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

• Misogyny and the Continuity Crisis:Is Social Science Research Responsible?
• Leonard Saxe (bio)

This response to Berman, Rosenblatt, and Stahl's indictment of social science and its role in promoting misogyny in the US Jewish community is being written in the midst of the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic. Covid-19 has already resulted in more than 180,000 deaths worldwide, and most of us are self-isolating to mitigate propagation of the virus.¹ Members of the Jewish community have not been spared the consequences of the pandemic, as it has disrupted not only our health, but also our personal, professional, and religious lives. For many, Passover was spent separated from loved ones, as the apex of the pandemic upended the family gatherings that normally pass on the formative story of Judaism to the next generation.

I situate my comments within the Covid-19 crisis because the underlying theme of the authors' critique is that the demographic study of Jewish continuity—essentially the study of families—is inherently misogynistic. Their thesis is that social scientists created "a continuity crisis paradigm" that acts to subjugate women's agency. By extension, the construct, adopted by Jewish communal leaders, helps to explain why exploitation and sexual harassment has been tolerated in the Jewish community.

Berman, Rosenblatt, and Stahl's provocative argument conflates a number of issues. One is the focus of the scholarship of Jewish life on families and, in particular, marriage. A second is the application of sociodemographic methods to the study of Jewish life. A third concerns the inferences and policy conclusions drawn from that research. The linkage between these elements is complex, far more so than the authors suggest. In particular, their assessment rests on a narrow perspective on the production of social scientific knowledge. As a postpositivist, who nevertheless values empirical research, my comments focus on a set of alternative explanations for the phenomena described by the authors.

Although I reject the authors' argument that a particular way of studying Jewish continuity promotes misogyny, I concur with their [End Page 221] contention that individual behavior—in this case, sexual harassment—needs to be understood in a larger context. Attributing responsibility solely to individuals is a "fundamental attribution error"² and deflects attention from collective responsibility. If we are to redress gender-based harassment, we must understand the underlying attitudes and policies that promote or tolerate such behavior. As social scientists, we have an obligation to explore how and whether our discipline contributes to an inequitable environment,

Berman, Rosenblatt, and Stahl take issue with quantitative sociodemographic studies in particular and their role in promoting the perception of a continuity crisis. To place this work in context, the discussion below considers aspects of the authors' argument separately. In part, I assess the role of research in shaping discourse in the Jewish community. I suggest improvements in research design, analysis, and interpretation so that the diversity of the Jewish experience can be better understood.

IS MARRIAGE AND FAMILY RESEARCH INHERENTLY PROBLEMATIC?

Given Judaism's focus on childbearing and child-rearing, it is difficult to accept the premise that the social scientific study of marriage and family is not a legitimate focus of research on the Jewish community.³ To note the obvious, family issues frame Judaism's most sacred text. From the origin story of Adam and Eve, to the story of Abraham, Sarah and their progeny, to the journey of the tribes of Israel who fled from Egypt, the Biblical narrative features sibling rivalry, spousal jealousy, deceit, and a host of human failings. Intimate relationships are at the foreground of Jewish history and culture.

Demography is also part of the Jewish story. Censuses of the Jewish people occurred even as they wandered in the desert. Described in the kind of detail that would be worthy of a dissertator's methodology section, the census is a kind of stratified sample (by family) of the tribes. A longstanding focus of commentary has concerned who and what might have been missed in the accounting, but notably other debates have focused on the censuses' accuracy.⁴ Even today, when the Torah portion [End Page 222] (B'midbar) describing the census is recited, we also read...

中文翻译：

---

Misogyny和连续性危机：社会科学研究负责吗？

代替摘要，这里是内容的简要摘录：

• Misogyny和连续性危机：社会科学研究负责吗？
• 伦纳德·萨克森（生物）

在2020年Covid-19大流行期间，人们对柏曼（Berman），罗森布拉特（Rosenblatt）和斯塔尔（Stahl）对社会科学的起诉及其在促进美国犹太社区的厌女症中的作用做出了回应。Covid-19已在全球造成180,000多人死亡，我们大多数人都在自我隔离以减轻病毒的传播。¹犹太人社区的成员没有幸免于这场大流行的后果，因为它不仅破坏了我们的健康，而且破坏了我们的个人，职业和宗教生活。对于许多人来说，逾越节是与亲人分开度过的，因为大流行的流行颠覆了通常将犹太教形成的故事传给下一代的家庭聚会。

我将自己的评论置于Covid-19危机之内，因为作者批评的基本主题是犹太连续性的人口统计学研究（本质上是家庭研究）本质上是厌恶女性主义的。他们的论点是，社会科学家创造了一种“连续性危机范式”，以征服妇女的代理权。通过扩展，犹太社区领袖采用的结构有助于解释为什么犹太社区容忍了剥削和性骚扰。

Berman，Rosenblatt和Stahl的挑衅性论点混淆了许多问题。犹太人生活奖学金的重点之一是家庭，尤其是婚姻。第二是社会人口统计学方法在犹太人生活研究中的应用。第三个问题涉及从该研究中得出的推论和政策结论。这些元素之间的联系非常复杂，远超出作者的建议。特别是，他们的评估基于对社会科学知识产生的狭perspective观点。作为后实证主义者，他仍然重视经验研究，我的评论集中在作者描述的现象的一组替代解释上。

尽管我拒绝作者的观点，即研究犹太人连续性的一种特殊方式会导致厌女症，但我同意他们的观点[End Page 221]的观点，即个人行为（在这种情况下为性骚扰）需要在更大的背景下进行理解。仅将责任归于个人是“根本归因错误” ²，它使人们的注意力从集体责任中转移了出来。如果要纠正基于性别的骚扰，我们必须了解促进或容忍此类行为的基本态度和政策。作为社会科学家，我们有义务探索我们的学科如何以及是否为不平等的环境做出贡献，

Berman，Rosenblatt和Stahl对定量社会人口学研究及其在促进对持续性危机的认知中的作用尤其持怀疑态度。为了将这项工作放在上下文中，下面的讨论分别考虑了作者论点的各个方面。在某种程度上，我评估了研究在塑造犹太社区话语中的作用。我建议改进研究设计，分析和解释，以便更好地了解犹太人的经历。

婚姻和家庭研究天生就有问题吗？

考虑到犹太教的重点是生育和抚养子女，很难接受这样一个前提，即婚姻和家庭的社会科学研究不是对犹太社区的合法研究重点。³要注意到明显的家庭问题构成了犹太教最神圣的文本。从亚当和夏娃的起源故事到亚伯拉罕，莎拉及其后代的故事，再到从埃及逃离的以色列部落的旅程，圣经的叙述都具有同级竞争，配偶嫉妒，欺骗和大量人类的特征。失败。亲密关系是犹太历史和文化的重中之重。

人口统计学也是犹太人故事的一部分。即使在沙漠中徘徊，犹太人的人口普查仍在发生。普查是对部落的分层样本（按家庭分类），以值得在论文的方法论部分进行详细描述的方式进行描述。长期以来，评论一直关注会计中可能遗漏的人和内容，但值得注意的是，其他辩论集中在人口普查的准确性上。⁴即使在今天，当叙述人口普查的《摩西五经》[End Page 222]（B'midbar）被引用时，我们也阅读...