected by 41% and 9% respectively).
Participants at a Conservative camp were most likely to select
universal values such as democracy, co-existence, tolerance, ecology,
humanism and peace. Participants in a Reform camp were more likely
than their peers in the other two camp-streams to select items related to
Jews' accomplishments in the non-Jewish world (such as wealth, citizen
of the world, success). Interestingly, those at Reform camps were also
most likely to select the symbol of Anne Frank, indicating a somewhat
different attitude towards the Shoah than that of the Orthodox campers,
who were more likely to select Auschwitz as symbolic of their Jewish
identity. Similarly, the religious symbols of Star of David and Hannukah
were most likely to be selected by those at the Reform camps, again
indicating a different approach to the Jewish religion in comparison to
those at Orthodox camps, who were more likely to select symbols such
as Talmud and Torah study.
Differences between these sub-groups of US Jewish youth reflect
the type of Jewish identity expressed in their home environment,
community and the educational settings they attend.
Most important symbols
There were 34 symbols which were indicated as one of the four most
important by at least 1% of the population. These are given in Table 2.
The first column gives the percentage of participants who selected each
symbol as one of the four most important. The next columns present the
percentage of campers among the total population and in each type of
camp that indicated each of these 34 symbols as expressing an aspect of
their Jewish identity.
184
Number of campers in entire
population selecting symbol as one
of four most important to their
Jewish identity
Percentage of campers in entire
population selecting symbol as
indicative of their Jewish identity
Percentage of campers in Reform
camps selecting symbol as indicative
of their Jewish identity
Percentage of campers in
Conservative camps selecting symbol
as indicative of their Jewish identity
Percentage of campers in Orthodox
camps selecting symbol as indicative
of their Jewish identity
N = 731
Erik H. Cohen
Table 2: Most important symbols of Jewish identity, by camp stream
God
26%
79%
72%
76%
85%
Moral values
22%
73%
60%
76%
79%
Family
20%
73%
67%
72%
78%
Education
16%
85%
79%
84%
89%
Religion
15%
76%
69%
72%
82%
Torah study
13%
67%
50%
60%
82%
Freedom
13%
72%
78%
73%
67%
Your parents
12%
73%
66%
75%
76%
State of Israel
11%
73%
62%
70%
80%
Tradition
10%
70%
61%
69%
76%
Friendship
9%
63%
58%
68%
64%
Peace
9%
69%
69%
72%
68%
History
8%
66%
60%
65%
70%
Shoah
8%
72%
57%
74%
80%
Prayer
7%
67%
56%
66%
75%
Home
7%
61%
58%
57%
64%
185
Multiplicity of identity expressed in Jewish educational settings in the US
Aliyah
7%
52%
29%
44%
69%
Bar/bat
mitzvah
7%
77%
72%
75%
80%
Hope
6%
62%
61%
58%
64%
Jewish state
6%
71%
58%
70%
79%
Success
5%
61%
64%
57%
62%
Jerusalem
4%
69%
60%
61%
78%
Kosher food
4%
63%
36%
66%
78%
Community
3%
59%
49%
60%
64%
Jewish foods
2%
69%
65%
69%
71%
Spirituality
2%
47%
40%
42%
54%
Right of return
to Israel
2%
53%
44%
44%
63%
Hebrew
language
2%
73%
63%
72%
78%
Equality
1%
44%
46%
48%
41%
Memory
1%
49%
51%
51%
48%
Star of David
1%
63%
72%
58%
60%
Tolerance
1%
40%
33%
52%
38%
Brooklyn
1%
12%
11%
14%
11%
Future
1%
50%
52%
48%
51%
The symbols deemed most important, too, cover a wide range of
aspects of Jewish identity. Those which were most important to the largest
number of participants were: God, moral values, family, education and
religion.
In comparing the responses of the participants in the three camp
streams, a general pattern emerges. For the majority of these symbols,
186
Erik H. Cohen
the participants in Orthodox camps gave the strongest response (the
greatest percentage of campers selected them); a relatively weaker
response was given by those in Reform camps, and the Conservative were
in between. This pattern does not pertain only to specifically religious
symbols. Higher percentages of those at Orthodox camps also selected
the symbols Shoah, community, Hebrew language and Jerusalem. In
some cases the difference is only a matter of a few percentage points,
in others it is graphic. The most salient difference was in response to
the item ‘aliyah to Israel’, selected by 69% of the Orthodox campers,
compared to only 29% of those in the Reform camps. This perhaps
reflects the growing confusion and even ambivalence regarding Israel in
liberal American Jewry; the connection to Israel which is promoted, as
through educational tours, tends to minimize such ‘binding’ moves as
making aliyah (Chazan, 2000).
The exceptions to this pattern are enlightening. A greater percentage
of Reform campers selected the symbols ‘freedom’ and ‘Star of David’.
The symbol ‘freedom’ indicates an autonomous rather than authoritarian
value structure. The Star of David may be said to represent a symbolic
ethnicity (Gans, 1979, 1992). The Conservative campers were slightly
more likely than either of the others to select the symbols ‘friendship’,
‘peace’ and ‘equality’, illustrating the Conservative movement's emphasis
on universal values within a Jewish context.
A structural analysis
A Smallest Space Analysis was conducted using the 34 ‘most
important’ symbols as primary variables. It is based on the correlations
between each pair of symbols, which expresses the likelihood that
respondents selecting one symbol also selected the second. The
correlations between these 34 variables were almost entirely positive,
many of them strongly so.1 This shows the inter-related nature of
Jewish identity, and confirms that the symbols reflect a cohesive set of
attitudes (Guttman & Levy 1982). The only symbol which had negative
correlations with others was Brooklyn, which was negatively correlated
with eight symbols. Even in these cases the correlations were close to
neutral. Brooklyn, it may be noted, was one of the least frequently
selected symbols and it was indicated as ‘most important’ by only eight
individuals (who perhaps live or have family there).
1 The correlation matrix, not included here for reasons of space, is available upon
request from the author.
187
Multiplicity of identity expressed in Jewish educational settings in the US
188
These 34 symbols were plotted in a cognitive ‘map’ based on this
set of correlations, as shown in Figure 2.
At the center of the map is a core region of the two symbols of
'Family' and 'Parents'. These two symbols were strongly correlated
with all the other items and thus are at the cross-roads of the other
conceptual regions. That is, while someone who said, for example, that
‘Jewish foods’ represents their Jewish identity was relatively unlikely to
also say that ‘spirituality’ is a symbol of their Jewish identity, people
choosing each of these two symbols were equally likely to have selected
the symbol of family. Family and parents symbolically link Jewish youth
whose identity differs in other ways.
Five regions surround this core. A region covering much of the
right-hand side of the map is titled Universal Values. This region includes
many of the symbols which are not explicitly linked to Judaism. The
region is diffuse, because some of the symbols are not closely linked to
one another. For example, ‘success’ and ‘tolerance’ may represent quite
different attitudes. Nevertheless, they are semantically linked in that
they are universal concepts.
Continuing clockwise, at the bottom of the map is a region titled
Culture. It contains three symbols related to Jewish culture (‘Star of David’,
‘Jewish foods’ and ‘bar/bat mitzvah’). The symbol of ‘Jewish foods’ is
separated from the more religious symbol of ‘kosher food’. Although the
bar/bat mitzvah is a religious tradition, in American culture it is widely
celebrated even among non-religious and highly assimilated families,
and may be perceived by these youth as cultural rather than religious.
The Star of David is a well-known cultural symbol in Jewish culture.
Next is a region with items primarily (although not exclusively) related
to Israel. In addition to the clearly Israel-related symbols (‘Jerusalem’,
‘Jewish state’, ‘aliyah’, Hebrew), also included in this region are the
symbols ‘God’, ‘kosher food’ and ‘Shoah’. The region has been divided
into two sub-regions. The lower part of the Israel region contains the
more classic or traditional symbols associated with Israel; the upper
part contains symbols related to modern Israel. Continuing clockwise,
the next region has been titled Religion and contains the symbols
‘tradition’, ‘religion’, ‘prayer’ and ‘Torah study’. At the top is a region
titled Community.
Given the youth of this survey population, it is notable how wellorganized the map is, reflecting a well-organized perception of Jewish
identity on their part. There are a few items which are not located with
other similar symbols—for example the symbol ‘right of return’ which
refers to the State of Israel’s policy of automatic citizenship extended to
all Jews, does not appear in the region with other Israel-related symbols.
Erik H. Cohen
Success
Freedom
participants in Reform camps
Friendship
Star of David
CULTURE
Jewish foods
classic israel
Hebrew
Kosher food
Jerusalem
Israel
God
Bar/bat
mitsvah
Peace
Hope
Parents Education
Home
Jewish state
ISRAEL
Shoah
Aliyah
modern israel
Prayer
Torah
RELIGION
Tradition
Religion Family
Community
Spirituality
History
Right of return
participants
in Orthodox
camps
COMMUNITY
Brooklyn Morality
Memory
Future
UNIVERSAL VALUES
Equality
Tolerance
participants in Conservative camps
Figure 2: SSA of the 'most important' symbols of Jewish identity
with sub-populations by camp stream as external variables
It is possible that the campers do not fully understand the meaning
of this phrase. Some youth may have interpreted it as referring to the
possibility for estranged Jews to return to community life or religious
practice, which would explain its placement between the Community
and Religion regions. Further research would be needed to accurately
interpret the reasons for the few ‘misplaced’ symbols. Overall, however,
the map clearly reflects broadly recognized regions of Jewish identity.
Into this structure, the three sub-populations of campers
189
Multiplicity of identity expressed in Jewish educational settings in the US
were introduced as external variables, showing each group's relative
correlation with the set of symbols. The participants in both the Reform
and Conservative camps are in the region of Universal Values, but at
opposite sides of the region. Those in the Conservative camps are close
to the symbol 'tolerance' and those in the Reform camps are close to the
symbol 'freedom'. Participants in Orthodox camps are in the Religion
region, closest to the symbol 'Torah'. As noted by Conservative Rabbi
Wasserman (2008, p. 41), "The conflict between spiritual grounding
and intellectual autonomy, between the meaning provided by faith and
the liberty to think for oneself, is a defining conflict of modernity." The
participants in the Orthodox camps are closest to the concept of faith,
those in the Reform camps to liberty, and those in the Conservative
camps to tolerance which combines spiritual meaning with autonomy.
Correspondence between personal and organizational identities
The analysis thus far has concerned the organizational affiliation
of the camp, not the campers’ personal affiliation. The two are not
necessarily synonymous. It was found that there are a significant number
of youth whose personal identity as they define it differs from that of
the camp they are attending. In other words, there may be dissonance
between "who we are" and "who I am".
The Orthodox camps are the most homogenous: 92% of the
campers in the Orthodox camps define themselves as Orthodox. Only
2% said they were Conservative, none were Reform. The other 6% did
not choose any denomination—most of these called themselves ‘just
Jewish’. These youth are probably less religiously traditional than the
atmosphere of the camp.
The Reform and Conservative camps host significant minorities
of youth (about 30% in both cases) whose self-definitions are out of
sync with that of the camp. In the Conservative stream, 16% of the
campers said they were Orthodox—indicating they see themselves as
more religiously traditional than the camp they attend. Only 2% defined
themselves as Reform. The others did not choose a denomination; again,
‘just Jewish’ was the most popular choice for the unaffiliated.
In the Reform camps, 10% said they are Conservative, which is
generally understood as somewhat more traditional than Reform. There
were no Orthodox campers in the Reform camp. 16% chose the ‘just
Jewish’ label.
190
Erik H. Cohen
Given the differences between the cultures of each camp stream as
expressed through the symbols, it is conceivable that participants who
do not share their camp’s affiliation also have some different opinions
on issues such as intermarriage or the importance of keeping mitzvoth.
In homogenous institutions there is likely to be social pressure
to accept the predominant value system. Institutions with participants
from divergent backgrounds may allow for a greater diversity of Jewish
identities to be expressed and explored. To the extent that open discussion
is encouraged among participants, the campers may be exposed to new
ideas and attitudes about Judaism and Jewish identity.
The response of the participants whose personal identity was ‘out of
sync’ with that of the camp they attend was systematically weaker. That
is, virtually every symbol was indicated as an aspect of Jewish identity
by a lower percentage of youth whose self-defined identity differed from
that of the camp. This is true regardless of the nature of the symbol. In
many cases the difference was over 10%, and in quite a few over 20%.
Table 3 summarizes the largest gaps between participants whose
personal affiliation is the same as that of the camp and those whose
differs, for each camp stream. It lists the symbols which the campers
whose personal identity differs from that of the camp were less likely to
choose by a difference of 20% or more.
The most graphic difference was seen in the Orthodox camps. There
were 11 symbols with this large gap of 20% or more. For another 12
symbols there was a difference of at least 10%. Since the non-Orthodox
participants mostly defined themselves as less religiously traditional than
the camp culture, it is not surprising that they were far less likely to select
religious symbols. They were similarly less strongly attached to symbols
of Israel and anti-Semitism, reflecting the general pattern seen between
the camps according to degree of religiosity.
In the Conservative camps, there were not large gaps regarding the
religious symbols, perhaps because the more religious balanced out the
less religious. Large gaps were seen regarding symbols related to Israel
and certain universal values. Still, the same systematic pattern exists, if
somewhat less extreme: the non-Conservative youth were less likely by
at least 10% to select 25 of the 34 symbols.
In the Reform camps, again, the non-Reform campers (who were
mostly either Conservative or ‘just Jewish’) were far less likely to select
several of the religious symbols. They were also less attached to universal
symbols of ‘community’ and ‘moral values’. There were gaps of at least
10% between the Reform and non-Reform youth for 14 of the symbols.
191
Multiplicity of identity expressed in Jewish educational settings in the US
Table 3: Symbols less frequently chosen by participants whose
personal identity differs from that of the camp (difference of 20%
or more)
Reform camps
Conservative camps
Orthodox camps
Religion
God
Religion
Torah study
Prayer
Kosher food
Religion
Torah study
Prayer
Israel
State of Israel
Jerusalem
Moral values
Community
Universal
Freedom
Home
Anti-Semitism
State of Israel
Aliya
Jewish State
Jerusalem
Peace
Shoah
Culture
Star of David
In sum, the same pattern is seen in all three camps: the participants
whose identity matches that of the camp were more likely to select a
wide range of symbols. The gaps were more numerous and larger in the
Orthodox camps, moderate in the Conservative and least pronounced
(but still notable) in the Reform. Consistently, youth attending a camp
that is out of sync with their personal identity expressed less attachment
to the set of symbols of Jewish identity as a whole. This effect is more
dramatic the more religious the camp stream is.
This can further be illustrated by comparing non-Orthodox
participants in Orthodox camps—many of whom defined themselves
as Conservative—with the Conservative participants in Conservative
camps. Here, too, in many cases the response of those who were
dissimilar from their camp affiliation gave the weaker response. For
example, 78% of the Conservative participants in Conservative camps
192
Erik H. Cohen
selected ‘God’ as a symbol of their identity, compared to only 65% of the
non-Orthodox in Orthodox camps. Again, this phenomenon was not
limited to religious symbols. 74% of the Conservative in Conservative
camps selected the symbol ‘family’ compared to only 61% of the nonOrthodox in Orthodox camps.
In the very few cases in which the youth whose personal identity was
in sync with that of the camp were less likely to select a given symbol, the
difference was very slight. For example, 83% of the Conservative youth
in Conservative camps selected the symbol ‘education’ compared to 87%
of their peers who identified as something other than Conservative. In
the Reform camps, the Reform youth were slightly less likely to select
the symbols of ‘home’ and ‘parents’. In each of these cases, the difference
was less than 5%.
A holistic picture of these results can be gained through the SSA.
In Figure 3 six additional external variables have been introduced into
the map: sub-populations of campers in each of the three streams whose
personal identity corresponds to that of the camp and those whose
personal identity differs.
In the case of the Orthodox the difference is most graphic. NonOrthodox campers in Orthodox camps are placed quite far from their
Orthodox camp-mates, and closer to the Conservative sub-groups.
The difference is less dramatic in the Reform and Conservative camps
between those whose personal identity corresponds to that of the camps
and those whose self-defined identity is different.
It seems that the small minority of non-Orthodox campers
attending Orthodox camps express a notable difference in identity from
their Orthodox camp-mates. While the Conservative and Reform camps
have larger numbers of campers who come from different backgrounds,
the dissimilarities are less prominent.
To try to understand these findings, it is enlightening to compare
the evaluations of the camp experience given by participants. Those
whose personal affiliation matched that of the camp were more satisfied,
more likely to recommend the camp to others, and felt the camp had
a more positive impact on their relationship to Israel, and attachment
to the Jewish religion, and Jewish identity overall. The difference was
greatest in the Orthodox camps. This was clearly shown through a
DISCO analysis, summarized in Table 4. For example, in the Orthodox
camps, there was a significant difference (.58) in satisfaction with the
overall camp experience between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox
participants. That is, Orthodox participants were much more likely to
say they were satisfied.
193
Multiplicity of identity expressed in Jewish educational settings in the US
194
Success
Reform youth in
Reform camps
Freedom
participants in Reform camps
Star of David
CULTURE
Jewish foods
classic israel
Hebrew
Israel
God
Bar/bat
mitsvah
Peace
Hope
Parents Education
Home
Jewish state
ISRAEL
Jerusalem
Kosher food
Aliyah
modern israel
Shoah
Tradition
Religion Family
Prayer
Torah
Friendship
non-Reform youth in
Reform camps
UNIVERSAL VALUES
Future
Equality
Memory
Conservative youth in
Conservative camps
Spirituality
Community
Orthodox
youth in
Orthodox
camps
RELIGION
History
participants
in Orthodox
camps
Brooklyn Morality
Tolerance
Right of return
COMMUNITY
non-Orthodox youth in
Orthodox camps
non-Conservative youth in
Conservative camps
participants in Conservative camps
Figure 3: SSA of the 'most important' symbols of Jewish identity
with sub-populations of participants whose personal identity is
the same as the camp affiliation and those whose personal identity
differs as external variables
In the Conservative camps, the gap in satisfaction between
Conservative and other participants was moderate (.48) and in the
Reform camps it was relatively minor (.25). In all three camp streams the
participants whose personal identity corresponded to that of the camp
were significantly more likely to say the camp experience brought them
closer to the Jewish religion (over .5 in all three cases). In this case the
gap in the Reform camps was the most pronounced (.63).
Erik H. Cohen
Reform camps
Conservative camps
Orthodox camps
Table 3: Distance between participants in each stream whose personal
identity is the same as the camp affiliation and those whose personal
identity differs (DISCO)
Satisfaction with camp
.25
.48
.58
Camp enhanced Jewish identity
.54
.52
.68
Camp enhanced relationship to Israel
.55
.50
.62
Camp made me closer to Jewish religion
.63
.52
.51
Would recommend camp to others
.36
.12
.66
Average of evaluative items
.47
.43
.61
Legend:
from .0 to .09
from .10 to .29
from .30 to .49
.50 and higher
almost no distance
slight distance
important distance
very important distance
Conclusion
Multiplicity of identity
The differences between the responses of the participants in
the three types of camps illustrate the continuation of a trend noted
by Steinberg (1984, p. 97) over a quarter of a century ago of "…
fragmentation developed in the ideologies and allegiances of twentiethcentury Jewish educational systems." Not only are there differences
between the camp streams, there are differences within them, as expressed
by participants whose personal identity differs from that of the camp.
The differences are most notable in the Orthodox camps, where there is
the smallest minority of participants with a different personal identity.
In the Conservative camps this is moderate and in the Reform camps the
195
Multiplicity of identity expressed in Jewish educational settings in the US
difference in response to the symbols between Reform and non-Reform
is certainly perceptible, but less dramatic.
The scale of symbols of identity provides a useful tool for assessing
and comparing manifestations and expressions of multiple-faceted
Jewish identity. It is to be hoped that the psychological, sociological and
pedagogical implications of this multiplicity of identity found among
this population of US Jewish summer campers will be further explored
among other Jewish populations. For example, the scale of symbols may
be used to assess and compare expressions of Jewish identity in different
countries or among different age groups.
Further, exploration of the concept of multiplicity of identity may
be expanded into the other ‘common places’ of education. This study
offers some insights into the camper-students. Future studies may look
at how multiple identities are expressed (or not) by the counselors, and
in the itinerary and activities of the camps.
While one may expect that recruiting policies would favor
counselors and staff who are more homogenous in their approach and
ideologically ‘in sync’ with the camp in which they work, this may not
always be the case. Practical considerations such as availability of those
qualified to teach specific skills and activities may bring a wide range of
staff into a camp. Many Jewish summer camps recruit Israeli counselors;
their Jewish identity is likely to differ in some significant ways from that
of the American staff and participants.
The fourth common place, the larger social context, also exerts
an influence on expression of identity. The interaction between the
dominant culture of the United States and the particular culture of the
Jewish summer camps is complex. The culture of the United States is
relatively open to multiple expressions of identity within communities
and individuals (Citrin, Sears, Muste & Wong, 2001). This may facilitate
acceptance of multiple expressions of Jewish identity in the summer
camps. At the same time, although all the camps are operating within the
same national culture, each denomination represents a distinctive subculture and policy. Also, individual camps within the denominational
streams vary in numerous ways. Each recruits participants, counselors
and staff from different regions and local communities. Therefore the
social context on the micro level in which the summer camp is operating
may diverge in significant ways from that of the macro level. Often,
Jewish communities resemble the dominant culture in some ways and
are at variance with it in others. For example, American Jews tend to be
less religious than Americans at large, although there are also some large
196
Erik H. Cohen
Orthodox Jewish communities. (In contrast, the Jews of France are more
religious overall than mainstream French population, though there are
many assimilated and non-religious French Jews) (Cohen, 2009, 2012;
Inglehart, 2004, 2008). The social contexts on the national, local and
individual camp levels, and their impact on the experience of the camp
participants deserves further consideration.
The implications of these findings are not only institutional,
but also socio-psychological. How do youth react and respond to
participating in educational settings which reinforce their personal
type of Jewish identity as compared to participating in settings which
promote a different 'flavor' of Judaism? Further research would be
needed to more fully explore the ways in which individual Jewish youth
perceive and express their Jewish identity when they are in various Jewish
settings. How do those who 'fit' with the environment view their own
Jewish identity and that of their peers? Related to this would be the
ways in which the participants who are in the majority in a given setting
relate to those expressing differing views or different styles of Jewish
identity (for example, how to Orthodox campers related to peers who
consider themselves Conservative or "just Jewish"?). In other words, to
what extent is the informal educational component of dualism (the coexistence of conflicting approaches) manifest in the camp?
Jewish summer camps are an extremely important setting. One of
the important features of a Jewish summer camp is the opportunity for
minority youth to experience being part of the majority in an all-Jewish
environment, even if only temporarily. Half a century ago, Levinas
(1963/1997) noted the importance of the summer camp experience
in renewing Jewish life in post-war France. This experience, especially
if repeated yearly, strengthens the Jewish aspect of the Diaspora Jew's
dual identity. Here, however, we see the picture may be quite complex.
A participant in a Jewish summer camp may find him or herself as a
minority within the camp. This dynamic of multiple minoritization
affects the camp experience and its impact on the development of Jewish
identity.
It is the crossroads and junctions between sub-cultures and
communities which provide opportunities and catalysts for dynamic
change and creativity. According to Lewin (1947) sub-groups within
a social field and the barriers and channels of communication between
them provide the raw material for social change. Thus, finding ways to
create strong and stable communities while simultaneously creating a
sense of connection to other sub-communities within the Jewish People
197
Multiplicity of identity expressed in Jewish educational settings in the US
and allowing for interaction between them are challenges for educators
and organizers.
Socio-educational policy implications
Based on this analysis of campers’ responses to symbols of Jewish
identity, it may be theorized that the experience of being ‘out of sync’ with
one’s institutional-educational environment is being expressed through
the lower rate of response to the symbols of Jewish identity. This finding
may be of interest to organizers and educators in a range of educational
settings. They serve a diverse population of youth with a multiplicity of
Jewish identities. In settings that have an explicit organizational identity,
there may be participants who do not share that identity. This affects
many policy decisions such as recruitment, counselor or teacher training,
program development and more.
Several strategic decisions could be made regarding how to
‘acculturate’ different types of participants into a camp, classroom, youth
group etc. The Berry model of acculturation of minorities into a national
culture is useful in describing the various strategies possible (Berry,
1997, 2001). Berry identifies four approaches a society may take towards
minorities: exclusion, segregation, melting pot and multiculturalism.
While there are some examples of the first two approaches, they are not
strongly relevant to the case of the summer camps. The two models of
melting pot and multiculturalism are more applicable to an analysis of
summer camps and other educational settings. A melting pot policy
implies that all participants will be encouraged and expected to eventually
blend into the dominant culture of the camp or school. A strategy of
multiculturalism accepts various types of identity existing side by side.
Another practical policy decision would involve assessing and
describing the camps using terms more specific than the broad
denominations of Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. Camp policies
regarding such issues as Shabbat observance, prayer, kosher food,
interaction between boys and girls, and so forth, may differ between
individual camps in the same general denominational stream. Clear
descriptions of the camp’s religious orientation may help counselors,
parents and youth find the camp most appropriate to them, or at least to
be aware of the atmosphere and expectations of the camp.
Summer camps are a social experience as well as an educational one.
For the campers, the social aspect is most significant. They are settings in
which youth take important steps in explore and develop their personal
and social identities (Erikson, 1968; Garst, Browne & Bialeschki, 2011;
198
Erik H. Cohen
Thurber, Scanlin, Scheuler & Henderson, 2007). Given the intensity
of the immersion in a different social environment, the time at camp
is highly emotional for many participants. The daily, quotidian details
of camp life may have great meaning to the campers. These may be
inspirational or confusing, depending on the extent to which the camper
is ‘in sync’ with the rhythm of camp life. To help campers have a positive
and fruitful experience at the camp the directors, counselors and other
staff members should consider how to relate to and help youth who seem
to not be in sync with the camp ideology. This involves being aware of
the meaning of the details of daily camps life in the perception of the
participants.
Following the findings of this study, it would be enlightening
to further explore the programs and strategies that exist in Jewish
educational settings today. Do organizations attempt to limit the
number of participants who come from divergent backgrounds, or do
they actively recruit from diverse populations? Are counselors trained
to address difficulties participants who see themselves as out of sync
with the dominant camp culture may be having? Do programs assume
participants have a certain level of knowledge? How do the educators help
those who may not have that knowledge? Is it expected that participants
will share certain views on Judaism and Israel? If so, what is the reaction
to divergent opinions? Understanding that there are participants
expressing different types of Jewish identity in the setting, and that this
can negatively impact their experience, may help organizers develop
conscious strategies to help such youth acculturate into the camp. The
policies adopted by educational settings may have an important impact
on Jewish educational experiences of today’s youth.
Acknowledgements:
This research study was completed, in part, with the assistance
of a grant from the Rabbi Dr. Joseph H. Lookstein Center for Jewish
Education, The School of Education, Bar-Ilan University.
I would like to thank Allison Ofanansky for her research assistance
and editorial help.
199
Multiplicity of identity expressed in Jewish educational settings in the US
References
Amar, R. (2005a). HUDAP manual. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.
Amar, R. (2005b). HUDAP mathematics. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.
Askénazi, L. (1984/2005). L’identité d’un peuple. In La parole et l’écrit (Vol.
2): Penser la vie juive aujourd’hui (pp. 141-149). Paris: Albin Michel.
Assouline, M., & Elchanan, I. (1987). Meta-analysis of the relationship
between congruence and well-being measures. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
31(3), 319-322.
Barvosa-Carter, E. (2001). Multiple identity and coalition building: How
identity differences within us enable radical alliances among us. In J.
Bystydzienski & S. Schacht (Eds.), In forging radical alliances across
difference: Coalition politics for the new millennium (pp. 21-34). Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Berry, J. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5-34.
Berry, J. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57,
615-631.
Brewer, M. (1999). Multiple identities and identity transition: Implications
for Hong Kong. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(2), 187197.
Chazan, B. (2000). Through a glass darkly: Israel in the mirror of American
Jewish education. In A. Gal & A. Gottschalk (Eds.), Beyond survival and
philanthropy: American Jewry and Israel (pp. 123–30). Cincinnati, OH:
Hebrew Union College Press.
Citrin, J., Sears, D., Muste, C., & Wong, C. (2001). Multiculturalism in
American public opinion. British Journal of Political Science, 31(2), 247275.
Cohen, E.H. (1997) World Jewish student organization activists: A cross-cultural
survey. Jerusalem: Student Department of the WZO, World Union of
Jewish Students.
Cohen, E.H. (2004). Components and symbols of ethnic identity: A case
study in informal education and identity formation in Diaspora. Applied
Psychology, 53(1), 87-112.
Cohen, E.H. (2008a). Youth tourism to Israel: Educational experiences of the
diaspora. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.
Cohen, E.H. (2008b). Symbols of Diaspora Jewish identity: An international
survey and multi-dimensional analysis. Religion, 38(4), 293-304.
Cohen, E.H. (2009). Axiological typology in an international religious youth
organization: The case of Bnei Akiva. Current Sociology, 57, 89-111.
Cohen, E.H. (2011). Facet theory methods in the study of religion: A case
study of symbols of Jewish identity in the US. In M. Stausberg, & S. Engler
(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in religious studies (pp. 178-203).
London, UK: Routledge.
200
Erik H. Cohen
Cohen, E.H. (2012). The Jews of France today: Identity and values. Brill
Publishers.
Cohen, E.H., & Amar, R. (2002). External variables as points in Smallest Space
Analysis: A theoretical, mathematical and computer-based contribution.
Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 75, 40-56.
Cohen, E.H., & Bar-Shalom, Y. (2006). Jewish youth in Texas: Towards a
multi-methodological approach to minority identity. Religious Education,
101(1), 40-59.
Cohen, S., & Horenczyk, G., (Eds.). (1999). National variations in Jewish
identity: Implications for Jewish education. New York, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Cole, B., & Salimath, M. (2012). Diversity identity management: An
organizational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-11.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton
and Co.
Gans, H. (1979). Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures
in America. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2, 1-20.
Gans, H. (1994). Symbolic ethnicity and symbolic religiosity: Towards a
comparison of ethnic and religious acculturation. Ethnic and Racial Studies,
17, 577- 592.
Garst, B., Browne, L., & Bialeschki, M. (2011). Youth development and the
camp experience. New Directions for Youth Development, 130, 73-887.
Gioia, D., Schultz, M. & Coley, K. (2000). Organizational identity, image,
and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63-81.
Gitelman, Z., Kosmin, B. & Kovács, A. (Eds.). (2003). New Jewish identities:
Contemporary Europe and beyond. New York, NY: Central European
University Press.
Guttman, L. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest
co-ordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33, 469-506.
Guttman, L. (1982). Facet theory, smallest space analysis, and factor analysis.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54, 491-493.
Guttman L., & Levy, S. (1982). On the definition and varieties of attitude and
wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 10, 159-174.
Holzinger, I., & Dhalla, R. (2007). Multiple identities in organizations:
The effects of diversity on organizational identity. International Journal of
Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations, 7(5), 43-50.
Inglehart, R. (2004) Human beliefs and values: A Cross-cultural sourcebook
based on the 1999-2002 values surveys. Mexico: Siglo XXI.
Inglehart, R. (2008). Changing values among Western publics from 1970 to
2006. Western European Politics, 31 (1), 130-146.
Jones, S., & McEwen, M. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions
of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405-414.
Josselson, R., & Harway, M. (Eds.). (2012). Navigating multiple identities: Race,
gender, culture, nationality, and roles. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
201
Multiplicity of identity expressed in Jewish educational settings in the US
Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B., & Kahane, M. (2003). Person,
environment, and person-environment fit as influences on residential
satisfaction of elders. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 434-453.
Kahane, R. (1997). The origins of postmodern youth: Informal youth movements
in a comparative perspective. New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Levinas, E. (1997). Difficult freedom: Essays on Judaism. (S. Hand, Trans.).
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published
1963).
Levy, S. (1994). Louis Guttman on theory and methodology: Selected writings.
Dartmouth, MA: Aldershot, Benchmark Series.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method, and reality
in social science: Social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1,
5-41.
Moos, R. (1987). Person-environment congruence in work, school and health
care settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 231-247.
Moscovici, S. (1981). On social representations. In J. Forgas (Ed.), Social
cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding (pp. 181-209). London,
UK: Academic Press.
Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 211-250.
Phelan, P., Davidson, A., & Yu, H. (1991). Students' multiple worlds:
Navigating the borders of family, peer and school cultures. In P. Phelan &
A. Davidson (Eds.), Cultural diversity: Implications for education (pp. 5288). New York, NY: Teacher's College Press.
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88-106.
Schnapper, D. (1980). Juifs et Israélites, Paris : Gallimard Idées,.
Schwab, J. (1973). The practical: Translation into curriculum. School Review,
81(4), 501-522.
Steinberg, B. (1984). The present era in Jewish education: A global comparative
perspective. The Jewish Journal of Sociology, 26(2), 93-109.
Thurber, C., Scanlin, M., Scheuler, L., & Henderson, K. (2007).
Youth development outcomes of the camp experience: Evidence for
multidimensional growth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(3), 241-254.
Wasserman, M. (2008). The far side of freedom: Torah and autonomy. Modern
Judaism, 28(1), 41-63.
Waxman, C. (2008). Jewish identity and identification of America’s young
Jews. In R. Tal & B. Geltman (Eds.), Facing tomorrow (pp. 173-178).
Jerusalem: Jewish People Policy Planning Institute.
202