Identity or modernity, a dilemma

Today let me indulge my inclination to drawing some general conclusions or rather reflections, since ‘conclusion’ sounds more like something ultimate and perfect. Some days ago I wrote a post about the Maccabee brothers who resisted Antioch IV’s attempts to turn the Jerusalem Temple into the centre of Baal’s (identified with Zeus) worship. What has long been of the utmost interest to me is where lies the borderline between the old and the modern which allows us to still talk about the continuous existence of the same entity and which does not create an entirely new quality which excludes the continuity.

Antioch IV a Hellenic ruler of Syria, humiliated in Egypt by some Roman envoys, took it out on the Jews on his way home. Not only did his troops plunder the Jerusalem Temple, but also forbade the cult of the Jewish God Yahveh, We know that Greeks, wherever their rule was established, ‘founded new’ cities, meaning that they transformed the old Eastern settlements, which they reckoned ‘barbarous’, into something they were familiar with. A Greek city had to have such facilities as a stadium, a theatre, a gymnasium and some more or less self-governing institutions. We all also know that this policy resulted in the spread of the Greek culture which historians call ‘Hellenistic’ (in contrast to the classical ‘Hellenic’ period before Alexander the Great). The brutal intervention into the autonomy of a relatively small Jewish community in Palestine triggered the Maccabee brothers’ uprising well described in two apocrypha recognized as canonical books by Roman Catholics. Judah Maccabee and his brothers’ guerillas, mostly due to some complex combination of coincidences and international circumstances, won the war and established a theocratic state ruled by their descendants until the power was taken over by the Idumean (Edomite) Herod.

The Maccabee were not only fanatical enemies of the Seleucids (Greeks/Macedonians) but also cruel persecutors of the so-called Hellenizing, which meant the Jews who abandoned their ancestors’ customs, including circumcision, yet to some degree thinking to be still Jews. They could go to the theatre, do sports (naked, like Greeks!) and participate in Greek parties. I bet they had their fellow-countrymen faithful to their old religion, barbarous, backward, fusty and simply not ‘cool’. They were ‘cool’, civilized, cultured and probably well-read in fashionable Greek literature. Some of them may have indulged themselves in homosexual tastes. This could result in nothing but outrage among the Maccabean Jews. As the result of their eventual victory, a great number of the Hellenizing were mercilessly slaughtered.

I realize it is not appropriate and absolutely unscientific to juxtapose the situations in a remote past and the modern ones but I really cant resist this temptation.

At the moment nobody dares refuse the Jewish the right to exist. On the other hand, if the Maccabbean uprising was taking place today, we would probably call it an irresponsible riot of dangerous (Palestinian!) separatists. Moreover, the whole civilized world would show the Jews as backward savages who do not appreciate the benefits offered them by a more developed political body. Well, if they were real savages, they could count on protection from some cultural anthropologists. Since they’d be quite good at diplomacy (the Maccabees were!), they would not be treated as native tribes deserving protection. Hardly anyone would understand their position since it would be ‘obvious’ that ‘everybody’ worships Greek gods, wears Greek clothes, speaks Greek and admires the beauty of young ephebes. Let’s modify this list to make it more up-to-date: worships no gods, wears Western clothes, speaks English and is tolerant of homosexuality or is homosexual himself. Those who would not share this lifestyle would be a dangerous right-wing extremist. Fine. On the other hand if Judah Maccabee had wanted to be ‘cool’ and Hellenistic more than Jewish, there would be no such people as the Jewish today. What is wrong with those who don’t want to be ‘cool’, refuse to conform with the youth’s tastes and fads, propagate traditional values and religion instead of free sex, alcohol and drugs? What’s wrong with those who adamantly protect all those factors that constitute their identity? Twenty-two centuries ago this position was good and praiseworthy, and now has become anachronistic? What is anachronistic any way? Twenty-two centuries ago the Maccabean Jewish were also anachronistic, since Hellenism was ‘modern’ and ‘cool’. The answer is pretty simple. The winner determines the criteria of good and evil. The Maccabees won the war and were able to impose their point of view upon the whole nation. And today we admire them for what they did. They protected their identity and became heroes.

On the other hand… To tell the truth I’m of two minds. I realize many old things must give way to new ones. I’m not a religious person myself and I’m against the influence the Church enjoys in Poland. I’m also tolerant and I hate the way some nationalists and conservatives treat ethnic or sexual minorities. On the other hand, I wouldn’t like religious people disappear. I can’t imagine Poland without them.

I don’t like the way some young people spend their free time (drinking, smoking ganja and having sex with no sense of responsibility). OK, I may not have been much better when I was their age, but I always realized it wasn’t for ever and one day I would settle down. Watching some of my English friends who are nearly 50 and behave as if they were in their early twenties, I’m a bit confused. I don’t want my fellow-countrymen follow this lifestyle although I’m still tolerant and I won’t forbid anybody to do what they like.

Well, I think aging is what I should blame for my ‘conservative turn’. Nevertheless, it is still an open question whether young people in Poland would melt in vague, amorphous Europeanness and give in to hedonism, egotism with no sense of responsibility and accountability to society, or would remain faithful to some ‘backward’ and ‘fusty’ ideals which gave their ancestors proud and the sense of meaning. Or else, maybe there is a way somewhere in between which will combine the best elements of the past with better solutions of the future. This never happens in a peaceful way. We are yet to see lots of conflicts and compromises. As always.