In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

• Knowledge is Power:On Writing and Responding Together
• Lila Corwin Berman (bio), Kate Rosenblatt (bio), and Ronit Y. Stahl (bio)

Reading these eight full and generous responses to our article reminded us of the benefits of collaborative scholarship. Were we to rewrite our article now, after having digested our colleagues' responses, we would undoubtedly clarify, rework, and change certain sections. And, happily, the scholarly pursuit continues beyond the publication of an article, so we trust we will have the opportunity to continue to refine and reconsider our argument in light of these illuminating responses to it.

I. FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE

We start by invoking the benefits of collaborative scholarship not only to offer necessary gratitude to our colleagues but also to reflect on our own process of knowledge production. We produced this article—and now this response—by committing ourselves to collaboration. And we will be the first to admit that this kind of rigorous collaboration has not been the common coin in any of our prior scholarly experiences, so we had to learn how to do it on the fly. Indeed, our collaborative method is constitutive of the intellectual claims we are making and, thus, warrants discussion as we reflect on this set of responses.

When all of this started in the summer of 2018, we found each other on a common thread on Facebook. We knew each other already—Rosenblatt and Stahl attended graduate school at the University of Michigan together, and Berman had met both when she was a fellow at Michigan's Frankel Institute for Advanced Judaic Studies. As our friends and colleagues started to parse Hannah Dreyfus's reporting about Steven Cohen, the three of us began to puzzle out (first as comments to threads and then over Messenger) what we perceived as a difference between the individual dimensions of Cohen's then-alleged sexual predation and the structural framework in which his scholarship, power, and authority rested.

At the time, one of us was a full professor (Berman), one a postdoctoral research fellow (Stahl), and one a contingent faculty member (Rosenblatt). We were aware of our own power differentials, and as we thought about writing something for a broad audience, we appreciated the way that collaboration could amplify our voices and shield us from certain risks of speaking alone. [End Page 243]

Over the course of a morning, we moved from Facebook to a Google document and started to write together. We took the skeletal framework we had crafted over Chat and expanded it, writing over one another, stopping to ask questions about what a word or phrase meant, correcting or rephrasing one another's prose. It was dizzying and exhilarating. In motion, we were building trust in one another's thought process and crafting a collective form of knowledge.

When the editors of American Jewish History asked if we would expand our Forward article, we each hesitated. By then, between us, there were new jobs to start, books to finish, and family obligations to fulfill. But we also knew that what we had written for the Forward only skimmed the surface of applying historical understanding to the structures of power that delimited Jewish continuity discourse.

We decided to meet in person to draft a new article in the summer of 2019. First around a seminar table at the University of Pennsylvania's Herbert D. Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies and then around Berman's dining room table, we sat together, computers open to a shared Google document. We talked and typed, debated points, went down research rabbit holes and came back out with references, some used and others left on the cutting room floor. It felt freeing at times—when one of us could not think of the right word or turn of phrase, another one would supply it. But it was also constraining to have to listen to voices outside of one's own head and to get such immediate feedback. In the process, we learned that we had some very different perspectives, depending on our own experiences with Jewish communal pressures and our own encounters with scholarly conversations and research. We saw, as Harriet Hartman writes here, how "our personal...

中文翻译：

---

知识就是力量：共同写作和回应

代替摘要，这里是内容的简要摘录：

• 知识就是力量：共同写作和回应
• Lila Corwin Berman（生物），Kate Rosenblatt（生物）和Ronit Y. Stahl（生物）

读完对本文的八个完整而慷慨的回复，使我们想起了合作奖学金的好处。在消化了同事的回答之后，如果我们现在要重写我们的文章，那么我们无疑会进行澄清，修改和更改某些部分。而且，令人高兴的是，学术追求不仅限于文章的发表，因此我们相信我们将有机会根据这些启发性的回应继续完善和重新考虑我们的论点。

一，知识形式

我们首先要利用合作奖学金的好处，这不仅是为了给我们的同事以必要的感激之情，而且还要反思我们自己的知识生产过程。我们致力于协作，从而产生了这篇文章（现在是这篇回应）。我们将第一个承认这种严格的合作并不是我们以往任何学术经历中的共同点，因此我们必须学习如何实时进行。确实，我们的协作方法构成了我们正在提出的知识主张的组成部分，因此，当我们对这组响应进行反思时，有必要进行讨论。

当所有这些都在2018年夏天开始时，我们在Facebook上的一个共同线程上找到了彼此。我们已经相互了解了—罗森布拉特和斯塔尔一起上了密歇根大学的研究生院，伯曼在密歇根州弗兰克尔高级犹太人研究所当研究员时就认识了。当我们的朋友和同事开始分析汉娜·德雷福斯（Hannah Dreyfus）关于史蒂芬·科恩（Steven Cohen）的报道时，我们三个人开始感到困惑（首先是对话题的评论，然后是对Messenger的评论），我们认为科恩当时被指控的性行为的个体维度之间存在差异掠夺以及他的学术，权力和权威所基于的结构框架。

当时，我们中的一位是全职教授（德国），一位是博士后研究员（Stahl），一位是特遣队教员（Rosenblatt）。我们意识到自己的力量差异，并且在考虑为广大受众编写内容时，我们赞赏协作可以扩大我们的声音并保护我们免受单独讲话的某些风险的方式。[结束页243]

在一个上午的过程中，我们从Facebook移到了Google文档，并开始一起写作。我们采用了我们在Chat上编写的骨架框架，并进行了扩展，彼此改写，不再问一个单词或短语是什么意思，更正或改写了对方的散文。令人目眩神迷。在运动中，我们正在建立对彼此的思想过程的信任，并建立一种集体的知识形式。

当《美国犹太史》的编辑们问我们是否要扩展《前进》一文时，我们每个人都犹豫了。到那时，在我们之间，有了新的工作要开始，要完成的书本，要履行的家庭义务。但是我们也知道，我们为前进党撰写的文章只是在将历史理解应用于界定犹太人连续性话语的权力结构上浮出水面。

我们决定在2019年夏季亲自见面，起草新文章。首先是在宾夕法尼亚大学赫伯特·卡兹高级犹太研究中心的一个研讨会桌旁，然后是在伯曼的餐桌旁，我们围坐在一起，打开了计算机到共享的Google文档。我们进行了交谈和打字，辩论了一些观点，钻研了兔子的研究孔，然后拿出了一些参考资料，其中一些用过的而另一些则留在了切割室的地板上。有时感觉很自由—当我们中的一个人想到正确的单词或短语时，另一个人会提供它。但这也限制了必须听取自己头脑之外的声音并获得这样的即时反馈。在此过程中，我们了解到我们有很多截然不同的观点，取决于我们自己在犹太社区压力下的经历以及我们自己在学术对话和研究中的遭遇。正如哈丽特·哈特曼（Harriet Hartman）在这里写道，我们看到了“我们的个人...