America comes across as a country that’s limitless yet to those that live in it there are non-written rules and expectations all across the board whether it is socially or academically. In the texts “Eli The Fanatic” by Philip Roth and “The Loudest Voice”  by Grace Paley this is continuously proven that although the main characters aren’t doing anything wrong, what they do is frowned upon. When looking at the texts through the lens of America having transparent rules it helps us understand the position that these characters are placed in. America is generally seen and portrayed as a country that has endless freedom and is limitless but both texts “Eli The Fanatic” and “The Loudest Voice” are proof that although rules aren’t written, they’re implied and enforced. 

The sudden imposition of these rules causes main characters to feel “different” and “out of place” when they originally didn’t. Both of these stories are in regards to the drastic change and expectation vs reality of the Jewish community in America. Eli the fanatic highlights that even though it is not ‘required’ Jews have given up extreme practice to not offend others. In woodenton, the community in which Tzuif is attempting to be a part of is described as a “progressive suburban community” whose Jewish and Gentile residents desire to “live in comfort and beauty and serenity” (Roth, 1957). This was stated in the letter that Eli, the lawyer, sent to Tzuref after failing to convince him to stop his traditional teachings and attire. In the Letter on page 261-262 it states  “It seems to me that what most disturbs my neighbors are the visits to town by the gentleman in the black hat, suit, etc. Woodenton is a progressive suburban community whose members, both Jewish and Gentile, are anxious that their families live in comfort and beauty and serenity. This is, after all, the twentieth century, and we do not think it too much to ask that the members of our community dress in a manner appropriate to the time and place. Woodenton, as you may not know, has long been the home of well-to-do Protestants. It is only since the war that Jews have been able to buy property here, and for Jews and Gentiles to live beside each other in amity.” (Roth, 1957) This letter was sent in efforts to get Mr.Tzuerf to tell the gentlemen who comes in a black suit and hat to stop going around the residence in the black suit and hat, overall that attire as a whole because it disrupts the progressiveness and the peace and comfort the residents have achieved.  In the same letter Eli states “ both Jews and Gentiles alike have had to give up some of their more extreme practices in order not to threaten or offend the other. Certainly such amity is to be desired. Perhaps if such conditions had existed in prewar Europe, the persecution of the Jewish people, of which you and those 18 children have been victims, could not have been carried out with such success -in fact, might not have been carried out at all” (Roth, 1957). This compromise was made to satisfy the other party. This compromise was also a form of silencing and making jewish people more digestible to others in order to be able to live how they (jewish people) do, in peace and “comfort”. In the same text the main issue is that Eli needs Mr. Turf to stop teaching the eighteen children he teaches on woodenton grounds. Even though he isn’t doing anything wrong in regards to teaching the Talmud on his property, the community would “technically ” consider it a school, more specifically a boarding school. However the biggest issue isn’t the teaching as Eli is willing to allow it if they stay on yeshiva grounds. It seems to be the lack of adaptation of American clothing that really disrupts the community. After explaining to Mr.Tuzerf that his lack of adaptation is discrediting Eli, in the letter follows up with “ Therefore, Mr. Tzuref, will you accept the following con-ditions? If you can, we will see fit not to carry out legal action against the Yeshivah for failure to comply with township Zoning ordinances No. 18 and No. a3. The conditions are simply: 1. The religious, educational, and social activities of the Yeshivah of Woodenton will be confined to the Yeshi-vah grounds. A. Yeshivah personnel are welcomed in the streets and stores of Woodenton provided they are attired in clothing usually associated with American life in the 20th century. If these conditions are met, we see no reason why the Yeshivah of Woodenton cannot live peacefully and satisfactorily with the Jews of Woodenton – as the Jews of Woodenton have come to live with the Gentiles of Wood-enton. I would appreciate an immediate reply.” (Roth, 1957). All the text samples provide a clear indication that traditionality and lack of adaptation to the American culture is against community guidelines, not literally anyways. It’s not against the laws, the rules are just against what’s socially acceptable for the residents as well as academically. They (the residents) are allowed to keep and live in the progressiveness that is woodentoon, just as long as they are not doing too much. 

On the flip side of the same coin, we have “The Loudest Voice” by Grace Paley, once again even though there is no written rule or law that states that just because Shirley (the main character) is Jewish, it also means that she cannot participate in Christian activities in school like the Christmas play.There’s nothing that indicates that these two things are mutually exclusive. However that does not prevent Shirley’s mother from disapproving indirectly and frowning on Shirley’s participation in the play. Her mothers attitude when she finds out about the Christmas play and her participation is disinterested like she finds no point in Shirley’s participation. For instance when her father asked about what Shirley is doing at school at six o’clock. Her mothers response is “ Christmas” said my mother coldly.” This is an uninvested and off putting reaction from the mother, it expresses exactly how she feels about Shirley’s participation in the play, very uninterested and unpleasant. Yet Shirley’s father has a completely distinct reaction to Shirley’s participation. In the response to Shirley’s mothers response, her father states  “Ho! Ho!” my father said. “Christmas. What’s the harm? After all, history teaches everyone. We learn from reading that this is a holiday from pagan times also, candles, lights, even Hanukkah. So if they think it’s a private holiday, they’re only ignorant, not patriotic. What belongs to history belongs to all men. You want to go back to the Middle Ages? Is it better to shave your head with a second-hand razor? Does it hurt Shirley to learn to speak up? It does not. So maybe someday she won’t live between the kitchen and the shop. She’s not a fool.” (Paley, 1959).  Once Shirley thanks her father, he says his congratulations and the mother follows up with ” ‘Save it,’  my mother said.”(Paley, 1959). Once again disregarding, showing no interest in her daughter’s career as long as it has anything to do with the Christmas play. Somewhere in Shirely’s mothers mind there was an unwritten rule, a social contract, a law (in her view) that says Jewish children have no business participating in Christmas events in school or maybe even just in general. The question that now arises is where did Shirley’s mom get this idea.  Is it because the world around her at the time has given her the impression that this was not an Okay thing to do, or was she looking to please herself and stick to her Jewish values as an Jew living in America? In the end of the story we see a snippet of where this type of attitude from the mother stemmed from. In the end Mrs.Kornbluh, when at the home of Shirley begins to talk about the play and states “ The only thing … you know Charlie Turner – that cute boy in Celia’s class – a couple others? They got very small parts or no part at all. In very bad taste, it seemed to me. After all, it’s their religion.” Shirley’s mothers response seems to change a little and explains further. “ “Ach,” explained my mother [Shirely’s mother] , “what could Mr. Hilton do? They got very small voices; after all, why should they holler? The English language they know from the beginning by heart. They’re blond like angels. You think it’s so important they should get in the play? Christmas … the whole piece of goods … they own it” (Paley, 1959). Basically defending Shirely obtaining the role and that it’s not the teachers part that christian students got small parts, instead its because their voice weren’t up to par  with the demand of the role. However, also acknowledging that they own Christmas, so yeah its important that they take part in it but not the only ones who can. Once again we see unwritten rules, those of which limit Jewish people in spaces like school, and are enforced by other Jewish people. 

In many articles, peer reviewed essays and history itself America comes across as a very protective and embracive of expression like in the constitution in the first amendment where it says “freedom of expression” or the famous “of the people, for the people, by the people” (Lincoln, 1863). Yet across many stories, readings in schools and classrooms like “Eli The Fanatic”  by Philip Roth and “The Loudest Voice” Grace Paeley, it is the complete opposite. For example in this essay review by Jerlod S. Auberbach published by John Hopkins University Press about “Proskauer: His Life and Times” by Louis M. Hacker and Mark D. Hirsch talks about American Jewish History and specific time periods of it, and the effects it had on jewish people. Proskauer (Joseph M. Proskauer) made a distinguishing career as a judge and lawyer as well as a philanthropist. However, he was described as “an assimilated Jew threatened by Zionism, he never lost his need for Christian approval” (Auerbach, 1979). Since his job as a court jew, one who mediates between the state department and the Jewish community, made it very difficult to behave differently. It is stated that “Occasionally, he would turn to christians for their approval of his posture as a Jew. But the ultimate protector of his safety and the legitimation of his American Identity, was the government- as Proskauer’s repeated pledges of allegiance to its testified” (Auerbach, 1979). How is it that across history, articles and even experiences people feel “protected” by the government yet in texts written based on experiences people feel the need to seek approval from the more accepted identity (Christianity and American standards). People like Proskauer, even though successful, still feel the need to seek approval from christians, but claim to feel “protected” by the government. Shirleys mother expected Shirley to exclude herself from a christian play because “they own it” (Paley, 1959). Shirley was expected by her mother to put herself in a box and shrink herself to please others like (Mrs.Kornbluh), and be more digestible, like how Mr. Tuzerf was expected to dial down traditionality (clothing and teaching wise) by Eli and the people of the woodenton community. 

Across both stories America comes across as this country that has created this pedestal and a line that Jewish people must follow. However, it is this line that is created and enforced by Jewish people themselves. This demonstrates through the shame that Shirley’s mom has on Shirley’s participation and being active in a  christmas play, instead of letting participation and “outspokenness” be left to those that celebrate Christmas. While on the other side that actually of the same coin, Mr. Turerf was shamed and expected to stop teaching and tell others to change the way they dress to be more American to fit in with the social norms. Proskauer, who was a outstanding Jewish with an exceptional career in politics, seemed to seek approval from Christians just so that he can have a good posture as a Jew (to them), once again more digestible to those around even though by law everything is allowed to have whatever position he has as a Jewish. All this happened and was expected of them, not by law but by social and academic standards. In the end, the goal seemed to be to make both main characters more digestible to others in America. This clearly showcases that America is often depicted as a society with infinite freedom, yet both the texts “Eli The Fanatic” by Philip Roth and “The Loudest Voice” by Grace Paley demonstrate that, while regulations aren’t written, they are inferred and enforced. 

Citation 

Halpern, Ben. “Jewishness in America.” American Jewish History, vol. 69, no. 1, 1979, p. 103. 

Roth, Philip. Goodbye, Columbus. Toronto ; New York ; London, Bantam Books, 1969.

“The Loudest Voice.” Story of the Week, storyoftheweek.loa.org/2022/12/the-loudest-voice.html.