I was really intrigued by the articles assigned for tomorrow's reading, in particular because while they are so "contemporary," they are also already quite dated. Take for instance "Jewish Education in the Age of Google" written by Jonathan Woocher. The article is dated to May 15, 2006—just shy of 10 years ago. While it may be hard for us to imagine, that means that this article was written over a year before tbe first iPhone was released.
I thought it would be interesting to see how many results we get for the same google searches Woocher conducts in his first paragraph. Here's what I found:
"Jewish Education" 2006—34.8 million hits, 2016—3.66 million
"Torah" 2006—7.02 million, 2016—17.4 million
"God" 2006—176 million, 2016—1.39 billion
"Israel" 2006—250 million, 2016—811 million
The result for "Jewish Education" which decreased tenfold since 2006 is puzzling to me, but the increases in the "Torah," "God," and "Israel" are pretty much what I would have expected to find.
Woocher reminds us, of course, that this is a "curious exercise," but nevertheless, it seems interesting to share here. I believe that Google also adjusts its search algorithm based on your location and/or search history, so some of you might want to share if you get very different results for these searches.
More broadly, the article makes me wonder how some of the conclusions may be more or less relevant today than they were 10 years ago. For instance, he notes that "good platforms can be even more powerful (and profitable) than good programs," and he cites a Jewish example of this in the Birthright model of providing a framework where program providers can come in and customize a program to their constituents and their beliefs. Where else do we see models like this? Can the contemporary synagogue be an effective "platform" as they continue to restructure in terms of dues, program schedules, etc? Or should we be seeking alternate platforms entirely?
2 comments:
It struck me how dated this article felt as well Max. Viewing the synagogue as a platform is a really interesting idea, but per usual, I'm still concerned about what unifying principles govern the "platform-agogue." I would argue that it's entirely acceptable for a community to still view themselves as such when they have multiple options for prayer, study, and service. However, what principles or areas allow the entire synagogue community to come together?
Maintaining a sense of "unity" within "community" is one of the greatest dangers of the platform-model, I think. For instance, many of us have attended one of the minyanim at Beth Am over the last couple of years, but we also all know participants who would identify their minyan—their "community" as "Library Minyan" and not "Temple Beth Am." I agree with you that I don't think this is a meaningless distinction, but I'm fairly certain there's no easy answer. I would be hard pressed to claim that Beth Am is anything but a successful implementation of the "platform-agogue" and at the same time, there may be any number of ways in which their platform cannot be customized by all as the Birthright platform can...
Post a Comment