Author Archives: ld-sylff

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff

Sylff@Tokyo: Sylff Plays an Important Role in Slovakia’s Democratization

August 22, 2017

Professor Daniela Ostatnikova, center, with Sylff Association secretariat.

Professor Daniela Ostatnikova, Vice-Rector for International Relations at Comenius University in Bratislava and chairperson of the Comenius Sylff steering committee, paid a courtesy visit to the Tokyo Foundation on May 18, 2017.

Comenius University joined the new financial scheme in November 2015. The Sylff program at the university is mostly used to support PhD students’ research in foreign countries. Fellowships contribute not only to enriching academic research but also to developing top students into future leaders, Professor Ostatnikova explained.

Internationalization and democratization are still major challenges for Slovakia, almost 30 years after the collapse of the communist regime. By studying in a foreign country, fellows can learn how things are organized and function in a democratic society, equipping them with the capacity to contribute to turning Slovakia into a sustainable democracy.

As the Sylff Association secretariat, the Tokyo Foundation is delighted to learn that the Sylff program plays an important role in Slovakia’s development and democratization. We are grateful to the Comenius Sylff steering committee for actively putting into practice Sylff’s leadership development mission and for using Sylff funds effectively.

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff

Jewish Religious Life in the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic

July 28, 2017
By 19815

Karina Barkane, a 2014 Sylff fellow from the University of Latvia, visited the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research in the United States to reveal unexplored aspects of Jewish religious life in the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (1944–90) using an SRA award. In this article she describes the challenge of preserving Jewish religious and cultural identity under the Soviet regime in the historical context of secularization and assimilation.

* * *

Introduction

My interest in Jewish history was sparked by my grandfather, who told me many fascinating stories about the Jewish people and their religion. I was captivated by its temporal and spatial breadth. Since its inception over several thousand years ago, Jewish religion has been influenced by other cultures. With a remarkable ability to adapt to changing circumstances, the Jewish people and religion have overcome persecution and flourished over the centuries, integrating cultural assumptions of the neighboring communities into their own social and religious systems and preserving a distinct identity. 

A prayer service in the synagogue in Riga during Soviet times. Photo: The Ghetto Fighters' House Archives.

Growing assimilation and integration with surrounding cultures have given rise to the fundamental question: What does it mean to be a Jew? Is it a religious identity, ethnic identity, or a combination of the two? Moreover, as Judaism encompasses a way of life, wherein the religious element cannot be completely separated from the secular, the issue is made that much more complex and remains open to the present day.

Jews in Latvia

Diversity has also characterized the history of the Jewish community in Latvia. Jews who immigrated to Latvia came from different regions. The first Jews came from Prussia and settled in Courland (western Latvia) at the end of the sixteenth century. They were well-educated and influenced by German culture. Meanwhile, Jews in Latgale (eastern Latvia) first appeared in the mid-seventeenth century and were closer to the traditional Lithuanian and Russian Jewish communities. They were less educated than the Courland Jews but more strictly observed religion.

By the end of the nineteenth century Jews comprised a substantial part of Latvia’s population. In some cities they accounted for around half of the entire population: 69.6% of the population in Jaunjelgava, 59.4% in Bauska, 54.5% in Ludza, 54.0% in Rēzekne, and 49.0% in Valdemārpils.[1] The majority of the synagogues in Latvia, which had a number of outstanding rabbis, were built during this period.

After the establishment of the independent Republic of Latvia (1918–40), Jews in Latvia were granted all the rights of citizenship and could freely express and develop their religion and identity. There numbered more than 200 Jewish religious communities formed by socially diverse people, from prominent manufacturers to ordinary craftsmen.

Fundamental changes occurred over the years, however. These changes were connected not only with the Holocaust but also with the shifting power structure. In 1944 Latvia was forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union. The Communist Party secured its monopoly on all spheres of public life and sought to transform society. This affected the cultural and social roles that Jews could play in Latvia and had a tremendous impact on Jewish religious life.

My Doctoral Dissertation Research

My doctoral dissertation is devoted to the challenging question of preserving Jewish religious identity under the Soviet regime in the context of secularization and assimilation. As the majority of studies on Jews in Latvia look at the period until the middle of the twentieth century, with the Holocaust as an end point, almost no research has been carried out on the issue to this day and the history of Jews and Judaism during the Soviet era remains a blank page in the history of Latvia. Scientific publications on this topic cover only particular aspects and periods—primarily the issue of anti-Semitism and the Jews’ struggle for the right to emigrate from the USSR—and are scattered across different journals and books that are focused on broader topics.

The main aim of the dissertation is to conduct an in-depth study on Jewish religious life in the Latvian SSR (1944–90) after the Holocaust. Specifically, it seeks to reveal the ideology of and legislation by Soviet power, as well as the local authority’s attitude toward Jews and Judaism; analyze the activities of Jewish religious communities, focusing on their spiritual, social, and financial life; and characterize individual and family traditions among Jews during this period.

The preliminary results are summarized in the following sections.

The Soviet Attitude toward Judaism

The Soviet regime’s attitude toward Judaism was determined to a certain extent by its religious policy, which was based on the assumption that religion in all its forms is a harmful relic of the past that needs to disappear. The Soviet Union was the first country in the twentieth century to commit to an antireligious policy from its very inception; yet, paradoxically, the religious communities maintained their legal status, albeit under constant pressure.[2] The state used a vast apparatus of education, propaganda, and repression to implement a fundamentally antireligious doctrine. Over the years this was adjusted according to the overall social and political context, including development of the state and international relations.

Due to the strong connection between Jewish religion and nationality, which dictates that the only ethnic group practicing Judaism is the Jews, Soviet policies that affected the Jewish religion ipso facto affected the Jews and vice versa.[3]

According to the framework of Soviet policy on nationality, Jews did not conform to the “scientific” Marxist-Leninist definition of a nation and were targeted for assimilation into the dominant nation. For this reason, the existence of a “Jewish question” in the USSR was denied throughout the Soviet era, even though it perpetually stood at the center of public discussion.[4] Soviet authorities did not permit the creation of Jewish educational and cultural institutions. Jews were deprived of even the minimal cultural autonomy: there were no Jewish schools, newspapers, or theaters, for instance. During the so-called campaign against cosmopolitanism[5] of 1949–53, moreover, a number of local Jewish intellectuals were arrested and accused of bourgeois nationalism.

Under these circumstances Jewish religious communities, as the only legitimate organs of Jewish autonomy, came to primarily and, in fact, single-during this period. Even so, all of their activities were dependent on Soviet power. They were constrained by the operations of the Representative of the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults[6] (which were carried out strictly within the politics of the CARC chairman) and by the local authority’s attitude, as well as by antireligious propaganda, which was widely disseminated throughout society.

Jewish Religious Life

By April 1949, when the process of registering religious communities was completed,[7] seven Jewish religious communities were officially registered in the Latvian SSR.[8] Of these seven communities, three were subsequently closed by authorities due to Soviet policy.

Individuals who were familiar with Jewish religious customs and agreed to undertake leadership roles were essential to keeping the spirit of the communities alive, as there was a severe shortage of rabbis owing to the Holocaust and Soviet restrictions in rabbinic ordination. Because of their substantial role, however, authorities repressed these individuals in a variety of ways: economic repression, so-called individual work, arrests, and so forth.

Maintaining a religious lifestyle was extremely difficult under the antireligious and anti-Semitic policies. The authorities tended to restrict the obtaining of ritual objects and the provision of kosher meat; attending the synagogue on Jewish holidays, when everyone was obligated to work, could call into question one’s loyalty to the regime and trigger a confrontation with authorities. Most Jews had to negotiate between integration into Soviet society and Jewish identity.

Despite the oppression, many Jews strived to preserve their ties with the synagogue and tradition—some of them directly and others disguising it. For instance, almost all religious rites, such as burials and circumcision, were practiced in secret relatively broadly among the Jewish population, even by Jews who distanced themselves from religion.

Synagogue attendance was very high on Pesach, Simchat Torah (during which a significant proportion of visitors were youth), and High Holidays,  as well as on the regularly organized days to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust.[9] In 1957, for instance, around 4,000 people attended the prayers on Yom Kippur in the Riga synagogue.[10] Even Jews who were members of the Communist Party and those from the cities, where no Jewish religious communities were reestablished, came to the nearest synagogue to celebrate these holidays.

Since legitimate ways to express Jewish identity had been so narrowed, for many Jews these ties with the synagogue were an opportunity to resolve their ambivalent status—they were highly acculturated but not assimilated and remained “Jews” socially and officially.[11] Many Jews expressed their ethnic identity by means of religious practice. The religious aspect of Jewish life thus underwent a radical transformation, increasingly moving away from normative Judaism and forming a new Jewish identity based on ethnicity.

In Closing

Rabbi Gershon Gurevitch , left, performing the chuppah (Jewish wedding canopy) ceremony for Shlomo Lensky, late 80-'s. Photo: Riga synagogue, Peitav-shul (http://shul.lv).

 The SRA grant gave me an opportunity to conduct research at the YIVO Institute and expand the scope of historical sources for my doctoral dissertation. It allowed me to compare previously gathered sources on Soviet authorities with those from the other side of the Iron Curtain, created from different ideological viewpoints, not only revealing previously unknown or overlooked aspects but also posing many new questions for further research. I would like to greatly thank SRA for the invaluable support.

I hope that, in the long term, my research will go far beyond the local context, helping foster intercultural and interreligious understanding and encouraging sensitivity to the positions of minorities.

 

 

[1] Leo Dribins, Ebreji Latvijā [Jews in Latvia] (Rīga: Elpa, 2002), 43.

[2] Mordechai Altshuler, Religion and Jewish Identity in the Soviet Union, 1941–1964 (Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2012), 1.

[3] Zvi Gitelman, “Jewish Nationality and Religion,” in Religion and Nationalism in Soviet and East European Politics, ed. Sabrina P. Ramet (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1989), 59.

[4] Naomi Blank, “Redefining the Jewish Question from Lenin to Gorbachev: Terminology or Ideology?” in Jews and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union, ed. Yaacov Ro’I, (Portland: Frank Cass, 1995), 53.

[5] Anticosmopolitan Campaign - was an anti-Semitic campaign in the Soviet Union. Cosmopolitans were Jewish intellectuals who were accused of expressing pro-Western feelings and lack of patriotism.

[6] The CARC, with representatives in the Union Republics, was established in 1944 to supervise the enforcement of Soviet legislation regarding religion and manage relations between the Soviet government and religious organizations.

[7] According to Soviet law, a religious group of believers could start its activities only after official registration with the CARC. The registration of a religious community involved many stages and prescriptions. Permission to organize a religious community was granted if the community had at least 20 persons (dvadtsatka), a prayer building, and a religious service provider (rabbi).

[8] State Archives of Latvia, coll. 1448, inv. 1, file 28, p. 3.

[9] Pesach is also known as Passover. Simchat Torah is the festival to celebrate and mark the conclusion of the annual cycle of public Torah readings. High Holidays refer to the two days of Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) and Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement).

[10] State Archives of Latvia, coll. 1448, inv. 1, file 257, p. 87.

[11] Zvi Gitelman, A Century of Ambivalence: The Jews of Russia and the Soviet Union, 1881 to the Present (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001), 178.

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff

Revised Call for Applications: Sylff Leadership Initiatives

July 26, 2017

The Sylff Association secretariat is very pleased to have received many applications for an SLI grant. We see this as a sign that fellows share the ideals of the Sylff mission and are eager to take the small steps that can make a big difference in people’s lives.

To facilitate the task of describing initiatives and their expected outcomes, we have slightly revised the Call for Applications and application forms: https://www.sylff.org/support_programs/sli/call-for-applications

The new Call for Applications highlights the importance given during the screening process to whether the proposed project was actually initiated by the fellow and the extent to which it can be expected to have real-world impact.

When submitting a preliminary application (concept paper), please use the form downloadable from the above website.

We look forward to receiving your application and to supporting your initiatives!

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff

Results of SRA Survey 2017

June 29, 2017

A survey on Sylff Research Abroad was conducted in early 2017 targeting all SRA awardees believed to have already graduated from a doctoral program. The aim of this survey was to ascertain the usefulness of SRA in helping recipients gather information for their doctoral dissertation. Responses were received from 69 awardees. The results of the survey, along with some of the comments of awardees are cited below. Thank you to all fellows who turned in responses!

Personal Information

Approximately 87% of respondents said they had earned their doctoral degree by January 2017, and 11.6% expected to do so within the next three years. As for their current affiliation, 81% of PhD holders said they are working in academia as a lecturer, associate professor, or post-doctoral researcher, while the remaining 19% were active in other fields, such as working for an international organization or a publishing firm. A small number left school before receiving a doctorate to work for a private company.

Usefulness of SRA

The figures show that SRA was viewed positively by a large majority of recipients. Although 8.7% of respondents in question 3 gave poor marks for the usefulness of SRA, all of them made positive comments. This suggests that they may have misunderstood the rating system, believing that 1 meant “excellent” rather than “poor.”

With regard to question 4, approximately 4% of respondents said SRA was not particularly helpful in refining a methodology for their dissertation, noting that it had already been developed before embarking on their research trip.

Areas of Improvement

To question 5 on areas requiring improvement, many chose “other,” saying that they were satisfied with the existing program. Some of the suggestions respondents did offer included holding an event at a Sylff institution where all SRA awardees would have an opportunity to present their SRA experience, developing a new program to support the post-doctoral careers of awardees, and renaming the program so that it can be used to describe recipients, say, as a Sylff International Research Fellow.

The second most popular response with 32% was increasing the amount of the award. Respondents noted that living costs and tuition often exceeded $5,000 when conducting research at a host institution in a developed country—especially when their research lasted more than three months. The amount of the grant may need to be reconsidered in order to more fully support awardees’ research activities.

Respondents also said they hoped to see changes to the application process and restrictions on local research. The results suggest that fellows sometimes find it difficult to contact a steering committee member at their respective Sylff institutions when a number of years has elapsed since graduation. There was also a comment suggesting that online applications be introduced.

The Sylff Association values all comments from SRA recipients, and they will be used to design support programs that better meet the needs of doctoral students conducting research abroad. Thank you very much for your contributions.

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff

Sylff@Tokyo: The Role of Public Diplomacy in Implementing Foreign Assistance

June 8, 2017

Presentation at the Tokyo Foundation.

Presentation at the Tokyo Foundation.

Matthew Winters, a 2007 Sylff fellowship recipient at Columbia University who is currently an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, visited the Tokyo Foundation during his sabbatical as a Council on Foreign Relations/Hitachi International Affairs Fellow. He conducted research at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo for three months from August 2016.

During his visit, he gave a presentation on “Japan’s Local Public Diplomacy in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Uganda,” focusing on the effectiveness of communication efforts regarding the provision of externally funded and non-state-implemented services. In order to survey the role of public diplomacy in development interventions, he implemented an interview-based survey targeting randomly selected citizens, asking them about the Grant Assistance for Grassroots Human Security Projects (GGP) program of Japan’s official development assistance. This research design incorporated a verification experiment enabling him to draw inferences on the dissemination of information about GGP.

The survey results showed that the source of GGP funding was not recognized by Ugandan respondents, despites the prominent branding initiatives taken by Japan. People had low expectations of the project, since most believed it was implemented by their local government. They viewed the project more favorably, however, when they learned that Japan was the original funding source. The survey revealed, therefore, that information about foreign funding can improve perceptions of the local government’s capacity, since local residents have a positive image of foreign involvement. Winters plans to continue his research on how average Ugandans think about the role of their local government in securing resources from abroad and its impact on the local community.

Mathew Winters, right, with Mr. Sasakawa.

Mathew Winters, right, with Mr. Sasakawa.

The Sylff fellow also had an opportunity to meet with Chairman Yohei Sasakawa of the Sylff Association, who is actively engaged in addressing international issues as special envoy of the government of Japan for national reconciliation in Myanmar. Winters is also familiar with East Asia though his extensive fieldwork in Indonesia, and the two exchanged views on the best form of foreign assistance, particularly for Southeast Asia.

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff

Environmental Geopolitics in the Anthropocene:Ominous Horizon or Breaks in the Clouds?

June 5, 2017
By null

Promoting the development and spread of renewable energy requires the balancing of policy tools and market inducements, notes Tokyo Foundation Research Fellow Hikaru Hiranuma, who participated in an SLI forum on climate change at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro as an expert from Japan. The March 22–24 forum was organized by University of Oregon Sylff fellow Corey Johnson and consisted of a closed session among international experts and a public symposium. Johnson is currently associate professor and Head of the Geography Department at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

 * * *

A panel discussion on “Environmental Geopolitics in the Anthropocene” at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

A panel discussion on “Environmental Geopolitics in the Anthropocene” at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

The early ratification of the Paris Agreement has sparked renewed worldwide interest in climate change measures. It was in this context that a public symposium was held on March 23 on the issue of “Environmental Geopolitics in the Anthropocene: Ominous Horizon or Breaks in the Clouds?” at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG).

The Paris Agreement aims to keep the rise in the global average temperature to within two degrees of preindustrial levels. Achieving this goal will require more than the fulfillment of pledges made by the signatory countries. The US administration of President Donald Trump, though, has taken a skeptical position on climate change since taking office in January 2017, and the world’s second-biggest carbon dioxide emitter seems to be shifting away from its previous commitments, putting the future of climate change countermeasures in doubt.

At the symposium, experts in such fields as environmental policy, energy, and national security came together to discuss the challenges ahead from the perspective of environmental geopolitics. This report summarizes some of the main points of interest that were raised during the discussions.

Stakeholders in Climate Change Issues

Various aspects of climate change were examined, but one recurring theme was the importance of identifying the key stakeholders. The title of the symposium itself suggested an answer. In the proposed geological era called the Anthropocene, surely every human being has a stake in finding a solution to climate change. This will require a fundamental break with existing lifestyles.

Over the course of human history, societies have developed by increasing consumption and placing an ever-heavier burden on the environment. There is a need to shift to a more sustainable model that will not place the same heavy burden on the natural environment. All of us living in the Anthropocene must first acknowledge that we ourselves are the ones who have brought about climate change and face up to the problems we have caused. Among the primary stakeholders, then, are the governments of the world that will need to enact and carry out concrete policy measures based on this shared awareness. One example of such action was the Paris Agreement, which came into force following ratification by countries around the world. Since trends and developments among the countries responsible for implementing concrete policies will have a direct impact on climate change, shifting attitudes in the United States have given rise to a sense of crisis and uncertainty regarding future climate measures.

The Influence of Major Powers

Given that countries are important stakeholders in the effort to address climate change, panelists from the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, and Japan agreed that relations between states are also extremely important—particularly those between such major emitters as China, Russia, and the United States. The United States and China alone are responsible for more than 40% of global emissions, and cooperation between them will be essential in any attempt to reduce total global emissions. A shift in US climate policy would have a huge impact on global efforts to address climate change and may require commensurate efforts by China to compensate for the change in US trajectory. Tensions between the two countries over foreign policy and national security could easily stymie negotiations on climate change, however, and the symposium served as a reminder that progress on climate change is intimately connected with trends in international relations among the major powers.

Regional Stakeholders

Other important stakeholders mentioned at the symposium included regional communities and other groups subject to common climate challenges, such as flooding and drought. Speakers suggested that such stakeholders cooperate with one another to address their concerns and to broadly share their experiences and preventive measures. Even as national policy in the United States undergoes a shift, many state governments are continuing to pursue their own measures to cope with climate change. These regional stakeholders (and others not affected by national policy) are expected to play an increasingly important role in climate change discussions in the future.

Policy and Market Receptivity

Another important point raised at the UNCG symposium was the balance between policy and the market in tackling climate change, such as in promoting the development and spread of renewable energy. One speaker mentioned that North Carolina has the second highest rate of solar power generation in the United States, a result of both market preferences and local legislative incentives known as the Renewable Portfolio Standard. When seeking to encourage private initiatives to address climate change, therefore, it is important to bear in mind that policy can crucially affect the receptivity of the market. The symposium offered important insights into how the relationship between policy and the market can have a large bearing on the effectiveness of concrete measures to address climate change.

Conclusion

The author, second from right, with other experts attending the symposium.

The author, second from right, with other experts attending the symposium.

The symposium was very timely, given the growing awareness of the Anthropocene concept and the shifting policies of the US administration. There is a tendency for climate change discussions to focus on isolated themes, such as energy mix, resource prices, and the policies of individual countries. But the UNCG symposium embraced a comprehensive perspective, viewing climate change through a broader temporal framework and the full range of the stakeholders involved, leading to many innovative suggestions for the future. Measures to address global climate change have only just begun, and it is important to maintain a broad perspective in identifying the best countermeasures through forums like the UNCG symposium. The stage where policy alone can induce market initiatives through reductions in the cost of renewable energy is drawing to an end, and there is a clear need to consider alternative approaches. It is to be hoped that this symposium will spawn may others like it to deepen future debate on climate change.