The Hijacking of the Flexidox
In his story in this week’s Forward, Jay Michaelson conflates the terms “post-denominational� (traditional Jews who believe in “halachic progress�) and “Flexidox� (Jews who are essentially Orthodox but not particularly devout, or rather, notably lax).
Michaelson declares,
“Flexidoxy is a kind of anti-label, a postmodern category that simultaneously mirrors and subverts the usual structures of Jewish ideology. It is both very old and very new, questioning the denominational structure of mainstream Judaism.�
No. It is not new at all. What is new is “post-denominational.â€? Michaelson is attempting to conflate these terms. Flexidoxy is a much more personal laxity in observance, not a politically organized one like “post-denominational.”
So why is Michaelson conflating these terms?
Michaelson claims that there is a significant group “who prays at an Orthodox synagogue, but supports equal synagogue roles for women and the ordination of gay rabbis.�
This is wishful thinking. For the most part, they don’t pray at Orthodox minyans. Not if they care about these issues. If they do care about such issues, they pray at Conservadox, post-denominational, and Indy minyans. At Hadar, at KOE, at the Mission Minyan in San Francisco.
But they don’t. Not like Michaelson wants them to. Because they are Flexidox, not “post-denominational.�
2 comments
Great Post. It deserves to be a letter to the editor.
Hm. I dunno… “flexidox” as I understand Gersom Winkler’s use of the term has less to do with wishy-washy inconsistency or laxity, and more to do with context affecting obsevance, and an attempt to be righteous and “frum” in a way that does not become dogmatically rigid.
The term Post-denominational does not describe any kind of observance pattern as much as it does institutions and communities, or parties. I can totally see the former involved with the latter, even being responsible for the existence of the latter, but I don’t see how they are mutually exclusive.
Someone who is flexidox might accept and attend any of the prog. minyanim you described when they’re nearby, and less prog. shuls at other times.
Both terms are kinda stupid, or at least, disposeable and more about transcending a previous label than building a new one.
I like “trans-religious” personally, or “trans-chassidic,” which I feel like describe more specific growth and change. Trans is more positive than post, because it doesn’t leave behind the old tablets even as a new and better thing is allowed to come. hopefully.
Leave a Comment