Attempts at Transformation/Conversion of the Jews

The debate outlined by Dubnow is an appropriate frame for the various attempts made by Russian rulers to convert or transform the Jews. Most rulers exhibit varying degrees of "utilitarianism" and "humanitarianism" in their policies. Obviously, the conscription/conversion policy is an example of extreme utilitarianism. By the stick or not, conversion has a long history in Russia, and is based on the logic of abstracted Judaism and Jewishness. This notion goes back to the middle ages: For Jews of the early Russian kingdom of Muscovy, "conversion immediately removed their 'Jewishness' in the eyes of the state" (Klier 1986: 32).

Extreme utilitarianism is exemplified by the attempt of Ivan IV, who, after conquering Polotsk (1563), promptly ordered the local Jews to convert to Russian Orthodoxy. The 300 who refused were thrown in the river to drown. The tradition continued with Elizabeth Petrovna, who in 1727 ordered all Jews to leave Russia with the exception of those who would convert to Russian Orthodoxy. Later, in 1741, she proposed the forced conversions of all non-Orthodox, especially Muslims and Jews. When that didn't work she expelled them all the next year, kicking the Jews out with the brand "these haters of the name of Christ" (Klier 1986: 28).

Such simplistic measures gave way to those which required a little more thought. In the 1790's Polish intellectual and statesman Butrymovich published a pamphlet entitled "A Means Whereby to transform the Polish Jews into Useful Citizens of the Country," in which he concluded that due to their "mode of life," Jews were detrimental to the state. Among his recommendations were that Jews be placed into agriculture and craftsman jobs, taught to read and write Polish, and be prohibited from wearing distinguishing clothes and reading Hebrew books (Dubnow vol. 1 1916: 280).

The following years saw more concentrated attempts to convert the Jews. Vishniak identifies both the Alexander I and Nicholas I eras as one, in the sense that "the most characteristic aspect of this epoch... was the religious compulsion exercised upon the Jews with relation to their traditions and customs..." (Vishniak 1946: 125).

The Report of senator Dyerzhavin included a plan for the "transformation of the Jews." Dyerzhavin envisioned a system under which groups of Jews would be placed under a Christian "protector" who would give them "protection" and "tutelage." A census would be taken and Jews would be given new family names. They would be distributed evenly across the country side and placed into four specific professions. Jews were to give up their distinguishing dress and were not to have Christian domestic servants. They would have to conduct all official business in Russian, Polish or German. Most interestingly, Dyerzhavin proposed that the government establish a press to print Jewish books "with philosophic annotations" so that "the stubborn and cunning tribe of Hebrews be properly set to rights" (Dubnow vol. 1 1916: 332-333).

Dyerzhavin's plan never went into effect. Another attempt at state-sanctioned conversion was the strange episode of the "Society of Israelitish Christians." This society never really existed anywhere but in the minds of Alexander I and senator Golitzin. The idea was to set aside a choice piece of land to be settled by "those Jews who, having by divine grace perceived the light of Christian truth, have embraced the same" (Dubnow vol. 1 1916: 396). It flopped completely, no one showed up except for a few people who claimed to be Jewish converts but who were later found out to be Christians trying to get some free land. Despite its obvious failure, Alexander kept the idea alive all the way through to the end of his reign in 1827. Nicholas I would prove to have a much more efficient means of generating converts.

Nicholas I

Dubnow writes that Dyerzhavin's ideas concerning the transformation of the Jews are informed by:

"the curious notion that a people with an ancient culture can, at the mere bidding of an outside agency, change its position like figures on a chess board, that strange faith in the saving power of mechanical reforms which prevailed..." (Dubnow, vol. 1: 334).

Nicholas developed his plan for transformation based on the strange faith in this mechanical idea of religious identity in combination with his faith in the above mentioned representations of Judaism, and his personal affinity for the military and his tendency to view everything in mechanized terms. Unlike his brother Alexander, Nicholas had no interest in any of the pretensions of the Enlightenment. He was conservative and proud of it. He was a Slavophile before the term was coined. Most of all he believed in regularity, standardization and uniformity. For these reasons he was most comfortable in, and familiar with the military. There was in his mind no criminal or coward that could not be trained to be a soldier. Though he viewed the Jews as "cowardly," and "parasitic," this did not mean they could not be transformed into good Russian soldiers (Stanislawski 1983: 10, 14).

(Fig. 10) To the left is a detail from a French engraving which depicts Nicholas (not shown here) and his Army. The artist has depicted Nicholas' army as he preferred society: mechanized to the extreme, where order and regularity are of the utmost importance.     (Fig. 11) To the right is a detail from "Hasidim in a Bet Midrash" by Isidor Kaufman. The boy is standing in synagogue, reading a prayer book. Had he been a boy in Nicholas' Russia, he might be taken off to a Cantonist battalion in a few years. How would this boy and his elders, draped in their tallit and praying in Hebrew, look to Nicholas, who wanted to construct a Russia which looked like the soldiers to the left?

Methods of the conscription/conversion policy

Stanislawski points out that under Nicholas I, conscription was often used against many different groups as a method of social and police control. But for the Jews, conscription was unique as it had a specific missionary purpose (Stanislawski 1983: 18-19). Though Nicholas wrote into his decree on the conscription of Jews provisions for religious freedom, this was not at all the case.

Conversionary tactics of the army were diverse. Some of the same patterns of other attempts at transformation were used. Douglas' model is often reflected in the sense that Judaism was sealed away from the soldiers whenever possible. Just as "Judaizers" were not allowed contact with Jews, nor were Jewish soldiers. When traveling, Jewish soldiers were only allowed to stay in Christian homes. Soldiers were forbidden to read letters written to them in Yiddish. Those soldiers who would agree to convert to Russian Orthodoxy were separated from those who would not.

On the physical body tortures such as walks over hot coals and beatings were used on soldiers as a means of coercing them to convert. Boys of the cantonist battalions were forced to walk long miles.13 On the cerebral level, soldiers would have individual meetings with army chaplains who would try to convince them, using the scripture, to convert to Christianity (Stanislawski 1983: 24)14 An end to all brutality and harassment was promised upon conversion.

The criteria for conversion appears to be the baptismal ritual. However a soldier agreed to it, whether it took whippings or just a meeting with an army priest, the success of the policy was measured in baptisms. "Thank God!" Nicholas wrote in response to this report from the Saratov Bishop (1853):

"God willed 134 Jewish cantonists to accept Russian Orthodoxy on Whitsunday, and on that day, the Christian Church baptized them all in the waters of the Volga with great zeal" (Stanislawski 1983: 25).

Stanislawski's work shows that nearly every surviving statistic on conversions are measured in baptisms. In 1829, Nicholas issued a secret order to army priests, allowing them to perform baptisms without authorization from their bishops. In 1843, Nicholas requested monthly reports on the rate of conversions. Reading July's report, he complained that he was "disappointed at the lack of successful baptisms of Jewish Cantonists and soldiers" (Stanislawski 1983: 22).

That the criteria for conversion is the baptismal ritual raises the question of what kind of "conversion" the policy was after. If the baptismal ritual is viewed as most important, does that mean that the goal was only the outward appearance of having converted? Or, were they after "true" conversion, in which the solder actually changed his deepest religious convictions? To answer these questions positively would be impossible, &endash;certainly there must have been solders who "truly" converted as well as those who "faked it."

I looked at this concern for the baptismal ritual and the nature of the language of the conversionary policies through the lens provided by the work of Louis Althusser. Viewed as such, the evidence points to a particular type of conversion: The conversion from Judaism to Russian Orthodoxy constituted not only a change in theology, but also a meshing of the individual convert into the Russian State.20 In this conception, "religious conversion," and the "religious" ritual which is its marker have everything to do with the social. The conversion of the solder from Judaism to Russian Orthodoxy is part of the process by which he as an individual is transformed into a subject of the Russian state. Althusser calls this process interpolation (Althusser 1972: 174).

Before discussing the social nature of the conversion, it's important to look at the religious aspect of the conversion by itself. I believe that Nicholas and army priests intended that their converts "truly" change their deepest religious convictions. This is best evidenced by the fact that in 1843, the chief priest of the army and navy, Vasilii Kutnevich, wrote a 25 page instruction manual for priests on how to convert Jews. This is how Stanislawski describes the manual:

"these instructions...advised the priests that a more sophisticated psychological approach would yield better results. Each Jewish soldier had a unique personality and a different degree of grounding in the Jewish tradition; each Jew must therefore be dealt with individually in order to discern the most effective manner of lending him to the baptismal font" (Stanislawski 1983: 23).

These "psychological tactics" were diverse. Importantly they often came in the disguise of "tolerance." The Jewish religion of the conscripts was attacked from the beginning. Upon his induction into the army, a draftee was required to take an oath of allegiance. The catch is that this oath was taken in a "Jewish" manner. The draftee was to stand in synagogue, in front of the Holy Ark, over an open Torah scroll. Wearing his tallis and his tefilin ,14 he was to recite the following in Hebrew:

"In the name of Adonai, the living, omnipotent God of the Israelites, I swear that I desire to serve and shall serve the Russian Emperor and State wherever and however I shall be instructed during my service, in full obedience to the military authorities, as faithfully as would be required for the defense of the laws of the Land of Israel...If, by my own weakness or the influence of another, I shall transgress this oath of faithful service, may my soul and that of my entire family be damned perpetually. Amen" (Stanislawski 1983: 21).

(Fig. 12) This is a picture of the Aron Kodesh (Holy Ark) in the synagogue of Pren, Romania. The Torah is kept behind the curtain. Synagogues in Russia had a similar design. Upon the reading of the oath this religiously Jewish space is invaded politically and ideologically by the Russian State. It becomes a site at which the new conscript begins the process of interpolation, in which his Judaism is replaced by his allegiance to the Russian State.

It is significant that this was to be recited in Hebrew, the language of the liturgy, the language of prayer. Here Judaism as a religion is being dismantled, subordinated by ideas of "Russia." Clearly now we can see the process of interpolation happening in a "religious" space. The "Russian State" replaces "the Laws of the Land of Israel" as the center of allegiance. Though the recruit is wearing his tallis and is standing over an open Torah scroll, his Judaism is slowly being eaten at by his new military/political identity with Russia. The paragraph begins with an affirmation of Jewish faith and ends with an affirmation of the omnipotence not of God, but of Russia. A transgression in faith and service to Russia means the damning of one's soul. Anderson's model is again effective here. We can see in this oath an attempt to "imagine" the Russian nation into the mind of the draftee.

In Althusser's model, the State functions to maintain the status quo through the operation of Repressive State Apparatuses (RSAs), and Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs). The former, such as the police, actively control and maintain State power, the latter function to reproduce and disseminate the ideology necessary for the State to maintain power. Althusser cites "the educational apparatus" and "the Church" as the primary and most forceful ISAs. The cantonist battalions certainly functioned as both school and religious institution. As exemplified in the quote above, the army functioned (in part) as an ISA, encoding the ideology of the Russian State into its "religious tolerance."

In Althusser's conception, the subtle power of the ISA lies in the fact that it veils its own power. Schools may appear to be free of State ideology, but in reality the educational system is one of the primary ISAs. Because of this veiling process, the subject often feels himself to be "free," unaware of his own subjectification. Therefore, he learns to participate in his own subjectification:

"...a subjected being, who submits to a higher authority ...is therefore stripped of all freedom except that of freely accepting his submission. This last note gives us the meaning of this ambiguity, which is merely a reflection to the effect which produces it: the individual is interpolated as a (free) subject ...in order that he shall (freely) accept his subjection, i.e. in order that he shall make the gestures and actions of his subjection 'all by himself'" (Althusser 1972: 182).

I would argue that this is what is going on behind the "Jewish" quality of the oath ritual. In using an apparent Jewish ritual, the new recruit is "working by himself" as a subject of the State. Because it appears "Jewish" the subject performs the ritual and is more likely to accept its validity. Because the ritual is inscribed (in this case overtly) with the ideology of loyalty to the Russian state, it follows that the recruit will answer to the State in the form of obedience to his superior officers and eventual obedience to the demand to convert.

This is where the religious baptismal ritual overlaps with the oath of allegiance. Firstly, Althusser argues that all ISAs and RSAs "play to the same tune," that is, they work together, hitting the subject from every angle with different forms of the same ideology. (Althusser 1972: 154-155). Secondly, State ideology supposes that ideas exist in human action . Ideology is inscribed into religious ritual and sports such that they become "the material existence of an ideological apparatus" (Althusser 1972: 168, emphasis mine). Simply put, RSAs and ISAs function on the supposition that thought or belief follows behavior. If the ideology of loyalty to the Russian state is inscribed into the ritual surrounding the loyalty oath taken by the new recruit, it is therefore (if more subtly) inscribed into the Baptismal ritual. Both rituals are part of a larger apparatus. The loyalty oath ritual appears to be primarily social, while the baptismal ritual appears to be primarily religious. However, both are part of the process by which Jewish men are transformed into subjects of the Russian State. Each ritual attempts to supplant the soldier's Judaism and Jewishness with a "Russian" religious and political identity.

Given my original theoretical context of Judaism-as-anomalous element, it is fitting to recall Douglas' argument that one of the ways in which a society deals with existence of an anomalous element is through the use of symbol in ritual (Douglas 1966: 39). Rituals are used to mark, to evidence a successful removal of an anomalous element. The baptismal ritual functions to remove the anomalous element -&endash;Judaism&endash; from the soldier, and in turn from Russia. If we view the baptismal ritual as the "material existence" of the ideology of a religiously "pure" Russia, it is no wonder Nicholas and his contemporary clergymen were so invested in counting the actual baptisms of Jewish soldiers and cantonists.

Conclusion

To answer the question, "Why did Russians want to convert Jewish boys and men?" cannot be answered definitively. This paper has left out much of the relevant history; a comprehensive answer would take a massive amount of information. Instead, I have aimed to isolate a few of the notions of Judaism-as-Other which I believe existed at the time. It seems clear to me that these concepts of Judaism and Jewishness as abstract, dangerous, alien elements are what specifically informed the forced conversion policy. I have aimed to point out the details of these ideas, and to show that they are reflected in the theoretical models of Althusser, Anderson, Douglas, Said, & Zizek.

Afterword

Within this framework, there is still much to be discussed. The patterns of Othering discussed above are no doubt taking place today in our society. The ideology which lies behind Proposition 187 is thriving. Immigrants have returned in the Real as heterogeneous antagonisms: Our schools are too crowded, there are less and less jobs and less and less apartments. We have relocated these various problems onto one fantasy: the immigrant. Prop. 187 tries to manipulate the material world in order to mend the gashes the declining economy has left in our social-ideological fantasy. Prop. 187 represents, like the conscription/conversion policy, a seemingly rational response to an irrational set of fears and fantasies. We are attempting to "imagine" our selves into a nation which consists of some "American" identity which is cut off from our mutual immigrant past, excluding contemporary immigrants from the symbolic order. The category of "new" has thus become "matter-out-of place." The parallels obviously can be taken to much deeper level, I have only attempted to scratch the surface.

GO TO ENDNOTES & BIBLIOGRAPHY