Defending "Defender of the Faith"

Early in his career, Roth received considerable criticism for his sometimes less-than-perfect Jewish characters. Some critics thought that characters like Grossbart would solidify and perpetuate long-held stereotypes about Jews (40 years earlier, W.E.B. Du Bois famously criticized a cadre of young Harlem Renaissance writers along similar lines).

The Gordian Knot of ethno-cultural identity is very much at stake in "Defender of the Faith." While Grossbart's machinations certainly elicit strong readerly reactions, Nathan Marx's struggle with his own identity is the cognitive center of the work. Since we didn't get to it in class, I'll keep my questions here pretty general:

1. At what point is Marx most sympathetic towards Grossbart?
2. What finally turns Marx against him? Why such strong feelings?
3. How justified is Marx in changing Grossbart's orders back to the Pacific?
4. What is the nature of Marx's struggle with his identity throughout? What larger issues of identity do you think the story is addressing?

Comments

[Evan J. Biederstedt]

I’ll just ignore the first three questions because the fourth is most interesting. The issue of identity for religions in which the belief is passed “heretically” (I mean through mother/father/both) is something that people in this age must come to terns with (I find anyway). Being Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu is based upon relations, while Christianity places a great emphasis on conversion (mostly because this is how Christians became Christians). I strongly feel it is a semantic problem here; there’s a between being a cultural Jew and a religious Jew. If a person is Jewish and an atheist, she/he is culturally Jewish or Jewish by heritage. If this distinction is made, much of the discussion on religion would be more open/make more sense. The evidence of the confusion concerning this dialogue is portrayed well in “Defender of the Faith”, especially with the relationship between Marx and Grossbart. You can also see this division with language (particularly how German changed after the Holocaust) but I won’t go into that.

By the way, statements like “That’s what happened in Germany. They didn’t stick together. They let themselves get pushed around” also 1) burr this distinction and 2) purposefully ignore how horrifying the Holocaust really was.

Disagree if you would like. I’d like to think I’m very open-minded.

[Thomas]

I will bicker and say #3 is the most interesting instead of the fourth. I think I am being very practical today. Marx's decision to reverse Grossbart's order is irresponsible and may ultimately harm him. Now that Grossbart realizes his plans have been thwarted and he will actually have to engage in warfare, can he still perform being in the dejected state he is? I often feel horrible if I knew I had the chance to do something better. And Marx? He will be overwhelmed with guilt once his anger dissipates. I can see Grossbart dying on the battlefield and Marx's guilt nagging at him for the rest of his life. woot I am being melodramatic.

[Jennifer H.]

Evan makes an excellent observation. The blurring of the line between cultural and religious identity and as well as racial and personal identity is not only an issue in “Defender of the Faith” but also in today’s society. Despite the general progressive nature of modern society, people still have “old ways” of thinking. Unfortunately, some individuals still view people only by the color of their skin. They are unable to look beyond the person’s racial identity to understand that person’s true character. I believe this is the cause of many of the racists acts committed today, including the ones committed in Columbia last semester and the racist comments posted on Minghui Yu’s blog.

As significant as our racial identities maybe, I like to believe that we are (or should be) defined much more by our actions than by our race. Unfortunately, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of seeing his children live in a society “where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” still has not been achieved. Will it ever be achieved? Probably not entirely. But that does not mean we should not strive to establish this type of society. Call me an idealist. It doesn’t matter. All I know is that if we all lived by this ideal, the world would be a better place.

[Elisabeth Fabila]

Wow Evan. I think you are dead on. If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that in some cultures the line between religion and identity is thin. I think I understand this more than most and I have come to understand it in more ways than one. I am Christian, though my views are quite unorthodox and like life circumstances are subject to change. On a personal side note, my significant other is Sikh and I have discovered that in non-Western cultures, religion is culture and both make up ones identity. They are intertwined whereas in Christianity culture and race is supposed to be irrelevant.

Anyway, back to the story, maybe this whole controversy is what Marx is grappling with here. Grossbart represents tradition. Marx is struggling with the meaning behind that tradition, and also which traditions he will follow and defend. They are a part of his identity. Grossbart, though he is annoying, does manage to remind Marx of those aspects of his heritage and family that are dear to him.

And I think Marx is trying to make sense of it all...what are the traditions he will follow and does he believe in them? And to resurrect an old question, where does his allegiance lie? Who is he more, a soldier or a Jew?

Oh and by the way, I think Marx is justified in sending Grossbart back. Grossbart has taken advantage of his identity as Jew and he also left his friends out in the cold. This doesn't seem to fall in line with principles of Judaism to me.

[Zachary Lundin]

I think Evan's point about the difference between "culturally jewish" and "religiously jewish" is really salient here - and it seems that other people agree too! For what it's worth, I don't think that Grossbart represents a true tradition either way you cut it, though - I think he's a walking, talking stereotype. As such, I think what he really is is Roth's way of deconstructing negative cultural images of Jews. Mimicry as resistance - that is artfully fulfilling a stereotype in order to break it down - is a very powerful form of resistance by oppressed groups. We see it in the African-American tradition, especially during slavery times; we see it in the LGBT community. Grossbart is everything wrong with cultural perceptions of Judaism - he uses his "faith" to garner special treatment; he ultimately connives his way to personal gain, turning his back on the rest of his community - he is exactly what the stereotypes tell us to think. What makes him so powerful, though, is that he stands alone. Marx sees through him, for the most part, and the other Jewish members of the group are sincere and faithful men - quite the opposite of what Grossbart ends up being. Roth artfully constructs Grossbart in a way that sets him at odds with the rest of the Jewish community in the story, and says to a reader - "These are the stereotypes you've given society to work with when interacting with members of the Jewish community (be it a community of faith, culture, or both), and I say to you, through the actions and fate of Grossbart, that these caricatures and generalizations are false."

[Evan J. Biederstedt]

Well, I made that comment with Christianity mostly because present tenets like “salvation by faith alone” spur Christians to be missionaries, etc. The line between race and religion remains in Christianity as well. The Thirty Years’ War is a good example. It is pitiful and distressing that we are able to make color-coded maps of the world based upon the popularity of religious belief. As cognitive (potentially rational) beings, it is one of the most poignant disgraces that beliefs may be attributed to entire geographical areas (example of said map here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldreligion.png ) We should be ashamed of this.