Современный Израиль

Часть 1 Языки, социальные практики, межкультурные взаимодействия

Katz, Jacob, 1984. Hevrah masortit vehevrah modernit [Traditional society and modern society]. In Yehudei hamizrah, iyunim antropologim el ha’avar veha’hoveh [Jews of the east, anthropological studies about the past and present], edited by Shlomo Deshen and Moshe Shokeid. Pp. 27–34. TelAviv: Shoken. (Hebrew).

Katzir,Yael,1982.PreservationofJewishethnicidentityinYemen: Segregation and integration as boundary maintenance mechanisms.

Comparative Studies in Society and History 24 (2): 264–279. Kertzer, David. I., 1988. Ritual, politics, and power. New Haven

and London:Yale University Press.

Kleinberg, Aviad, 2000. Regel hahazir shel ha’ah g’inepro: Sipurei hakedoshim meshanim et ha’olam [Fra Ginepro’s leg of pork – Christian saints’ stories and their cultural role]. Tel Aviv: Kinneret Zmora-Bitan Dvir. (Hebrew).

Kong,Lily,2001.Mapping‘new’geographiesofreligion:Politicsand poetics in modernity. Progress in Human Geography 25 (2): 211–233.

Lebel, Udi, 2013. Politics of memory – The Israeli underground’s struggleforinclusioninthenationalpantheonandmilitarycommemoralization. London and NewYork: Routledge.

Lehmann, David, and Batia Siebzehner, 2006. Remaking Israeli Judaism: The challenge of Shas. London: Hurst Company.

Leon, Nissim, 2003. Kenes hateshuva hahamoni beharedi’ut hamizrahit[Themassassembly(theKenes)intheTshuvahmovement].In

Haredim yisraelim, hishtalvut belo te’imah? [Israeli Haredim: Integration without assimilation?], edited by Emmanuel Sivan and Kimmy R. Caplan. Pp. 82–98. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad and Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. (Hebrew)

Leon, Nissim, 2007.Al moderni’ut, hilum veniut dati: Hithadshut hahanhaga harabanit hakehilatit beyahadut hamizrahit [Modernity,

150

Chapter 4

New sites for rituals

secularization and religious mobility:The modern renewal of the rabbiniceliteinMizrachiJewry].Lishe’elatSugiotHevrati’otBeyisra’el

4: 5–31. (Hebrew).

Leon, Nissim, 2009. Hamesoriti’ut hamizrahit kehed lekiyumo hayehudi ba’olam ha’islam [The Mizrahi tradition as an echo of Jewish existence in the Islamic world]. Akdamut 23: 129–146. (Hebrew).

Levi, Shlomit, Hannah Levinson, and Elihu Katz, 2002. Yehudim yisra’elim: Diyukan, emunot, shmirat masoret, ve’arakhim shel yehudim beyisra’el 2000 [Beliefs, maintaining tradition and values of Jews in Israel]. Jerusalem:The Guttman Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research. (Hebrew).

Makuver, Haym, 2003. Rabbi Haym Pinto. Jerusalem: Michlol. (Hebrew).

Malinowski, Bronislaw, 1954. Magic, science and religion. Garden City, NY: DoubledayAnchor.

Markus, Robert A., 2005. Keitsad yeholim mekomot lehafekh likdoshim? Shorasheha shel tefisat hamekomot hakedoshim benatsrut [How on earth could places become holy? Origins of the Christian idea of holy places]. In Aliyah laregel: Yehudim, notsrim, muslemim [Pilgrimage: Jews, Christians, Muslims], edited by Ora Limor and Elchan- anReiner.Pp.243–255.Raanana:OpenUniversityofIsrael.(Hebrew).

Mitchell, Claire, 2005. Catholicism and the construction of communal identity in Northern Ireland. Irish Journal of Sociology 14 (1): 110–130.

Mugrabi, Abraham, 1988. Ma’aseh nisim [A wondrous story]. Jerusalem: Printed by the author. (Hebrew).

Nahshoni, Kobi, 2011. Hazon yoshiyahu: Harakevet ha’avirit shel harav pinto [Josiah’s vision: Rabbi Pinto’s airlift]. Yediot Ahronot,

151

Часть 1 Языки, социальные практики, межкультурные взаимодействия

September23.https://www.ynet.co.il / articles / 0,7340,L-4126428,00. html (Hebrew).

Nikolaisen, Bente, 2004. Embedded motion: Sacred travel among Mevlevi dervishes. In Reframing pilgrimage: Cultures in motion, edited by Simon Coleman and John Eade. Pp. 91–104. London and NewYork: Routledge.

Nora, Pierre, 1989. Between memory and history: Les Lieux de mémoire. Representations 26: 7–24.

Power, Rosemary, 2006. A place of community: «Celtic» Iona and institutional religion. Folklore 117: 33–53.

Putnam,RobertD.,2000.Bowlingalone:Thecollapseandrevival of American community. NewYork, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Ravitzky,Aviezer,1997a.Dati’imvehilonimbeyisra’el:Milhemet tarbut post-tsionit? [Religious and secular Jews in Israel: A postZionist kulturkampf?]. Alpayim 14: 80–96. (Hebrew)

Ravitzky,Aviezer, 1997b. Dati’im vehilonim beyisra’el: Milhemet tarbut?[ReligiousandsecularJewsinIsrael:Akulturkampf?].Policy Paper No. 4. Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute. (Hebrew).

Reiner, Elchanan, 2005. Hasheker hagaluy veha’emet hanisteret: Notsrim, yehudim, umekomot kedoshim be’erets yisra’el bame’ah ha-12 [The open lie and the secret truth: Christians, Jews, and holy sites in the Land of Israel in the twelfth century]. In Aliyah laregel: Yehudim,notsrim,muslemim[Pilgrimage:Jews,Christians,Muslims], edited by Ora Limor and Elchanan Reiner. Pp. 268–298. Raanana: Open University of Israel. (Hebrew).

Rubin, Nissan, 2009. New rituals – old societies: Invented rituals in contemporary Israel. Pp. 51–74. Boston:Academic Studies Press.

Safrai, Ze’ev, 1987. Kivrei tsaddikim u’mekomot kedoshim bamasoret hayehudit [Graves of the righteous and holy sites in

152

Chapter 4

New sites for rituals

Jewish tradition]. In Sefer ze’ev vilna’i: Mivhar ma’amarim biydiat ha’arets mukdashim lavilna’i [The Zev Vilnay book: Selected articles about the Land of Israel dedicated to Vilnay], edited by Eli Schiller. Pp. 303–313. Jerusalem:Ariel. (Hebrew).

Schramm, Katharina, 2004. Coming home to the Motherland: Pilgrimage tourism in Ghana. In Reframing pilgrimage: Cultures in motion, edited by S. Coleman and J. Eade. Pp. 133–149. London and NewYork: Routledge.

Schwab, William, A., 1992. The sociology of cities. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schwartz, Barry, 1982. The social context of commemoration: Astudy in collective memory. Social Forces 61: 374–402.

Shabtay, Malca, 2003. Yah salat el gtar: Gilgulah shel emunah b’kerevnashimyehudiotmidromtunisbetunisuveyisra’el1928–2003

[The story of religious belief among South Tunisian Jewish women in Tunis and in Israel 1928–2003]. TelAviv: Tcherikover Publishers. (Hebrew).

Shokeid, Moshe, and Shlomo Deshen, 1999. Dor hatemurah: Hemshehiut veshinui be’olamam shel yotsai tsefon africa [The generation of transition: Continuity and change among North African immigrants to Israel]. Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute. (Hebrew).

Sivan, Emmanuel, 1991. Dor tashah: Mitus, diyukan vezikaron

[The 1948 generation: Myth, profile and memory].TelAviv: Ministry of Defense Publishing. (Hebrew).

Stefko, Robert, Alzbeta Kiralova and Martin Mudrik, 2015. Strategicmarketingcommunicationinpilgrimagetourism.Procedia– Social and Behavioral Sciences 175: 423–430.

Turner, Victor, 1974. Dramas, fields and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

153

Chapter 5 Intercultural relations between Jews and Arabs in the social media

Глава 5 Intercultural relations between Jews

andArabs in the social media: How far can Facebook and Twitter go?*

Межкультурные отношения между евреями и арабами в социальных сетях: как далеко могут зайти Facebook и Twitter?**

Introduction

Themassivemigrationofthe20th and21st centurieshascontributed to heightened cultural and religious variety in societies around the world, many of which have historically included several ethnic or national groups. Ethnic groups must deal with differences – at times extreme cultural and religious differences – created by the «other». Suchdifferencesprovidefertilegroundforconflictsofinterest,general conflicts and cleavages between various sectors in a society, with the result that maintaining a common national basis becomes difficult (Peres and Ben-Rafael 2006). Conflicts may be created by daily frictions between different ethnic groups that live in close proximity and compete for housing, education, work and welfare resources, or between ethnic groups that rarely meet in daily life. In the second case, each group has its own labor market, consumer products and separate education systems, and as a result their knowledge

*Sabina Lissitsa

**Сабина Лисица

155

Часть 1 Языки, социальные практики, межкультурные взаимодействия

of one another is usually a pastiche of prejudices and stereotypes. In this context the social media probably constitute a unique channel through which to create interactions between people who do not meet in daily life.

Online environments create novel opportunities for interactions, both between like-minded people and across cleavages between people from different ethnic, religious, cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, overcoming limitations of time and place.The question that arises is whether online interactions correlate with social distance between people from groups in conflict, and what possible implications can be drawn from such contact.

The concept of social distance refers to the willingness, or lack thereof, of members of a social group to communicate and maintain relationships with members of a different social group. This broad concept includes affective distance, i.e., the extent of sympathy and affection of group members toward members of other social groups (Bogardus 1925); normative distance, i.e., the definition of «insider» and «outsider» and the determination of distinctions between «us» and «them»; and cultural and habitual distances, i.e., the degree of imitation that exists between groups (Karakayali 2009, Bourdieu 1989). In this study, we investigate affective social distance (hereinafter social distance).

DespitethewidespreadconceptionoftheStateofIsraelasa«melting pot» in its early years, Israeli society has gradually arrived at the realization that it has been and will continue to be composed of multiple cleavagesintheforeseeablefuture.ThecleavagesinIsraelisocietyexist, forexample,alongnational,religiousandethniclines,withthecleavage between Israeli Jews and Arabs perceived to be the deepest and most persistent (Horowitz and Lissak 2012, Peres and Ben-Rafael 2006).

156

Chapter 5 Intercultural relations between Jews and Arabs in the social media

ThisstudyanalyzeswhetheronlinecontactcorrelateswiththeselfperceivedsocialdistanceofJewstowardArabsinIsrael.Furthermore, it examines whether this correlation differs between Facebook and Twitter users and between users from the political left and right. In other words, the study tries to clarify whether online contact in social media serves to mediate the impact of these variables on social distance fromArabs.

1.Theoretical background

1.1The Contact Hypothesis

The contact hypothesis is one of the leading theories dealing with the reduction of intergroup conflicts. Introduced by Allport (1954), the contact hypothesis maintains that «by assembling people without regard for race, color, religion, or national origin, we can…destroy stereotypes and develop friendly attitudes» (p. 261).

The contact hypothesis suggests that by getting to know the «other,» individuals may be able not only to decompose their stereotypes of the specific individual they encounter, but also reduce their stereotyping of the entire group to which the individual belongs. Research has shown that contact can influence perceptions, attitudes and values in ways that minimize antagonism and prejudice (Fisher 2012, Pettigrew and Tropp 2000).

Still, contact is not a «magic bullet» against intergroup hostility and hatred. The conditions of contact matter. Conditions to capitalize on the benefits of contact may involve equal group status, common goals, intergroup cooperation and social norms supporting intergroup contact (Allport 1954), voluntary participation and intimate contact (Amir 1969), absence of anxiety and threat (Pettigrew and Tropp 2000)

157

Часть 1 Языки, социальные практики, межкультурные взаимодействия

and perceived openness to cross-cultural interaction. Pettigrew and Tropp (2000), in their meta-analysis of contact studies, have found that it is not necessary for all of Allport’s (1954) conditions to exist simultaneously for bias to be reduced. Indeed, mere contact canbeasufficientconditionforlastingbiasreductionthatgeneralizes beyond individuals to their larger group. Importantly, however, each of Allport’s conditions further enhances the bias-reducing effects of mere contact and, thus, the more supportive the conditions, the more likely it is that a successful and lasting outcome will be achieved (Pettigrew and Tropp 2013). In order to understand how intergroup contact reduces prejudice, several mediators have been suggested, including intergroup knowledge (Allport, 1954), anxiety (Stephan and Stephan 1984, White, Abu-Rayya, and Weitzel 2014) and empathy (Batson et al. 2005). However, the role of intergroup contact as a mediator of the impact of other variables on different aspectsofintergrouprelationshasnotreceivedproperattentioninthe research literature.

Our study attempts to apply intergroup contact theory as a way of explaining the correlation between online contact between Jews andArabs in social media and affective social distance between them and to investigate the mediation role of online contact.

1.2 Intercultural contact in social media

Online social media are an important tool for creating social contacts between members of different groups. Studies demonstrate that people often use the Internet, and particularly social media, to maintain contact with those whom they have preexisting relationships, as well as to develop new relationships online. Recent studies demonstrate, for example, that engagement in social media assists to increase the number of friends, including close friends;

158

Chapter 5 Intercultural relations between Jews and Arabs in the social media

develop new relationships; receive support when necessary; and even becomeexposedtoavarietyofpeopleandviews(Hamptonetal.2011, Rainie, Lenhart, and Smith 2012). The possibilities of interacting anonymously, hiding one’s physical appearance, controlling the interaction to a great extent and easily finding like-minded or similarly-situated others are especially valuable to members of stigmatized or marginalized groups (Amichai-Hamburger, McKenna, and Tal 2008, McKenna and Bargh 2000, Lev-On and Lissitsa, 2018, Lissitsa, 2017). Face-to-face intergroup contact is often complicated by logistical and financial obstacles, and can even be dangerous when inter-group hostility is extreme. Thus, the Internet’s facilitation ofcommunicationbeyondgeographicalboundaries,wherediscussants have more control over the conversation, where the conversation can be asynchronous – at the discussants’ own time and pace and with reduced social presence – seems conducive to the creation of preferable conditions for increased intergroup contact (AmichaiHamburger and McKenna 2006, Walther 2009).

Research focusing on the description of online contacts between users of different ethnicities and nations reveals the complex and ambiguousconsequencesofsuchinteractions.SchwabandGreitemeyer (2015) found that having out-group members as Facebook friends and accordingly being exposed to other cultures was positively associatedwithgeneralout-groupattitudes.Schumann,VanderLinden, and Klein (2012) examined interactions between nine different groups on Facebook and found that in the course of time prejudices toward the «other» diminished and mutual understanding increased as a result of online contact. Similar results were also identified in an experiment that examined the impact of online contacts between Muslim and Christian students in Australia (White and Abu-Rayya 2012).

159