• "To Know One's Chains for What They Are Is Better Than to Deck Them with Flowers"^{1, 2}
• Shelly Tenenbaum (bio)

Lila Corwin Berman, Kate Rosenblatt, and Ronit Y. Stahl's argument that the study of "American Jewish continuity is embedded within patriarchal and misogynistic structures" (168) raises important sociological questions about the production of knowledge. By analyzing how a prevailing set of ideas is shaped by broader social forces and how a group of scholars is deeply enmeshed in a historical context, the authors offer a sociology of knowledge approach that highlights the relationship between society and categories of thought. At the same time that dominant institutions shape questions that are asked (as well as those that are not asked), the answers in turn reinforce the status quo. Being aware of the connection between inquiry and structure enlarges our lenses and challenges the academy to engage in the liberating enterprise of recognizing potential sources of bias. The article "Continuity Crisis" makes us see how the continuity paradigm is bound by ideological chains of time and place and reminds us of Rousseau's eighteenth-century principle: "To know one's chains for what they are is better than to deck them with flowers."

Based on a detailed historical survey of social science research from the post-World War II era to the current period, Berman, Rosenblatt, and Stahl offer a critical assessment of social scientists studying American Jews. The authors particularly criticize social scientists' preoccupation with continuity, a discourse in which single women, LGBTQ+ people, and childless individuals (basically anyone who does not bear a requisite number of children), as well as those who intermarry, are viewed as threats to the vitality and future of American Jewry. Misogynistic assumptions "about women's bodies as objects to be controlled and policed have become woven into Jewish institutions through expert discourse" (189) and serve to "naturalize hierarchies, regimes of power, and modes of control that are foundational to the continuity paradigm" (189). Berman, Rosenblatt, and Stahl explain that "telling women who they can and should marry and when and how often they should have children [End Page 239] is what we mean by the patriarchal and misogynistic foundations of the continuity paradigm and its apparatus" (192). As acknowledged in the article, I share this analysis of continuity research and argued twenty years ago that researchers "subordinate women's priorities and points of view to the question of ethnic survival" and that "women, as well as the ideology of feminism, come to be seen as agents who either maintain or thwart Jewish continuity."³

This critique of continuity research is part of a larger feminist scholarly endeavor to redefine what is important and worthy of attention, and to challenge how claims of objectivity are used to justify inequalities. Continuity researchers' overwhelming reliance on statistics provides scientific power to treat "women and their bodies as data points in service of a particular vision of Jewish communal survival" (168) and "validate the simple 'truth' of women's primary role in Jewish continuity: as incubators" (189). Furthermore, as Judith Stacey and Barrie Thorne argued in their classic article, "The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology," quantitative methods hinder feminist inquiry by treating gender as a variable rather than an analytic category.⁴ To study women as distinct actors with their own perspectives, scholars must "ask new questions, redefine importance from the perspective of women's experiences, reconceptualize conventional categories of analysis, and formulate or modify research methods."⁵ New knowledge about women will lead to a more expansive understanding of American Jewish life.

The strong connection between social scientists and communal agencies that fund research on the continuity crisis is central to the argument outlined in the article. Jewish community leaders, with their concerns about decline that include fears about the impact of women's power and autonomy on Jewish families, hire social scientists to collect data and then use the research as proof to support communal policies that will "save" American Jews. "As Jewish institutions, social researchers, and donors invested in data about marriage and reproduction, they created a continuous feedback loop. Through the production and interpretation of this ever-growing universe of data, Jewish...

• “知道自己的锁链比用鲜花装饰他们的锁链更好” ^1，2
• 雪莉·特南鲍姆（生物）

莱拉·科温·伯曼（Lila Corwin Berman），凯特·罗森布拉特（Kate Rosenblatt）和罗尼特·斯塔尔（Ronit Y. Stahl）的论点是，“美国犹太人的连续性嵌入父权制和女性主义结构中”（168）提出了有关知识生产的重要社会学问题。通过分析更广泛的社会力量如何塑造一种普遍的思想体系，以及如何在历史背景下深深扎根一群学者，作者提供了一种知识社会学方法，强调了社会与思想范畴之间的关系。在主导机构塑造提出的问题（以及未提出的问题）的同时，答案反过来又加强了现状。意识到探究与结构之间的联系会扩大我们的视野，并挑战该学院从事解放企业的工作，以认识到潜在的偏见根源。文章“连续性危机”使我们看到了连续性范式是如何受时间和地点的意识形态链束缚的，并让我们想起了卢梭的18世纪原则：“了解链条的本质比用鲜花装饰它们更好。 ”

根据对第二次世界大战后至当前时期的社会科学研究的详细历史调查，Berman，Rosenblatt和Stahl对研究美国犹太人的社会科学家进行了批判性评估。作者特别批评社会科学家对连续性的关注，在这种话语中，单身女性，LGBTQ +人和无子女的个人（基本上没有生育必要子女的任何人）以及通婚的人都被视为对连续性的威胁。美国犹太人的生命力和未来。误入歧途的假设“关于将妇女的身体作为要控制和管理的对象，已经通过专家的话语编织成犹太机构”（189），并且有助于“使等级制度，权力制度，[末页239]是我们所指的连续性范式及其装置的父权制和女性主义基础”（192）。正如本文所承认的，我赞同这种连续性研究的分析，并在20年前争论说，研究人员“从属于女性的种族生存问题的优先事项和观点”，以及“妇女以及女权主义的意识形态被视为维持或挫败犹太人连续性的媒介。” ³

这种对连续性研究的批判是更大的女权主义学术努力的一部分，该努力重新定义了重要和值得关注的事物，并挑战了如何使用客观性主张来证明不平等的合理性。连续性研究人员对统计的压倒性依赖提供了科学的力量，可以将“妇女及其身体作为数据点来服务于特定的犹太社区生存愿景”（168），并“验证了妇女在犹太连续性中的主要作用的简单'真相'：作为孵化器”（189）。此外，正如朱迪思·斯泰西（Judith Stacey）和巴里·索恩（Barrie Thorne）在其经典文章《社会学中的女权主义革命》中所论述的那样，定量方法通过将性别视为变量而不是分析类别来阻碍女权主义的研究。⁴为了以自己的观点研究作为不同角色的女性，学者们必须“提出新的问题，从女性经验的角度重新定义重要性，重新认识传统的分析类别，并制定或修改研究方法”。⁵关于妇女的新知识将导致对美国犹太人生活的更广泛的了解。

社会科学家与资助有关连续性危机研究的公共机构之间的紧密联系对于本文概述的论点至关重要。犹太社区领导人担心自己的衰落，包括担心妇女的权力和自治对犹太家庭的影响，因此聘请社会科学家收集数据，然后以这项研究为依据来支持将“拯救”美国犹太人的公共政策。“随着犹太机构，社会研究人员和捐助者对婚姻和再生产数据进行投资，他们创造了一个持续的反馈回路。通过对这一不断增长的数据领域进行生产和解释，犹太人...