Immigrants and Bureaucrats: Ethiopians in an Israeli Absorption Center 9781782389361

Citation preview

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page i

IMMIGRANTS AND BUREAUCRATS

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page ii

NEW DIRECTIONS IN ANTHROPOLOGY General Editor: Jacqueline Waldren, Sub-Faculty of Social Anthropology, University of Oxford Volume 1

Coping with Tourists: European Reactions to Mass Tourism Edited by Jeremy Boissevain

Volume 2

A Sentimental Economy: Commodity and Community in Rural Ireland Carles Salazar

Volume 3

Insiders and Outsiders: Paradise and Reality in Mallorca Jacqueline Waldren

Volume 4

The Hegemonic Male: Masculinity in a Portuguese Town Miguel Vale de Almeida

Volume 5

Communities of Faith: Sectarianism, Identity, and Social Change on a Danish Island Andrew S. Buckser

Volume 6

After Socialism: Land Reform and Social Change in Eastern Europe Edited by Ray Abrahams

Volume 7

Immigrants and Bureaucrats: Ethiopians in an Israeli Absorption Center Esther Hertzog

Volume 8

Venetian Life on a Lagoon Island Lidia Sciama

Volume 9

Colonialism Recalled: Dialogues with Belgian Colonial Officers Marie-Benedicte Dembour

Volume 10 Mastering Soldiers: Conflict, Emotions, and the Enemy in an Israeli Military Unit Eyal Ben-Ari Volume 11 The Great Immigration: Russian Jews in Israel Dina Siegel

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page iii

I MMIGRANT S

AND

B UREAUCRAT S



Ethiopians in an Israeli Absorption Center

Esther Hertzog

Berghahn Books New York • Oxford

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page iv

First published in 1999 by Berghahn Books © Esther Hertzog 1999 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the written permission of Berghahn Books. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hertzog, Esther. Immigrants and bureaucrats Ethiopians in an Israeli Absorption Center / Esther Hertzog. p. cm. -- (New directions in anthropology ; v. 7) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 1-57181-941-X (acid-free paper) 1. Jews, Ethiopian--Israel--Social conditions. 2. Immigrants-Services for--Israel. 3. Bureaucracy--Israel. 4. Israel--Ethnic relations. I. Series. DS113.8.F34H47 1998 97-31599 362.87'08992805694--DC21 CIP Rev. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Printed in the United States on acid-free paper. Cover photo: Israel Talby

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page v

To Eva – my mother Avraham – my husband Guy, Israeli, Sion and Dan – my sons Orna – my daughter-in-law

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page vi

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page vii

C ONTENTS



Preface by Emanuel Marx

viii

Acknowledgements

xi

List of Hebrew Terms and Israeli Organizations

xiii

Map of Israel

xv

Map of Galuyot Absorption Center

xvi

Introduction

xvii

1. The Center as a Dependent System

1

2. Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

29

3. The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

68

4. Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

102

5. Categorizing Women: An Example of Bureaucratic Influence on Family Organization

141

6. The Role of “Cultural Explanations” in Gender-Based Relations

164

Conclusion

193

Select Bibliography

196

Index

201

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page viii

P REFACE



W

hile the welfare state appears in many guises, it likes to advertise itself as a medium for the equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth and a champion of the poor and the feeble. This claim is partly justified, for the state often distributes certain funds and services according to simple and universal rules, as with national social security and national health schemes. Even when the rules are bent in practice, the mere existence of such institutions instills in citizens a sense of personal worth and well-being, and of social solidarity. This benevolent image of the state cannot conceal the struggles for power which dominate its manifold activities, for it is run by officials whose main goals are to expand and perpetuate their respective organizations, even at the expense of other agencies of the state, and to consolidate their own positions within them. The citizens become the means for achieving these ends. They are too valuable to be left to fend for themselves. They must, if possible, become and remain clients. For what would a social welfare agency amount to without a steady supply of undeserving poor, or a police force without hardened criminals, or an army without implacable enemies? Organizations such as these may combine several strategies to remain in touch with clients. They may first discover “social problems,” such as drug dealing or domestic violence, and then seek to alleviate them, being careful not to eradicate them; they may define a defenseless set of people, such as immigrants from Ethiopia or persons afflicted with hepatitis B, as innately dependent and then act on their behalf; or, they may prescribe strict social or legal norms and impose them on helpless clients, such as welfare recipients, army conscripts or truck drivers. viii

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page ix

Preface

Dr. Hertzog’s study of a reception center for Ethiopian immigrants in Israel examines the complex dependence relations between officials and their immigrant clients. In the course of her study she came across many instances of seemingly incongruous behavior. For instance, the officials at the reception center sought to restrict direct contacts between the immigrants and the outside world, and considered it their duty to mediate all relations with official bodies, journalists, and even ordinary visitors. They considered the study of Hebrew a top priority, but ran the classes in the reception center where the students were mostly exposed to other Amharic-speaking immigrants. They wished to prepare the new immigrants for life and work in the new environment, but ignored their traditional housekeeping and childraising practices and their vocational and professional skills. All these perplexing facts made Dr. Hertzog conclude that the officials at the reception center mainly served their own interests and cared only marginally for the immigrants. She also found that the officials justified the dependence relationships with a theory of adaptation that put all the emphasis on cultural retraining. It argued that the new immigrants’ cultural heritage was “traditional” and had little value in a “modern” environment. It was up to the state to prepare the immigrants for life in modern society. The purpose of retraining was to absorb the immigrants into the new culture, or as the sociologist C. Wright Mills once put it, to make the immigrants “inconspicuous.” Therefore the reception center was called an absorption center. Evidently this theory suited the requirements of the officials. It certainly conflicted with those sociological theories of adaptation that relate the adaptation of immigrants to the establishment of progressively larger and more complex networks of relationships, especially in the areas of work, school, and home. Any relationship that can promote the immigrants’ interests, any skill that can be put to work, facilitates their adaptation. These theories do not underestimate the importance of learning the local language; rather they treat this as a skill required by some persons and not by others. For many occupations can be practiced without a full knowledge of the language, and many newcomers may establish social networks and find employment among fellow immigrants. Thus the immigrants from Russia have set up theaters, orchestras, newspapers, and stores that cater largely to a Russian-speaking clientele. A social network theory of adaptation also permits comparisons between processes of migration and socialization. In both processes, networking is an incessant activity, whose success is never assured; in the course of time networks may expand, contract, and change. ix

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page x

Preface

Adaptation in the sociological sense is obstructed by the bureaucratic setting of the reception center. This comes out so clearly in the ethnography that one may either gain the impression that the officials acted out of malice or that the author was prejudiced against the officials. Neither was the case. The officials were convinced they were acting in the best interests of the immigrants, and often assumed that their own interests coincided with those of the center’s inmates. The ethnography records that officials were often kind and considerate. And the author was a social worker before she became a social anthropologist. In the first stages of fieldwork she saw nothing wrong with “helping” the immigrants, and aided and abetted the officials. Only after much reflection did she realize that she was looking at a system of power-dependence relations. From then on the study gradually developed into a profound analysis of bureaucratic behavior in a welfare setting. As the study developed, Dr. Hertzog’s deep concern with the plight of the immigrants became transmuted into a careful and insightfuI sociological analysis. She does not accuse or moralize; the ethnography and analysis speak for themselves, and permit readers to draw their own conclusions. Emanuel Marx Tel-Aviv University

x

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page xi

A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS



T

o my friends at the Galuyot absorption center, immigrants and officials, who accepted Dan and myself warmly and openly, I am grateful. They made my fieldwork possible and often enjoyable. I shall always keep in mind that Fanny, Efraim, Uri, the center’s directors, and Arie, the cultural co-ordinator, allowed me to take part in the daily life of the center. I think of Ziva and Shai with great affection. Because of them, living in Galuyot became a pleasure and the difficulties that arose from time to time were soon forgotten. Their warmth and Ziva’s sense of humor and irony supported me throughout my stay at the center. To my two good friends and tutors at the Academy, Professor Harvey Goldberg from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Professor Emanuel Marx from Tel-Aviv University, I owe my exciting journey into new intellectual spheres during the long years in the via dolorosa bureaucratic corridors of the university. I consider myself most lucky to have had Professor Marx as my instructor. I treasure his complex insights and humane integrity. Two farsighted and generous organizations, Joint Israel and Beit Berl College, made my research project and this book possible. J.D.C (Joint Distribution Committee) Israel financed my field study and the analysis of the data. Ami Bergman, from the Joint, assisted me from the very beginning of my research in many ways. Beit Berl, my college, has generously subsidized the English translation of the book. The translation was done by Dr. Itzchak Einav and edited by Judy Montague. I am grateful to both. xi

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page xii

Acknowledgments

Two dear friends also had a share in the birth of this book. Israel Talbi contributed his beautiful photographs and wise advice. Marty Bokel provided his expertise in providing the computerized copy. Last but not least there is my family, my mother, Eva, and husband, Avraham, who assisted me so efficiently and whole-heartedly, whenever necessary, and our sons Guy, Israeli, Sion and Dan. I am specially grateful to Dan, who left his father and brothers and joined me, sometimes unwillingly, at the center, and hope that he gained something from this anthropological experience during his third year of life. My last word of gratitude goes to Avraham, who has been a real friend and partner all along the way, for better and for worse.

xii

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page xiii

L IST OF H EBREW T ERMS AND I SRAELI O RGANIZ ATIONS



Absorption center – An Israeli social framework established in the 1960s and overseen by the Jewish Agency. The absorption center brings Jewish immigrants together and offers them various services intended to facilitate their adaptation. According to government policy, absorption takes place when immigrants leave behind their “old customs” and take on Israeli identity and customs. Absorption class – separate classes for Ethiopian children only, having their own teachers. Hebrew, Bible, and Mathematics were the main subjects taught in these classes. Aliyat Hanoar – An organization for young immigrants (founded in 1932) subordinated to the Jewish Agency. It brings Jewish youngsters to Israel and provides them with hostels and boarding schools. Amishav – The center for aid to Ethiopian immigrants, subordinated to the Joint (established during Operation Moshe). Bath ritual – A vital Jewish ritual for maintaining pure family life. It obligates women to take a bath in a community "mikve" 7 "clean" days after her menstruation is over. Through this ritual the woman is supposed to purify herself before having intercourse with her husband. The bath ritual was used by the Rabbinate to recognize the Ethiopian immigrant women's Judaism. Secular women are required to take a ritual bath when they get married, and need the Rabbinate's approval to marry.

xiii

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page xiv

List of Hebrew Terms and Israeli Organizations

Blood Letting – Taking a drop of blood from a male Ethiopian immigrant’s penis in a ceremony held by the Orthodox Jewish establishment to ensure the Jewishness of Ethiopian Jews. Emuna – An organization of politically-oriented religious women that concentrates on voluntary activities in social welfare spheres and on running day care centers for infants. Falashas – The name given to Jews in Ethiopia. Hamula (Arabic) – An extended family. Jewish Agency – A world-wide Jewish organization (founded in 1929) that encourages and assists Jews to settle in Israel. The absorption centers founded by the Agency are one of its main means of aiding the immigrants in their first years in the country. Joint (J.D.C. or Joint Distribution Committee) – An American Jewish organization (founded in 1914) which offers social assistance and services to Jews around the world. The term “Joint” is systematically used throughout the text. Law of Return (passed in 1950) – The legal state recognition that Jews from anywhere in the world automatically become citizens of the Israeli State on their arrival in the country. Mohel – A religious functionary who performs circumcision ceremonies on male babies on their eighth day after birth, as an act of recognition of their belonging to the Jewish people. Operation Moshe – The secret operation of the Israeli government in 1984-1985 that brought some 7,000 Ethiopian Jews to Israel. Operation Shlomo – In the space of thirty-six hours in March 1991 (24th-25th) over 14,000 Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to Israel. Somechet (plural somchot) – A female paraprofessional worker in the welfare services. The somechet is employed on the basis of her success in the roles of mother and housewife and is expected to instruct other women, usually from weaker groups, in performing these roles. Ulpan – Hebrew classes for adult immigrants, usually given at the center, considered one of the most important services granted to them by the state.

xiv

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page xv

Map of Israel with Relevant Points of Interest

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

xv

Jerusalem Tel-Aviv Haifa Herzlia Netanya Hadera Givat Olga Or-Akiva and Galuyot Kayit Veshait Pardes Hana Michmoret Safed Mevaseret Ma'alot Yerucham Binyamina Afula Naharya

00-Prelims

1/21/09

2:39 PM

Page xvi

Map of Galuyot Absorption Center

xvi

00a-Intro

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page xvii

I NTRODUCTION



I

n Israel the state takes care of new Jewish immigrants. The intensive bureaucratic treatment of certain categories of immigrants ensues in power-dependence relations, based on the officials’ control over resources meant for the immigrants and their treatment of them as people in need. This book studies the relations between new immigrants from Ethiopia and officials in an absorption center, which I call the Galuyot center. It shows how bureaucrats structure social distance by categorizing immigrants as groups in need of help. They also endorse discrimination of some groups in relation to others, women and elderly persons, in particular. I argue that absorption centers, which are central to Israeli immigration policy, are an extreme case of bureaucratic control over immigrants. While the agencies of the state believe that they facilitate the immigrants’ integration into wider society, in fact they achieve the opposite. Much of the vast sociological and anthropological literature on the integration of immigrants in Israel assumes that they are divided into two main categories, namely “Eastern” and “Western” or “traditional” and “modern” immigrants. Most of them describe the “absorption process” as a “cultural” phenomenon, and deal mainly with the difficulties of the integration of “Eastern” Jews.1 Most of the recent studies on the “absorption” of Ethiopian immigrants follow this ethnocentric rhetoric and focus on cultural gaps and differences between the immigrants and veterans.2 Earlier studies on absorption centers emphasize the ideological aims of the “absorbers,” in terms of the social, psychological, and educational services offered to the immigrants, who are supposedly in need of help to overcome the trauma of immigration (see Horowitz and Frenbel 1975). xvii

00a-Intro

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page xviii

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

However, a few exceptional studies like those of Marx (1976) and Bernstein (1981) have argued that the “absorption of immigrants” is better understood in terms of bureaucratic control. These scholars emphasized the central role played by state agencies. They suggested that the integration of immigrants is characterized by power-dependence relations that develop in the bureaucratic settings in which specific groups of immigrants, namely of Asian and African origin, have been concentrated for long periods of time. My analysis follows the bureaucratic approach, suggesting that the absorption of Ethiopian immigrants, similar to that of other “non-Western” groups of immigrants in the past, was controlled and influenced by the needs and interests of state and other “absorbing” agencies. Powerdependence relations, intensive intervention and discriminating policies were the outcome of organized state patronage. The absorption centers, like previous concentration frameworks, were thus a most conspicuous aspect of this bureaucratic control. I argue that the members of an absorption center, like any social framework that is conceived of as “closed” due to physical, organizational, conceptual or other means, develop power-dependence relations. The closure of full-fledged institutions by physical means and the closure of social categories by conceptual means can only be partial. The officials build up an image of closure as an essential aspect of control, and seek to monopolize the connection between the “inside” and the “outside” world. A “closed” situation, like that of the Galuyot absorption center, implies that those in charge may be able to manipulate property and people and turn them into power resources in their everyday interactions. This situation enables officials to control access to services and social relationships. Therefore, power-dependence relations emerge within the “closed” framework especially between officials and immigrants. The perceived distance between people seemingly belonging to separate “closed” entities is an artifact of the “closed” bureaucratic context. The first chapter describes the absorption center, underlining the contrast between its closed appearance and its integration and dependence on the social environment. The entrance to the center is open but controlled. People in the center are integrated into the environment, especially the neighboring township. The operation of the center on a day-to-day basis depends on the external environment for materials and services. The visual description of the center is used to demonstrate the conceived distance between people as “insiders” or as “outsiders” in relation to the boundaries. xviii

00a-Intro

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page xix

Introduction

I found that borders were created and cultivated by individual officials, with the intention of confirming as fully as possible their control over the enclosed domain. They saw to it that their domination would be recognized by others, in and outside the center. This enabled those in control to act as mediators or negotiators between the “two worlds,” between those “inside” and those “outside” the center. By controlling the lines of communication, they could also control the resources of the system and increase their power. However, power-dependence relationships are amenable to change; they are influenced to the extent to which alternatives are available and being used. Alternative services and resources are a way of breaking out of the seemingly closed and controlled world. The second chapter examines aspects of the power relations at the center. It is focused on the officials, and emphasizes aspects of power and control. The officials’ struggle for recognition, control, and authority permeates daily interactions at the center. The legitimacy and validity of their control over the center and the people under their responsibility must constantly be defended against competition. One part of the problem is the officials’ difficulty to deal with the rather limited autonomy of the center, which is supervised by other officials as well as dependent on the world outside. Patronage rhetoric is used by the officials as a justification and a test of their power. The officials’ notion of control and management of the center is associated with their conception of their responsibility for the immigrants and the necessity to protect them. While the officials lack ultimate authority, they still behave as if it is they who are responsible, and in so doing they try to convince others that they are in control. The belief that contact with immigrants requires official permission induces people and organizations to negotiate with the officials. Thus, the immigrants become a resource in the officials’ dealings with the world outside. Officials may use resources that people and organizations outside the center provide for the immigrants in the pursuance of their own interests, while claiming to represent the immigrants’ best interests. The concentration of dependent immigrants at the center also tends to serve the interests of external organizations who will often use the immigrants’ perceived need for organized bureaucratic treatment in order to win control over resources, such as the exclusive representation and treatment of immigrants. The third chapter discusses the Ethiopian immigrants as a social category which can be governed by officials, as a “special social problem” that can be solved by absorption centers. Official documents and publixix

00a-Intro

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page xx

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

cations, and an interview with the director of the Galuyot center are analyzed. I argue that the social life of the absorption center and the treatment of the residents are influenced by actions and decisions made by various organizations outside the center and by the way in which they allocate resources. The struggle for resources, allocated for the “absorption of immigrants” and especially the “absorption of Ethiopian immigrants” by government and affiliated agencies, is based on defining the distinctive needs of needy groups. Three main organizations involved in the integration of Ethiopian immigrants are considered: the Ministry of Immigration and Absorption, the Jewish Agency, and the Ministry of Labor and Welfare. In the fierce struggle over resources, each of them presents itself as the most suitable and most professional body to treat the immigrants. The immigrants are considered as persons with special problems that call for special treatment and for whom increased resources are required. Treating the immigrants collectively as a category with acute social problems is used as a rationale for demanding resources to solve the problem. Treating people as a category is also a way of distributing resources without relinquishing power. When reviewing the amount and types of aid the Ethiopian immigrants received, I found that most of the resources intended for the immigrants became bureaucratic operations and only a small portion was given directly to the immigrants themselves. This situation assured the continued dependency of the immigrants on the bureaucrats. The creation of the absorption center as a facility for integrating the immigrants into Israeli society is the most cogent example in support of this argument. Various welfare officials, including social workers and paraprofessional welfare workers, played a central role in the attempt at gaining hold over the issue of absorption and the resources to be allocated to the competing ministries and agencies. In the struggle over resources, all the bureaucracies described the immigrants as belonging to defined groups which were regarded as natural and self-evident. These were perceived as homogeneous closed units: “immigrants,” “ethnic group,” “family,” “gender,” and “age.” The Ethiopian immigrants, for example, were described as a distinct homogeneous social category whose members were essentially different from other people around them. They were seen as having a special culture expressed in family structure, social structure, religion, and mentality. I suggest that this categorization permits the agencies of the state and its officials to treat persons in a way that reflects the power relations in society at large. The examples of housing and vocational training show that xx

00a-Intro

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page xxi

Introduction

whenever people are treated as a category, some categories are bound to be preferred over others. That is, while delivering resources to the immigrants, the organizations differentiate between families and individuals, between males and females, between young and old, and between the educated and uneducated. The means used and the processes involved in the differentiation and discrimination and their impact on the immigrants’ social life are described. Social categories were created in order to produce units for particular administrative requirements. The influence of the bureaucratic setting on social relations, especially the endorsement of “families” as the units to be treated and the empowerment of men as their representatives, is emphasized. The fourth chapter elaborates on the social closure and power-dependence relations in the Galuyot absorption center. The data illustrate how people affiliated themselves to groups in their daily interactions. However, there was no substantial separation based on collective perceptions among them. It was rather the bureaucratic requirements and control that encouraged people to make collective distinctions among themselves. I maintain that the bureaucrats introduced inequalities into relationships at the center and served to cultivate power-dependence relations. Several case studies demonstrate how these relations were influenced by bureaucratic conditions and manipulated by the officials’ interests. Two events, one that took place at the communal club and another in a caravan, are examined comparatively with a focus on a formal bureaucratic occasion versus a non-formal bureaucratic event. I argue that social distance and power imbalance grew in relation to the extent of bureaucratic elements present in the situation. The first event, a lecture presented by a Jewish Agency official at the communal club, examines the distance in social relationships as the outcome of the officials’ behavior. The second event was a series of circumcision celebrations, and is used to underline the influence of the bureaucratic setting on dependence situations and power relations among the immigrants. By comparing several celebrations, those in which the Ethiopian immigrants had some control versus those that were organized almost exclusively by officials, it became clear that dependence increased wherever officials were predominant. The treatment of women as a category is used, in the fifth chapter, as an example of the bureaucratic influence on the immigrants’ social networks and familial organization. The intensive and varied kinds of bureaucratic interventions in the lives of women became powerful means of influencing the roles and power division between men and women. xxi

00a-Intro

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page xxii

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The role of the female home instructor is discussed in detail. Based on similarities between their job at the center and their “female” role at home the home instructors functioned as social agents and interacted with immigrant women as housewives and mothers. The intervention of these instructors and other officials in immigrant family life took place against a background of relative deprivation of immigrant women and their expectations of receiving resources and services from the officials. In fact, the main aid they got from the officials was the mediation of services. Gender distinction made in handling the immigrants developed separate spheres of occupations. This distinction then affected women’s economic opportunities and their position in the family. The generalized role distinction between men and women reflected the perceived boundaries of the center: women were expected to stay at home, at the center, while men were expected to go out beyond the borders of home and the center. The sixth chapter examines how gender-based concepts of labor and role division influenced everyday interactions at the center. Gender relations are explained in terms of prevailing power-dependence relations, and reject the prevailing cultural theories about the Ethiopian immigrants. I argue that power differences between the sexes and gender division of labor were influenced by the power structure that prevailed in the social environment of the center and its bureaucratic setting. The bureaucrats at the center and beyond it often insisted on using cultural concepts to explain the Ethiopian immigrants’ present social and family organization. However, this kind of logic was not substantiated by the ethnography. A dichotomous division of roles between men and women, based on their past culture in Ethiopia, is neither substantiated by my evidence nor the ethnographic literature. It is shown how the social climate of the center relegated women, exclusively and self-evidently, to care for children and run the home. This perceived connection underlay the gender-based division of roles and it reflected the values and practices of center personnel. Thus, the limited independence of women at the center was more related to bureaucrats’ prevailing concepts and to their administrative needs and constraints than to the traditional cultural background of the immigrants.

Research Methods I conducted my research between 1983 and 1985 at the time of Operation Moshe, the first of two waves of immigrants brought over from Ethiopia xxii

00a-Intro

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page xxiii

Introduction

by the Israeli Government. In all, some 7,000 people were brought into Israel during that period. In my capacity as a social worker, I had been asked by the Joint Distribution Committee (the “Joint”) and the Jewish Agency to prepare a training program for the welfare aids who would be working with the immigrants. It was after visiting various absorption centers that housed these Ethiopian immigrants, in order to create this program, that I decided to devote the time to research them further. I chose the absorption center near Or-Akiva as a place for my research because I had once served as head of the Education Department in the town. I had reason to believe that my relations with the people, and with various officials working with Ethiopians, would allow me to play a role in the encounter between the immigrants and the local inhabitants, organizations, and services. My earlier relations with the town proved important from the very first stages of my research. For instance, the director of the absorption center used my connection with the headmasters in town to persuade one of them to accept immigrant children the other had rejected. My successful intervention in this matter very likely had a positive influence on the way people related to me from then on. When the potential of my contribution was recognized by both the immigrants and those who worked with them, I was accepted as a volunteer assistant to the center’s Cultural Coordinator. At first, I intended to focus exclusively on the immigrants. My assumption was that there were aspects of absorption unique to the Ethiopian immigrants, worthy of study, which could shed light on hitherto unresearched areas. As my study progressed, I decided to focus on the “absorbers,” emphasizing the exercise of power and bureaucracy. Thus, the subject of immigrants’ absorption is discussed as a sociological debate on power-dependence relations in which the bureaucratic treatment of Ethiopian immigrants is used as a case study. During the course of my analysis of the ethnographic material, I began to see myself in terms of the people I was studying. In fact, my reactions were very often similar to those of the “absorbing” officials. For this reason, considering my own place in the research as one of the officials emphasizes the influence of the social context on the individual’s behavior. From her point of view even the researcher ceases to be merely a researcher and is transformed into one of the dramatis personae whose behavior is also to be assessed. If, however, there are expressions of criticism, understood as personal in character, this indicates my own failure to take full cognizance of social behavior as an element of the interaction between people in a given situation. xxiii

00a-Intro

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page xxiv

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Gluckman’s (1967) and Marx’s (1985) views of anthropological research served as important guidelines for me. Gluckman insists on the full involvement of the researcher within the social context being studied. And Marx notes that: “We may state categorically that the closer the researcher gets to the people he [or she] studies the more he [or she] will learn about them”; and “The anthropologist lives a full life in the field of his study and becomes part of it. In this manner he studies himself as part of the wider social context” (139-140). In the spirit of these ideas, I chose to become personally involved in the activities of the absorption center. My efforts to try and live on the site were finally rewarded, and my son Dan and I were given a caravan. Dan was two years old when we first went to stay on the site. While we lived there, we slept in the caravan at least three nights a week and went to the site every day.* Dan spent his days in a creche in Or-Akiva. When I brought him to our caravan at four o’clock, it became our habit to take walks through the absorption center and visit our neighbors. We established a special tie with some of the immigrants, among those were Ziva, Shai, and their baby, Eitan, as well as their friends Adam and Dorit. When we stayed overnight in the caravan they would come to visit us. The children in the neighboring caravans loved to come and play with the toys I had brought for Dan from home. At night, when my son was asleep, I would put the events of the day into writing. As far as memory permitted, I was careful to describe in detail my interactions with the people, their behavior and the language used. In the process of analyzing the material, I copied the quotations jotted down in my diary almost verbatim. I felt that in this way I might remain true to what had taken place and to what had been spoken. My voluntary work as an assistant to the Cultural Coordinator served as another channel of information from the inside. The work allowed me access to educational institutions as a representative of the center, enabling me to familiarize myself with the manner in which the immigrant children were being received and become aware of their parents’ attitudes to this reception. This voluntary work was of vital importance for me because it presented me as a volunteer offering her experience and her time to both the immigrants and the staff. This status also strengthened my right to the caravan and my place in the team of officials working with and among the immigrants. It might be said that I functioned in two different areas. In the one I was the official, recognized as belonging to the local establishment; in * My son and I used to return to our family home in Michmoret every other night.

xxiv

00a-Intro

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page xxv

Introduction

the second I was an inhabitant of one of the caravans and therefore close to the immigrants themselves. Two factors could have resulted from this situation: the officials would resent my closeness to the immigrants, and tend to be wary when they spoke about them in my presence. On the other hand, the immigrants might become suspicious of me because of my ongoing connection with the officials. In fact, my connection with the staff enabled me to be present at staff meetings and other bureaucratic situations. It was also possible that my presence might have had a restraining influence on what was said and done about immigrants. Yet it seems that I did not affect matters in any significant way. My contacts with the immigrants were close, especially with the women; the fact that Dan was with me helped to increase that closeness. Furthermore, our living in the absorption center afforded me a personal knowledge of the conditions of dependence experienced by the immigrants. During my eighteen months of fieldwork, I visited several other centers, enriching my material by widening my perspectives, as I had arrived in Galuyot four months later than the immigrants and wanted to learn what had happened during their first months. I succeeded in getting myself onto the staff of an absorption center as a somechet (a woman worker instructing immigrant women in homemaking and childcare). The center, called Kait Veshait, was very close to Galuyot. Over several weeks, I travelled to this new center a few times each week; in this way, I was able to see the immigrants during the first days of their arrival at an absorption center. I also became familiar with the medical examinations and treatments the immigrants underwent during their first months in Israel. Most important of all, I was able to witness processes that constructed bureaucratic control over the Ethiopian immigrants. This material was recorded in a manner similar to that described in my study at Galuyot. I did not make use of these materials during the processing of my data; they served only as food for thought, and for self-criticism. I did, however, make good use of such data as a recorded interview with the director of the absorption center, and of various official documents. In Israeli society the term “immigrant absorption” refers both to the Jewishness of the newcomers and the ideological commitment of the state to facilitate the integration processes of these Jewish immigrants. The issue of (Jewish) immigration is considered one of the most significant social issues of Israel’s public life. The founding of the state is itself perceived as inseparable from the arrival of Jewish immigrants to the country at the beginning of this century. Subsequent to this, huge waves xxv

00a-Intro

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page xxvi

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

of immigrants began arriving from Europe in the 1920s and the 1930s. Between 1924 and 1936 some 282,000 Jewish immigrants arrived in the country from Poland and Western European countries and contributed to tripling the Jewish population. The years 1947/48 marked the arrival of holocaust survivors. In the 1950s, new immigrants from Asian and African countries also began to arrive en masse. Altogether, between 1947 and 1951, some 700,000 immigrants arrived in Israel from Asia, Africa, and Europe, doubling the Jewish population in the newly born Jewish state. In the last decade, notably between 1989 and 1994, an overwhelming number of immigrants from Russia (over 600,000) have arrived. Ethiopians began arriving in the 1980s and the Ethiopian population in Israel today amounts to approximately 60,000 people. They arrived in two main waves, known as operation Moshe, between 1984 and 1985, and operation Shlomo in 1991. The terms “direct absorption” versus “indirect absorption” are used to refer to the extent of state agencies’ involvement in the absorption processes, the extent of bureaucratic control over integration processes of individuals and groups into society. But they also reflect the different attitudes, the basic concepts, ideologies, and practices relevant to Israeli absorption policy since the establishment of the state. While they can be used to describe the main characteristics of Israeli absorption policy and ideology chronologically, they also point to the differences in treatment of the Russian and Ethiopian immigrants. “Direct absorption” policy was applied in the “Russian” case – budgets and grants were transferred directly to the immigrants from the very beginning of their arrival in the country, which they were free to use as they saw fit. “Indirect absorption” policy was applied in the “Ethiopian” case and refers to the use of absorption frameworks for treating the immigrants in their first few years in the country – temporary housing, language studies, and some social services. State bureaucrats considered and treated the Ethiopian immigrants as a collective in special need of protection and care. Public resources were distributed mainly in contexts of tight bureaucratic control, achieved by the concentration of the immigrants in absorption centers. First the immigrants were brought en masse from Ethiopia, after the heads of the Ethiopian community agreed, prior to their arrival in the country, that they should go through religious rituals to reaffirm their Jewishness (the males with a penis blood-letting and the females with ritual baths) upon arrival. In addition they decided that all immigrant children would attend religious school, regardless of the laws that promise freedom of choice between secular and religious education for children. “Absorption xxvi

00a-Intro

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page xxvii

Introduction

classes” that were constructed in the religious schools separated the immigrant children from the other children. In short, the immigrants’ Jewish identity was questioned and their children segregated for years in “absorption classes.” It is the pervasive involvement of the state in the affairs of the immigrants, in controlling the resources meant for them through “absorption frameworks,” that characterizes Israeli absorption policy more than anything else. Such “indirect absorption,” which treats integration as a bureaucratic phenomenon as opposed to the cultural approaches suggested by sociologists and anthropologists, has been a conspicuous means in the history of the state beginning in its first years. Such an approach perceives social distance and social categories as the outcome of bureaucratic needs and practices, affected and changed by organizational interaction, exchange and manipulation. The transit camps of the 1950s that concentrated masses of oriental immigrants for many years, became centers of bureaucratic control and resulted in the socioeconomic marginalization of the oriental population. The absorption centers, which were established in the 1960s to receive immigrants from Europe and middle-class western immigrants, have had a similar effect on the lives of the Ethiopian immigrants in the 1980s and the 1990s, underlining the irrelevance of ideological justifications given for the bureaucratic absorption policy. Absorption centers were created to advance immigrant integration, yet they have served the changing purposes of their owners rather than the interests of the immigrants. In the long run, the absorption frameworks have become one of the key factors in the stratification of Israeli society. Most of the “cultural explanations” that have been advanced for understanding the “absorption of immigrants” in Israel are based on limited fieldwork, or none at all, and on deductive inference, relating to people as if they belonged to a generalized homogenous social entity. My analysis derives its arguments from extensive field work and personal involvement which I have tried to convey through the style of this book. My goal is to familiarize readers with the events and the people who participated in the numerous events recounted in this book in a way that feels real, not merely as subjects or “informants.” Moreover, the conversations included here reflect as closely as possible the actual conversations that took place and, I hope, accurately convey the atmosphere of situations that I have experienced. As such, all the names mentioned in the book are pseudonyms except my own and that of my son. xxvii

00a-Intro

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page xxviii

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Notes 1. See Eisenstadt 1950; Frankenstein 1953; Patai 1970; Bar-Yosef 1959; Shokeid and Deshen 1997. 2. See Abbinb 1984; Messing 1956; Ben-Ezer 1985; Rosen 1985; Schneller 1985; Weil 1985.

xxviii

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 1

T HE C ENTER D EPENDENT S YSTEM 1.

AS A



T

he absorption center appeared to be a self-contained framework. The marked division and segregation of the place were palpably evident in the choice of location and layout. The center was located outside the town of Or-Akiva, and physically apart from it. The access road to the town ran between the town and the center. The townspeople described the center as “beyond the road.” Thus it was not only outside the town and separate from it, but invisible to the townspeople. The center had the appearance of an autonomous unit. In spite of this image and its structural layout, however, the center was not a closed framework but rather, it was dependent on a variety of institutions outside it. The idea that the center was a self-contained unit, independent of any factor beyond its boundaries, had no basis in reality. Its inhabitants relied on the town in many ways and the officials managing it were also dependent on a number of external authorities. Even before entering the center one encountered the manifestations of connection and dependence. Large rubbish bins stood near the entrance, and there was a large parking lot in front. These seemed to indicate ties with the world beyond the perimeter fence of the caravan site where the immigrants were housed. The need for refuse collection suggested ties with the local municipality and its commitment to remove garbage at regular intervals. The parking lot served visitors and guests. The cars of the officials parked in the lot told of their contacts with organizations and the areas from which they had come. Many of the center’s ongoing activities were organized by these officials. 1

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 2

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

An access path shortened the distance – not very great – to the outskirts of the town. The immigrants often visited the town and conducted much of their business there: they used the shops, banks, employment services, and clinics. They also walked around just for pleasure. The inhabitants of the center acted as if they were an integral part of the town – which to all intents and purposes they were. Yet, in spite of this, the Ethiopians perceived themselves and were perceived by others as not belonging to the town at all. The appearance of the absorption center as separated, guarded, and autonomous created an image of isolation from, and distance between, the center and the town. The immigrants saw themselves and were seen by others as a transitory or foreign element, as opposed to the town, which viewed itself as fixed and permanent. The fence which separated the town and center underscored the temporary aspect of the caravans as compared with the solidity of the houses in the town. The caravans had been designed, both in size and quality, for a short period of use. Most of them were in an advanced state of disrepair, which served to further stress their temporary character. This transient image, like those of isolation and separation, bore no relationship to reality. A temporary quality was sometimes ascribed generally to the center: it was said that its inhabitants were soon destined to leave and settle elsewhere. This conception did not in fact accord with the long period some immigrants had spent in the center. The fact is that some veteran immigrants had lived very close to the center and apart from the town for several decades since the 1950s, and they were seen as part and parcel of the town and its population.1 This image of the immigrants as strangers, temporary passers-through, and outsiders was reinforced by the positioning of the fence. It was as if it separated two worlds. The fence proclaimed the separateness of two authorities. In fact, the difference between the townspeople and the immigrants lay principally in that the latter dealt with the municipal authorities through the mediation of functionaries. The people of OrAkiva received municipal services on a personal and individual basis. In contrast, the officials of the Jewish Agency served as brokers between the immigrants and the municipality, which rendered a number of its services en bloc to the absorption center. The Jewish Agency, and not the immigrants, paid the local municipal council of Or-Akiva for all its services. This meant that the center, as far as the municipality was concerned, was a single housing unit of the Jewish Agency. Thus the local authorities had no control over this unit. There was no connection that 2

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 3

The Center as a Dependent System

was not brokered by the Jewish Agency. It represented the immigrants in several vital services: water supply, electricity, refuse collection, and education, and paid taxes and bills for these services. The municipality’s lack of a direct connection with or responsibility for the immigrants perpetuated the image of the center as an institution that was foreign, outside, and dependent on the Jewish Agency. For the municipality, the Jewish Agency officials were the sole representatives for all important negotiations between the local authority and the residents of the center. (The agency is permanently installed in the center, while some of the immigrants stay there only temporarily.) From the point of view of permanence, the difference between the workers of the center and the immigrants was again manifested by the fact that the former lived in permanent structures, while the immigrants lived in caravans resting on concrete blocks. Yet the absorption center was nevertheless an open system. It was in fact tied to the neighboring town, to the immediate area, and to the country at large. No one prevented entrance or exit, though both were in fact filtered and modulated. The order of things hitherto described suggested control and supervision: the perimeter fence, the guard at the gate, and the office overlooking the entrance were all there to allow those responsible to watch and control everything that the center contained – buildings, equipment, and inhabitants. This control served the management in their business of obtaining various resources, which they often used for their own needs. The fence and the guard did not prevent links or integration with the social surroundings, but they did create an image of “closure,” lending support to the belief of those outside that there was restraint and control from within. This in turn influenced visitors to apply to those in charge in order to negotiate matters concerning the center. The enclosure and the demarcation lines structured a perceived distance that served to distinguish between those who lived inside and outside; between those who belonged and those who did not. Their lack of experience in Israeli society and the concentration of living quarters within a closed space pushed the inhabitants toward dependence on those responsible for the center in order to obtain the necessities of life and to establish ties with the world beyond the fence. Perhaps this internal pattern of control was signified by the wish to be in control of the blocked entrance to the site. The enclosed appearance of the center created a picture of a closed, limited world for those living and working inside the fence, and one that was independent and distant in the view of those beyond it. The attitudes of both those from within and without 3

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 4

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

were determined by these images. Thus the internal ecology of the absorption center had influenced the social relations developed within it and around it. The absorption center of Galuyot was not theoretically a closed place, separated from its environment and independent of it – even though it was conceived of as such by people who, in their behavior, related to it as if it were closed. A description of my first visit to the center demonstrates how these images of separation and closure affected the social relationships of the people within it. I went to the center at Galuyot for the first time in March 1984. I was accompanied by Israel, a photographer, who had authorization from the spokesman for the Jewish Agency to enter the absorption centers of Or-Akiva and Safed in order to photograph the immigrants. The rubbish bins which stood close to the entrance of the center were overflowing; the asphalt area on which they stood was covered with broken glass. At the entrance to the office, close to the guard box at the gate, we met Fanny, the center director. She immediately asked us who we were, and the purpose of our visit. We accepted her invitation to her office, passed her secretary, whose desk stood at the entrance to Fanny’s room, and found ourselves sitting opposite her. Fanny again asked us the reason for our visit. When the photographer explained that he was there in a private capacity and that he wanted to photograph immigrants in Israel’s absorption centers, she burst out angrily with a warning that entrance to the centers was strictly forbidden to journalists. Israel then quietly produced his authorization and showed it to Fanny. Clearly displeased, she said: “I’m certain that in Safed they will not let you take photographs. The problem is that the immigrants are just getting organized and the presence of journalists may be harmful.” After examining the letter, Fanny insisted on the need to obtain a permit from a Mr. Grossman, a Jewish Agency official. While she waited for this call, she talked again of the damage that might be done: “My opinion is that the freedom of the press should be limited … journalists should be elected for their job.” She cited a recent television program as an example of the harm that may be done: “This film caused harm to the immigrants. It should never have been screened. It presented the Ethiopians as primitive. In a few years’ time, when they are assimilated into the country, they will prove their worth and that will be the time to make a film about them.” When Fanny got through to Grossman she exchanged a few sentences with him and then passed the phone to Israel. “It’s okay,” she added. While Israel was speaking to Grossman, Fanny turned to me and 4

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 5

The Center as a Dependent System

said: “Why did you come, may I ask?” I explained that I wanted to study the absorption problems of Ethiopian immigrants. “There are many people doing research in this field and it is problematic,” said Fanny. I told her that I was aware of this, and that I had already spoken to Ora, the manager of the Social Services unit in the Jewish Agency, which was responsible for the Ethiopian absorption project. Fanny now explained to me that Ora was not the only person to be consulted, and that I would have to get permission from Grossman. She asked me about my particular field of research. When I told her it was anthropology, she quickly said: “There is a problem with this kind of research, with the observation of people as if they were animals in a zoo. People like Dr. Nachmias came here with lots of good intentions, but they did not stay here for long.” Dr. Nachmias was the area medical officer and among the first to engage in the treatment of and research into the specific diseases associated with the Ethiopian immigrants. Meanwhile, Israel had concluded his conversation with Grossman and now reported to us: “He says that everything is all right, and that there is no problem with the photography. He sounded very interested in the project.” Fanny reacted to this immediately: “Of course, it’s because I’m here, and he knows he can rely on me. I know how to handle journalists, and I’ll make sure that no harm comes to the immigrants.” Israel then told us that he had written an article for an English monthly journal and had, for this purpose, already interviewed a number of immigrants at the center. When Fanny heard this she interrupted him: “You should have got permission first. This is not right.” “Yes, I realize that,” said Israel, “but I was pressed for time and I arrived in the afternoon when nobody was about.” “So what”? Fanny demanded. “You could have got the guard into trouble. You shouldn’t have done such a thing.” “When I was here,” Israel continued, “I photographed an immigrant called Amos. Is he still here?” Fanny replied: “Amos was an instructor here, but he now works in the absorption center at Safed. Amos was, relatively speaking, an intelligent young man. But these immigrants are of a very low level.” “I’m looking for a typical family,” Israel explained, “with which to begin my series of photographs.” “There is such a family,” Fanny answered, “a husband, wife and baby. They stand out because of their intelligence … in fact this man was the brother of Amos, who we were just talking about.” 5

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 6

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Israel asked Fanny whether it would be possible to meet these people. “It is possible, but I’m not sure it’s okay. I’ll have to ask Grossman and get his permission.” Israel suggested that she phone him and hear what he had to say. “I told you that he was very happy about the whole business.” Fanny now phoned Grossman again. During the course of their conversation it was made clear to her that the authorization for the photography was quite in order. We heard her say to Grossman: “Think again about Safed.” When she was finished, she said to us: “Now I am covered. But, Israel, you will still have to speak to Micha Feldman of the Jewish Agency. He will explain to you how the work should be done.” “I have no intention of showing anyone in a bad light,” Israel said. “All we are talking about are some photographs accompanied by some text.” “I don’t mind if you write about me,” Fanny said. “You can say I’m no good if you like, but do not harm the Ethiopians. I will not allow that. I don’t care whether a journalist has permission to enter the center or not. If he looked doubtful to me, I would throw him out. There was a journalist from Or-Akiva here; he wanted to write about the place, but I didn’t let him.” Later, Fanny told us that she had taken up her post six months earlier: “It is only now we are beginning to refurbish the place; in comparison with the absorption center in Pardes Chana, which has lawns and flowers, this place is in poor condition. The absorption center in Afula is housed in a building (as opposed to the caravans at Or-Akiva).” Israel then repeated his wish to meet a family, get to know them, and invite them to his home. Fanny answered him with an air of authority: “Don’t be in such a rush. You don’t know how shy and suspicious these people are. It took six months before they opened up to me. I approached them very slowly. At first I had to convince them that they could rely on me, that I was to be trusted, and that my word was my bond. As far as they are concerned, you might have come from another planet – just like that film on television about creatures from another planet who, it was said, built those Aztec temples in South America and the pyramids in Egypt. It has to be done slowly. They see me as their mother; I meet them regularly each week. We discuss anything they want.” I asked Fanny what they spoke about, and she answered: “The strike that took place here, for example. The strike came about for a number of reasons, among them an outbreak of ringworm. Because of the treatment and quarantine that the children needed they were kept away from school for five weeks. They could not attend Hebrew classes. There were 6

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 7

The Center as a Dependent System

also incidents in town in which people shouted at the immigrants, ‘Get out, you blacks.’ One of the Ethiopians was told to sit at the back of the bus. Do you think they were right to strike? I think they were. The OrAkiva Municipality did not give them a warm reception. There was fear that they might stay here for good.” She continued:”The local council may be right about this, but I am not interested where they decide to settle them …. Sometimes I think that it is a good idea to spread them around the country, and at other times I think not. I have great doubts about the idea of dispersing the Ethiopians. If they do disperse them there will be serious problems of loneliness and isolation. They will be lost. When they remain together in groups, they feel more confident and are able to help each other.” I asked Fanny how the strike had ended. “It ended when I called them all together and told them that ‘Jerusalem was once destroyed by meaningless hatred and if you start quarrelling, you will be the cause of something terrible happening to the State.’ You see, they are so innocent that they will believe anything I say to them.” Fanny invited us to look around the center. As we left the office, she drew our attention to the overflowing garbage cans and as we walked across the lawn, she said: “That’s an example of the municipality’s attitude toward us. The absorption center is now being refurbished; it was neglected for a long while and was almost closed down when the immigrants from Eastern Europe stopped coming. At one time the place was going to be emptied entirely. There were only two Romanian families living here. In comparison with other absorption centers this place has a population that is homogeneous.” We passed by the nursery. Fanny wanted to take us in, but the gate was locked. We continued walking along the paths between the lawns until we reached the clubhouse. As we entered, Fanny explained: “The clubhouse is poorly decorated, but we’re working on it. We want it to be pleasant and well-kept; the sort of place where you and I would like to go.” Orange plastic chairs were arranged in rows across the breadth of the clubhouse. Fanny told us that a seminar for the immigrants was about to take place: “It will prepare them for leaving the center. They will learn about various institutions and about life outside.” She also told us that the clubhouse was used for different activities such as circumcision ceremonies. We then passed along the side of a number of buildings standing very close to one another. Hebrew classes were in progress inside them: some with groups of children, others with adults. There were six or seven students in each class. 7

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 8

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

We met someone I knew and we spoke for a few minutes about her work in the nursery school and with the immigrants generally. “They are not like our children,” she explained. When I asked her what she meant, she was unable to say exactly, but she said: “It is not the same. They know nothing. They have to be taught everything from the start as if they were babies. They know nothing about the things that our children already know.” When we went into the nursery school we met Betty, who was in charge of the nursery and the creche. She told us that there were two groups of children, one of twenty-five two-to-five year-olds and a second of fifteen babies aged three months to two years. One of her assistants sat in the yard knitting. When I expressed my admiration for the order and decoration of the rooms, Betty told me with pride that the nursery staff made the decorations from leftover materials, and added: “We can’t do anything at all with the little money we get and the children need so much.” She told us that she had bought them running outfits with a donation. Obviously taking pride in their talents, she showed us pictures drawn by the children that she kept in a drawer: “Even on a course for nursery teachers that I went to, they praised the talents of Ethiopian children, which they said were greater than those of our own children.” As we were leaving the nursery, we saw the first of the parents coming to collect their children. Betty explained to us that on Sundays the children are collected at 11:30 and that during the remaining time, the staff cleaned the place. She then brought up the television documentary on the immigrants from Beersheba. “We also had problems when we first arrived,” she said. “We had property that we left behind in Morocco. We received nothing when we arrived here. The Ethiopians get a lot and look where they’ve come from. And they still complain!” Another member of the staff came over to us. She was introduced as a somechet named Jacqueline. I asked her what sort of work she did with the families under her care. She pointed to a child and said: “You see that child? I look after him. Here I am his mother and his father. He does nothing without me. Every day I go to each of my families for five hours and teach them how to cook, tidy the house and look after the children. I also work with groups of immigrants.” I asked her what she did with the groups, and she told me: “We talk to them about everything, about the festivals, about religion and all sorts of things. Afterwards, I speak about all these things with the social worker.” 8

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 9

The Center as a Dependent System

I asked her about what, in particular, she spoke to the social worker. “About everything – the bloodletting of men and the ritual bath for women, for example.” She said that on the bus, after the bloodletting ceremony, the immigrants were angry. They also spoke about how the women entered the ritual bath before the rabbis.2 “What do you mean before the rabbis? Rabbis are not allowed in; the wives of the rabbis should be there,” I asked. “She answered: “We ourselves were there and saw. The women wore transparent gowns and went into the water with the gowns lifted up; one woman was pregnant.” Jacqueline mimed the movement of a woman trying to hide her body with a gown. Jacqueline added laughingly, “The rabbis even turned to me and asked: ‘When are you coming to the ritual bath?’” I asked how the social worker, who was religious, reacted to these descriptions and Jacqueline replied “She said, ‘We won’t talk about that at all.’” While Jacqueline was speaking, she shouted loudly at one of her children who was trying to sit in a doll’s pram. When we returned to Fanny’s office, she made coffee and we continued our conversation. She wanted to hear our impressions. I asked her about the new mayor of Or-Akiva, and his attitude toward the Ethiopian immigrants. Fanny said that he was afraid the immigrants would be settled in the town. Israel now asked her why the immigrants carry out the bloodletting. “There was a problem about their being recognized as Jews. The bloodletting was a compromise that the Ethiopians had to agree to do so that their Jewishness could be recognized and they could come to Israel as immigrants. The Chief Rabbi, Ovadia Yosef, then declared that they were Jews.” Israel asked about the Ethiopian children who attend religious schools. “Look,” she said, “the Ethiopians are very religious and they need religious schools. Anyway, Etzion School, where they study, is an excellent place. It has a new headmaster who is full of good will, and does a lot for the children …. They were mixing very well with the other children until this outbreak of ringworm, when we had to keep them here in the center. They could not go to school.” I pointed out that the children in the nursery liked playing ball very much, but had to fight for the four balls that were available. Fanny reported: “Yes, you are right. They are quite willing to play ball all the time – both the adults and the children. They even had a football team until their trainer left. What can we do? There is not 9

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 10

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

enough money for everything that the immigrants need. The budget is very limited.” I asked her why she did not apply to the “Joint.” “The “Joint” did some very dirty things in America. It claimed that the Jewish Agency is not treating the immigrants properly,” Jacqueline answered. I said that I was very surprised by this, but she merely answered by repeating the allegation. When Shai, the immigrant mentioned earlier, arrived in the office, Fanny introduced us and we arranged to meet the following day.

The Absorption Center: A Closed or Open System? The center appeared closed and autonomous although it was in fact open. Different forms of separation lent a closed aspect to the place which established a perceived distance between strangers and those who belonged, and also generated images of ownership indicating responsibility for the place and the people in it. The description above of my first visit palpably conveys how these images of closure and separation influenced me in behaving, as I did, as a stranger to the center. These images very possibly change with every situation, distinguishing between outsiders and those who belong to the framework; between those in charge, and everyone else. In my meeting with Fanny, she stressed repeatedly the prohibition against entrance to the center without prior authorization, presenting herself as the one in charge, possessing the power to admit or bar entrance. At the outer gate, she asked who we were and what our purpose was. In the office, she repeated these questions. At one point she burst out, saying: “Under no circumstances may journalists enter the center.” After seeing the entry permits for the Galuyot Center, Fanny declared that Israel would definitely not be allowed to take photographs at the Safed Center. Later, she phoned Grossman, the Jewish Agency official, for verbal confirmation of the permit. Later still, she asked the reason for my coming. She expressed doubts about my explanations, saying that research work can cause problems for immigrants. She then questioned the validity of the permit and the right of the person concerned to issue it. When the phone authorization was given, she claimed that it was because of her. When Israel told her of his previous visit to the center when he had taken photographs of the immigrants, Fanny retorted: “That was wrong. You should have received permission from me.” In answer to Israel’s explana10

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 11

The Center as a Dependent System

tion that there was nobody in the office at the time, she said “the guard could have gotten into trouble for admitting him.” When Israel asked to meet a family, Fanny agreed, but immediately qualified her agreement. She insisted on speaking to Grossman again, in spite of the fact that the Jewish agency spokesman had said he was very pleased about the visit. At Israel’s suggestion, Fanny contacted Grossman, asking him to think again about the permit given for Safed. At the close of her conversation with Grossman, she said, “Now I am covered.” Fanny continued her opposing stance, telling Israel that he had to get instructions from Micha “on how the work should be done.” After Israel made it clear that he didn’t intend to write anything negative, Fanny rationalized her behavior by claiming that she was afraid of any harm being done to the immigrants, adding that she would throw out any journalist who did not seem “right” to her. The situations described demonstrate the interaction between a person who considers herself in charge and those who recognize her authority. Fanny behaved as someone who belonged to the center; we, as outsiders who didn’t. We treated the place as a closed area into which access was not free, but dependent on those in charge. We recognized Fanny’s authority and responsibility for the center. Almost from the beginning of our stay at the center up to when we left, Fanny interrogated both the photographer and myself repeatedly. She questioned us at the gate, and again in her office, wanting to know our purpose in coming, and what we expected from the immigrants. We reacted as expected, answering her questions dutifully and obediently, and offering explanations. We accepted her right to question us. When she bragged about having thrown the photographer from OrAkiva out of the center, we didn’t question her, or express surprise. We remained on the defensive when she reprimanded us, especially when she reprimanded Israel. In our meeting with her, Fanny clarified, in both speech and manner, her authority over the immigrants. She warned us several times not to photograph them or conduct research on them without permission from those in authority; neither could we meet them without her authorization, and only after liaising with her and other Jewish Agency officials. The fact that we had approached her in order to meet the immigrants as well as the defensive position we assumed when she criticized us declared our acceptance of her authority. Fanny justified the need to obtain her authorization before contact with the immigrants, (mainly through coordinating meetings with her) 11

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 12

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

by stressing the distance between us and the immigrants as compared with her own closeness to them – even though they were, in her own words, “creatures from another planet.” Unlike us, she had come to know them and had won their confidence. Fanny bragged about her relationship to the immigrants; as a “mother” to them, she protected them from the dangers of the media, and from the intentions of researchers. She was concerned about where they would live in the future, and about possible conflicts with people “outside.” She stressed the weight of her expertise in any negotiations undertaken or contact made between the immigrants and the outside world. She demonstrated her know-how in this area: knowing exactly what was good and what was bad for the immigrants and their children. She was also familiar with their past and their special problems. We accepted all this as undeniable fact. We attributed to Fanny an expertise regarding Ethiopian immigrants, acknowledging and accepting our own distance and fragmentary knowledge in comparison with her close familiarity. Thus, we expected her to negotiate a contract for us with a suitable family among “her” immigrants. The authority associated with the image of closure convinced us, as outsiders, to believe we needed permission from those in authority to enter the center. This manifestation of control on the part of those in authority was directed toward all outsiders; the control, therefore, depended upon the willingness of the outsiders to acknowledge the authority of the official in charge and comply with it. Fanny made it clear that entrance to the absorption center was not open to all, indeed, as far as the press was concerned, it was forbidden. Access was made conditional upon her authorization. But a contradiction should be noted between what she claimed, and her actual behavior. On the one hand, Fanny made it clear that in practice she was allowing entrance; on the other, that entrance was almost forbidden to journalists. Her actions revealed the limitations of her authority when she told us that we would need to get permission to enter the center from this or that official in the Jewish Agency. In the final analysis, we discovered that when the office was closed, we could enter the place freely, without any difficulty or need for a permit. Even when the office was open, Fanny did not throw us out. She invited us into the office and stressed her authority in everything connected with right of entry. The conversation between us served, in itself, to emphasize that entrance to the center had to be negotiated with Fanny. This underscored her position of authority. Fanny’s behavior, however, indicated her dependence on her superiors. She revealed a lack of confi12

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 13

The Center as a Dependent System

dence (“I am not sure that this is in order”) when making her second phone call to verify the authority of Israel’s permit. A contradiction was revealed between Fanny’s reservations about journalists and the satisfaction expressed by her superiors about the possibility of press coverage, which suggested the limitations of Fanny’s ability to act independently. It was clearly important to her that she appear able to act independently. But when she announced that she was “covered,” she had, in fact, shifted the responsibility for her actions onto her superiors, and thus revealed her dependence on them. She claimed that she had the right to throw anybody out – even if that person had a permit to enter the center. Similarly, she explained away the permission given to Israel in terms of the trust her superiors had invested in her. Her statement that “They know I am able to manage things” again demonstrated her dependence on those above her. She expressed fear that the press might cause harm to the process of immigrant absorption, but in doing so she was also referring to the possibility that she herself might sustain damage from the exposure. Fanny revealed her dependence on outside elements, like the press, and their ability to prejudice her status in the eyes of others – especially her superiors. In spite of our being able to gain entry to the center without either a permit or the authority of those responsible, the officials concerned were nevertheless anxious to put across the idea that entrance rights were their exclusive prerogative. Both Fanny’s superiors in the Jewish Agency and Fanny herself, as director of the center, granted or denied these entrance permits. But anyone who chose to ignore these manifestations of control and ownership could in fact enter with impunity. It is worth noting in this connection that my own entrance to the place was arranged only after delays and difficulties. These derived from my understanding that in order to enter the site and establish contact with the immigrants, I needed permission from those in charge of absorption centers, the Jewish Agency functionaries who had offices in Tel-Aviv. This obstacle course included my enquiry to Ora Donyo, head of the unit of social services in the Jewish Agency. This took place after Ami Bergman, head of “Joint” special projects, had spoken to her on my behalf. Ora directed me to Ada, the person in charge of research. After this meeting, I was sent to the person responsible for security, and after all this back to Ami Bergman in order to receive a formal permit. My meetings with Ora were cancelled several times. She tried to convince me of the futility of meeting with her, saying the Jewish Agency’s policy on research had changed and so there was little chance of my receiving a permit. After 13

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 14

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

my consultation with Bergman, Ora agreed to see me, and finally promised to process my application as soon as possible. The permit never did arrive. When I finally got up enough courage to go to the center – and even then only in the company of Israel, the photographer – I was allowed in without any written permission. I was even permitted to live in one of the caravans. My conclusion after this was that no permit was actually needed to enter the site, and that the center was not in fact closed. However, although the center was open and there was no way of preventing entry, those in authority did everything they could to exercise control over entry by emphasizing the exclusion of outsiders. Administrative rules, as I have noted, were determined by the Jewish Agency. Fanny had received clear orders – as had other absorption center directors – not to allow journalists in without explicit permission from her superiors. “The entrance of journalists is strictly forbidden,” she stated at the outset. From this we gathered that those in charge at the Jewish Agency reserve the right to allow or bar entrance to the centers. Their authority over the centers is exercised through their power over the directors, who are responsible to the Jewish Agency, and dependent on it. This power allows the agency to conduct negotiations with outsiders, in this case a journalist. The withholding of entry rights to the center – especially to journalists – can be seen as a defensive act and an expression of suspicion. It does, however, underline the authority that the agency exercises over the absorption centers. This strengthens its bargaining position in negotiations with other agencies. Thus, for example, entrance is given in exchange for favorable and friendly press coverage; it is, conversely, forbidden to those likely to be critical. The appearance of closure created at Galuyot was part of the attempt to present it as an entity markedly separate from its surroundings. The physical means used to effect this closure represented only one aspect. When I re-examined the details of my first visit to the center and the description of events there, the various means employed to establish closure and their effect on social interaction became evident.

Creating Closure by Physical Means: Administrative Rights Over the Enclosed Area Closure creates a restricted territory, demarcating an area over which there is control and presenting it as autonomous. The absorption center, 14

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 15

The Center as a Dependent System

as a defined area, appeared separate from its surroundings. Those possessing administrative rights, or their representatives, demonstrated their control over the place and everything that happened within. As mentioned earlier, anyone entering the center generally had to pass the guard at the gate and was likely to be questioned as to the purpose of his visit. Entrance could be refused. Any one of the people who worked at the center might also ask a visitor about the reason for the visit – just as Israel, the photographer and myself, being strangers, were questioned. Control over entrance and exit was also exercised from the window of the office overlooking the entrance to the gate and the offices, and Fanny made it aggressively clear that permission to enter the grounds had to be obtained through negotiation with her. It was not only the issue of journalists and researchers entering that Fanny saw as her responsibility. On one of my visits, Fanny tried to prevent the entry of Danny, a young Ethiopian immigrant. He lived in Naharya and had come to visit his father, who lived in the center. He came into Fanny’s office while we were talking to her. She asked him “What are you doing here? I have told you before that I do not want to see you here.” “Why can’t I come here?” retorted Danny. “He’s my father, and I want to see him.” Fanny raised her voice: “I have told you before that there is nothing here for you. I want you to leave the grounds of the center immediately.” Danny again explained that he had come to see his father. Fanny answered him angrily: “This is not your father’s house. He lives here as one would stay at a hotel. His being here is only temporary.” But Danny was stubborn: “Why are they allowed in and I am not?” Fanny answered him impatiently: “They can come in because I allow them to do so. I am in charge here, and it is my right to allow or disallow entry. And I am not going to allow you to come in.” “Then how will I be able to see my father? Why can’t I go and see him?” “You can stand outside the fence and speak to him from there. I will not allow you to come in. There is nothing here for you.” Fanny’s voice rose. Danny moved away, but returned after about a quarter of an hour. Fanny, very angry, told him to clear out. Her shouts had now become screams, but Danny stayed in the office reiterating his plea that he be allowed to see his father. Fanny too was now repeating herself while the level of her voice rose progressively higher. She threatened Danny: “If you do not leave the area of the camp within five minutes, I will call the police.” 15

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 16

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Danny assumed a tone of innocence: “But why would you want to call the police?” Fanny repeated her threat several times. She called her secretary in, and asked her to phone the police at Or-Akiva. The secretary was not able to get through to the police. Danny now began to move away. He said: “Okay, I’m going. Don’t call the police, you don’t need them.” He moved out of the room, but returned when he discovered that the secretary could not get through to the police. Between these exchanges, Fanny tried to explain to me that Danny was a problematic person, and that she had lodged a complaint about him to the police. Danny finally left the office, but returned to the center in the afternoon when the office was closed. These events palpably demonstrated the need for co-operation among the workers at the center in order to establish the management rights of Fanny and those of her staff, together with their right to prevent or allow entry. Again, Fanny’s wish to prove her authority and control of the place depended to a lesser or greater degree on those present. The terminology Fanny used strengthened the significance of her managerial rights. She compared the center to a hotel, run by her; the center was not a house in which people lived. She suggested that Danny stand outside the fence, which represented the demarcation lines of her authority. She used the fence as a device for treating Danny as an outsider. Serving as a physical divide between the inside and the world at large, the fence was used to distinguish between those who belonged to the place, and those who did not. Fanny saw it as her prerogative to make these distinctions.

Creating Closure by Verbal Means: Authority Over the Closed Area The construction of closure was also achieved by verbal communication, and authority over the center was established by the use of words. The significance of the word “forbidden,” for instance, was not limited merely to something or other that wasn’t allowed. The word contained a hidden agenda designed to establish a certain situation and the social relationships within it. When Fanny said that Danny, the new immigrant, could not come into the center, she was establishing her authority over the area, his outsider status, and the need for other outsiders to receive her permission to enter. Danny reacted to these manifestations of authority over right of entry by appearing nonchalant in his insistence, 16

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 17

The Center as a Dependent System

and the more she insisted he could not enter, the more stubborn he got about staying. In spite of the fact that Danny could have got into the center later when the office was closed – and in fact finally did – he continued trying to belittle Fanny’s declarations of authority. He reacted to Fanny’s repeated “Thou shalt nots,” designed to strengthen her position of authority, like a child testing his angry parents, seeing how long he can continue to rebel without being punished too painfully. Others, too, reacted to the accumulative effect of words of negation and utterances of reprimand, which also played an important role in the distancing of outsiders and the demonstration of authority over the demarcated area. The repeated use of the word “no” played a similar role. This negative was repeated several times during the confrontation between Fanny and Danny. Fanny said: “I don’t want to see you here” and, in the sentence that followed: “There is nothing here for you,” which she used twice. “This is not your father’s home,” “You will not enter this camp,” and “I will not allow you to enter.” Danny used the same kind of negatives in, “Why can’t I come here?” “Why can’t I be with my father?” “You won’t call the police,” and “You don’t need the police.” Such declarations of authority referred to the area as demarcated and closed. This was signified by the use of such words as “here,” “home,” “camp,” and “hotel.” The dynamics involved in the exchange of words created a certain atmosphere. This atmosphere was associated with the perception of the center as a closed place. Thus Israel, the photographer, reacted to the atmosphere created by explaining that he had “no intention of showing anyone in a bad light.” His reaction was insufficient as a response to Fanny’s remarks about the potential damage that his presence might cause the immigrants. Fanny frequently used words derived from concepts of the allowed and the forbidden. Entry of journalists was “strictly forbidden,” she said, adding that in Safed they “surely wouldn’t give permission” to take photographs. She spoke of the need to “limit the freedom of the press” and said that the film about the Ethiopians should not have been screened. She would throw out anybody she considered “unacceptable” and called unauthorized entry to the center “not in order.” Expressions antithetical in their connotation to the idea of “forbidden” were also widely used at the meeting: “That’s all right,” “receive authorization,” “receive permission,” “everything is in order.” Fanny told us she was “covered.” There was another cluster of words connotating 17

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 18

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

trouble of various kinds: “damage,” “great damage,” “a lot of harm,” “problematic,” “difficult,” “a bad thing,” “to complicate” and “a difficult problem.” Another cluster of words were those with connotations of authority, such as “rely on me” and “to direct you.” Similarly, many questions were asked: “Why did you come?” and “Who are you?” are examples. Here we could perceive the need of outsiders to defend themselves against interrogation by those in authority inside the center.

Instituting Ideological Closure: Protecting People Within the “Closed” Area Ideological terminology was yet another means of establishing the image of closure. The officials spoke of the need to protect and care for the center’s inhabitants. In both of the incidents referred to above – our first visit to the center and Danny’s encounter with Fanny – heavy use was made of expressions referring to people as belonging to the “outside” and who, as such, could threaten or harm the inhabitants of the center. At the same time we were able to understand from another cluster of expressions that those who lived on the site needed protection to ensure their well-being and their growth. Some examples of this: “I am like a mother to them,” “They would lose themselves,” “They are naive and always believe me,” “Let them prove their ability,” “How shy and suspicious they are,” “The Ethiopians are primitives,” “They are of a very low standard,” “It took some time, but I got close to them,” and “they are creatures from another world.” These expressions signified the immigrants’ weakness, backwardness, anxiety, and the need for care and protection – connotations that presented the immigrants as creatures rather than human beings. Whatever the case, they were certainly not seen as independent and responsible beings, but rather as children in need of care, guidance, and parental understanding. They needed to be prepared for life outside, and therefore had to be cosseted until they were able to prove themselves as adults. These expressions evoked the picture of a place that was closely defended and guarded. The pervading suspicion and isolation were seen as measures necessary for the welfare of the inhabitants, who were considered as vulnerable and unable to protect themselves. The authoritarian control exerted by Fanny was justified as a measure to protect the weak and brought Fanny into conflict with Danny, the son of a new immigrant. The word “camp,” with all its military connotations of force 18

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 19

The Center as a Dependent System

and authority, was repeated during their conversation. At one point a related word, “quarantine,” was used. These words and others that dominated the dialogue at different times, taken together with the behavior of those involved, again had ramifications of closure, protectiveness, and superiority.

Social Segregation as a Means of Closure: Categorizing People Within the “Closed” Area The concentration of immigrants within the framework of an absorption center which functions as a closed and separated social entity presents its inhabitants as a distinct, homogeneous social category. The immigrants were treated as a defined group set aside from others, as different. The manner of the center’s closure allowed a categorized reference to those who inhabited it. The parameters of the framework which set it aside from its environment were connected with the perceived demarcation lines between the people within and those beyond the center. The immigrants were described in generalized terms – both positively and negatively. Betty, the woman who managed the nursery said the children were “talented,” but also that “They are of a very low standard.” Fanny stated: “They are naive and gullible” and will “lose their way,” “they will be stronger,” and “they are shy and suspicious.” Whatever the case, these and many other generalizations were based on a similar logic: on the one hand, they tended to include all the immigrants, while on the other, they excluded them from the surrounding community. A generalization is dependent on the context in which it was used. Betty, for example, used a generalization about the talents of the immigrant children in the context of her work with them in the nursery. “They are very talented,” she said; but then in a different context used a generalization that meant the opposite. When there was talk of moving the center’s children to kindergartens in Or-Akiva – which would reduce the number of children in her care and, consequently, the size of her team, she claimed that the children would be unhappy as a result of such a move. She said: “After the autumn festivals, the children in Or-Akiva kindergartens are taught writing. This would be too much for the immigrant children. Here in the kindergarten, they get everything they need: they draw and do handicrafts and have everything needed to do these things.” In a similar vein, she added, “To put them among strange children would be too much for them.” 19

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 20

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Thus we can see that any generalization used was there to back up some statement about the situation or intention of purpose, or within an interaction between people. Betty’s generalization above served to justify her opposition to the idea of the children being taken away from her, and as camouflage for her real purpose. Her other generalizations served to present her work in a vital and positive light. She used a third kind of generalization to express her anger, jealousy, and frustration over her being (she sensed) discriminated against. The prerogative of value judgements, both positive and negative, that the center’s officials arrogated for themselves, were an expression of ownership rights over the immigrants, whom they viewed as a category apart. In conclusion, it would appear that the means of closure employed at the center were many and varied. In one way or another, they were linked to the physical closure effected by the perimeter fence. In continuing, we will examine the significance of this structured separation and the division between the territory within the fence and the world beyond.

The Absorption Center as a “Closed” and Guarded Area The center’s officials explained that the purpose of the closure was to protect the immigrants who lived there. It was claimed that the immigrants need protection, for example, from journalists, whose writing might cause harm both to themselves and to their relatives still in Ethiopia. They could harm the latter, so it was explained, by revealing the escape routes used by those already in the camp. Protection of the immigrants was said to be needed against general danger and threat from the outside – a terrorist incursion into the center, for example. However, the closure existed in the minds of people rather than in practice: the guards did not prevent any danger or actually protect the inhabitants. The people of Or-Akiva would often go in and out of the center, mainly to use the public phone. There were few such phones in town, and they were usually out of order. Some people from town also used the center’s washing machines. Those who came into the center were young people, volunteers from abroad and immigrants from the Caucasus – neither of these groups, it would seem, had either telephone or washing machines in their homes. Use of the public phone sometimes sparked off a conflict, and, at least on one occasion, a violent conflict between youngsters in the center and some drunken outsiders occurred. 20

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 21

The Center as a Dependent System

During the fight, the phone was torn out, and the windows of the reception office were broken. Another fracas broke out one Saturday when a number of immigrants from the Caucasus, living in Or-Akiva, held a barbecue near the perimeter fence, close to some of the caravans. They were asked by the people in the caravans to move away because the fire and smoke were bothering them. A fight ensued, during the course of which an immigrant child was “kidnapped” with his bicycle. A crowd of immigrants quickly gathered, and a fight broke out. An elderly man hurt his arm and had to be sent to the hospital for treatment. It was not only the photographer who managed to get into the center; it was in fact open to all visitors. The guards at the entrance usually sat around, and sometimes slept in the hut. They wandered around doing nothing of any consequence; their only interest was in completing their shift as soon as possible. They delighted in any opportunity to relieve the boredom of their job, and could be seen, at different times, chatting with workers, immigrants, and any strangers they happened to meet. In winter, the guards usually hung around the waiting room because it was heated. Employed by a security firm, these men were usually either in ill-health or pensioners. One guard got drunk now and then. For a long time the fence around the center was broken in several places, especially far away from the entrance. Uri, later the director of the center, viewed the repair of the fence as very important and, indeed, mended most of the gaps. Among others, a hole on the western side was repaired which had been used by the tenants of the caravans to toss their rubbish onto a tip the local authorities used for disposing of Galuyot’s rubbish. Not that the fence prevented thieves from entering. The center’s stores were broken into several times and equipment was stolen. Accusatory fingers were pointed in the direction of the immigrants, but the clues led to one of the workers at the center. The investigation into one of these burglaries was stopped in the middle of the proceedings. A discussion between Yehudit, Fanny’s secretary, and Asher, the representative of the security firm, about the possibility of doing away with the morning guard shift strongly suggests the total inadequacy of this guarding and pseudo-protection of the immigrants and their property. The discussion revealed that there were, in fact, other reasons for maintaining the guards. Yehudit complained to Asher about a certain guard and demanded in very strong terms that he be dismissed. Asher answered her very coolly: “What do you want from me? The Jewish Agency doesn’t want anything 21

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 22

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

more. It pays us only five hundred-odd shekels an hour; it refuses to pay any more. You know what working for the Jewish Agency is like; they aren’t interested in the guard duty. All they want is that if something does happen they can say that there was a guard on duty at the center.” Yehudit answered: “Asher, things aren’t like that at all – and don’t speak that way about the hand that feeds you.” Albert, the center’s maintenance man, and Azaria, his assistant, then came into the office and joined in the complaints against the guards. Azaria said to Asher: “If I told you what I know, those guards would go to jail.” Asher said, “So go to the police and tell them all you know.” Azaria continued: “If you only knew what these people have stolen.” Asher again answered him apathetically: “As far as I’m concerned, you can go to the police.” Azaria also mentioned the elderly guard Yehudit had referred to earlier: “He’s all right. He knows everybody who comes in and who goes out.” Albert answered: “Really! You know he’s not all right. Do you know what he does? He ruins all my door cylinders.” Azaria then turned to Asher and said: “Ho! Ho! I’m only speaking to you as a friend. After all, you’re the one who showed me the ropes here. I must ask you to get those guards out of here.” Asher answered all of Azaria’s complaints quite placidly, and didn’t seem disturbed by the discussion going on around him. The guards were not replaced. The guards were expected to guard. Everybody saw their function in these terms – but what emerges from this conversation was that there was no agreement about the purpose of the guard duty, the need for it, or the methods and quality of the guards themselves. The representative of the security firm was also of the opinion that the function of the guards was, generally speaking, to guard. He implied that in the case of the absorption center, however, the guards were intended as no more than a “cover” for the Jewish Agency, so that in a security crisis, the agency could claim that it had provided guard duty. From his point of view, the poor salaries paid to the guards revealed their function as a cover, nothing more. Yehudit, in qualifying Asher’s opinions, did not deny his claims; she merely accused him of ingratitude toward the organization that paid his salary. From the serious doubts about the guards expressed by Yehudit, Azaria, and Albert, the workers at the center, it emerged, absurdly, that not only did the guards not do any guarding, they in fact actually caused damage – from theft to the improper use of the property. 22

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 23

The Center as a Dependent System

Nevertheless, the serious accusations levelled against the guards were expressed in generalizations rather than with the presentation of concrete evidence. “If only you knew what these people have stolen” is an example. There was no agreement about the functioning of any particular individual. As for the especially problematic guard, Azaria claimed his work was all right. Yehudit asked that he be dismissed, but Albert countered that it would do “no good.” This criticism of the guards may be better understood against the background of the occasional burglaries that took place. The criticism voiced by the center’s staff was a way of shifting responsibility onto others, and the guards were an easy target. This is exactly what Asher did when he accepted, quite coolly, the accusations made against his guards. He encouraged his critics to turn to the police, but very likely knew that they would do nothing of the kind. He didn’t see himself as responsible: the guards possessed only limited abilities; and the Jewish Agency would not pay for professional guards. Therefore, if there were complaints about the guards, they should be addressed not to him, but to the Agency: it had ordered the guards. As for the thieves, it was the police’s job to deal with them. Thus, it is clear that the guards did not guard, and that the closure of the center did not seal it off from outsiders. If this was so, what purpose did the guards or the enclosure fulfill?

The Guards and Their Function at the “Closed” Center From Azaria’s words we understood that the elderly guard “knows everybody – knows who comes in and who goes out.” He was suggesting that one function of a guard is to divide people into two categories: those who belong and those who do not, or those who are allowed entry, and those who are denied it. Thus, the guard network allowed those in control of the center to monitor contacts between “insiders” and “outsiders.” The elderly guard’s advantage, therefore, lay not in his ability to protect the entrance of the absorption center physically – to block entry with his body or use his rifle to defend people. According to this definition, a guard is one who supervises movement in and out. This explains why cancelling the morning shift of guard duty was being considered; this, after all, was the time of day when the office was open, and the workers were on the spot. Movement in and out of the gate could thus be monitored from the window of the office overlooking the gate. Con23

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 24

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

trol could be achieved by stopping and questioning anyone not known to the office workers.

“Inside” and “Outside” The story of the stolen windbreakers provides yet another example of the inefficiency of the guards’ closure as a means of protecting the center. Some windbreakers given to the center by the Jewish Agency were stolen from its stores. There had not been enough jackets to go around in the first place, and the theft meant that not all the immigrants received one. One morning, I asked Anat, the housemother, if anything was known about the identity of the burglars. She answered in the negative, but added: “I’m sure it was someone from inside who knew about the jackets. This is the first time in a year and a half that there has been a theft in the center. When the Caucasians and Russians were here there were many thefts. But then there was plenty to steal, and now there is nothing.” She said: “I shouldn’t be talking like this.” In a conversation with Ziva, my young Ethiopian friend, she expressed very firm views about the identity of the thieves. I asked her if she and her husband Shai had received winter jackets. She replied: “No, and we aren’t going to get jackets.” When I asked why, she answered: “They said we had brought so many clothes with us that they would give the jackets to those who had nothing at all.” Later she told me, “Some jackets have been stolen.” I told her that I had heard. She laughed, and said: “I’m pleased. … Why didn’t they give us the jackets before they were stolen? A year ago they also stole. Two truckloads of clothes from America arrived. They didn’t give us the clothes, and later they told us they had been stolen. They took the clothes for themselves.” I asked Ziva who had taken the clothes: “They took them.” “Who were ‘They?’” I asked, “The workers?” “Yes! Those in the office took them, and afterwards said that the clothes had been stolen; they told us that we could buy cheap clothes in the shop.” “Who took the clothes? The somchot?” I asked. “Yes, the somchot took them.” “How do you know this?” She replied, “We saw it … afterwards the people were very angry, and Fanny said: ‘I will not allow Israelis to come here any more. No one will be allowed in here.’” 24

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 25

The Center as a Dependent System

Ziva brought up other examples: “Efraim, the director told Amos’s girlfriend [Amos was Shai’s brother]: ‘Don’t come here again.’” I asked Ziva, “Is that the nurse who slept here for one night?” She confirmed this, and continued hurriedly: “Efraim saw her car, and asked loudly what she was doing in the center. And Anat, the housemother, asked her: ‘What would you do if thieves got in? We might say you were responsible.’ After this Amos’s girlfriend did not come again.” A veteran Israeli from Or-Akiva, who became friendly with Ziva and Shai, and sold them a television and a bed, was also told off by Efraim, who said: ‘You mustn’t come here – it is forbidden.’ But he came again and again and Efraim shouted at him. Eventually, he stopped coming.” I suggested to Ziva that perhaps the Ethiopians were, after all, stealing the jackets. She answered confidently: “No, the Ethiopians did not steal. There are no thieves here.” Then, after some hesitation, she said: “Perhaps one of us may steal … but – no, Ethiopians don’t steal. Why should they?” “Because they are angry,” I said. But she stood her ground, “No, the Ethiopians did not steal.” The importance of the fence and the guards lay not in their ability to protect the center’s people and property, rather, the importance of closure lay principally in structuring a distance between the immigrants and those outside. This distance gave those who worked at the center a mediating and representative role to play between the world outside and the inhabitants inside. The importance of closure at the center by means of a fence and guards thus seemed to lie in the creation of a barrier between those on either side of the fence, and a separation between the center area and its environs. The fence and the guards cut off the area of the center and determined its borders in relation to the environment, which became the “outside” and therefore different from the inner area and all it contained. The fence was a concrete barrier meant to prevent free entry to and exit from the inner area; the guards exercised control over those desiring entry. The incident involving the theft of the windbreakers underlines the perceived distance between people symbolized by the presence of the fence. Three groups were established; each reflected a different attitude toward the theft. The three groups were the Israelis beyond the fence, the immigrants within the perimeters of the center, and those who worked there. In any discussion of the theft, the different groupings would refer to “them” and “us.” These relationships reflected enmity and suspicion. 25

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 26

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The incident served to sharpen even more the symbolic value of the physical demarcation lines. In fact the division, the separation, and the guards did not prevent theft or damage to property from either outside or inside the center. The thefts emphasized the meaninglessness of the guard duty, but highlighted no less the general vulnerability of a center that could sustain damage from both inside and outside in equal measure. These comments underscore what has already been stated. The guards offered no defense and thefts took place – probably aided by people inside the center. The division of their world into “inside” and “outside” allowed the officials to shift blame and responsibility on to the outsiders, and then “punish” them by refusing entry. The property was guarded against people on the outside. Theft from inside, however, was viewed as something different, something, in Anat’s words, “that one should not speak of.” Reference to the theft as something “taken” rather than stolen accords with the image of the center as a closed system of relations akin to that of a family. This could be seen again in a visit by American tourists, who had brought dolls for the immigrant children. Jacqueline, a somechet at the center, said of the visit: “Do you know how many dolls Yehudit took for herself?” Shalom, an Ethiopian instructor, added: “Did you hear that they brought dolls for the children, and that Anat took a lot of them for herself?” The term “to take” was also used by Ziva in referring to the theft of the clothes. The workers of the center “took” the clothes. The term “to steal” was used only in relation to distant strangers. In fact, it is possible that the workers did “take” goods which were given to them to be passed on to the immigrants. Such behavior would accord with the responsibility and control the workers felt they possessed in matters regarding immigrants’ access to outsiders. The clothes from the U.S., the jackets, and the dolls, were given to the officials, as those responsible for handing them on to the immigrants. As such, the officials functioned as those responsible for the goods and the manner in which they are allocated. In the case of the windbreakers, for example, the criterion of distribution was determined by the Jewish Agency, as the date of immigration to Israel. Fanny, however, decided that they were to be given out according to need. The explanation for this change of decision was explained thus: in Netanya they sold their windbreakers on the black market. In other words, “they” didn’t need the jackets. In these conditions of control over goods and their distribution, officials saw themselves as virtual owners of the goods. The difference between their holding on to the goods and passing them on thus became 26

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 27

The Center as a Dependent System

very small indeed. Whatever the case, “taking” was not perceived as stealing. The workers’ right to hold onto the goods was taken for granted by them. Thus Jacqueline and Shalom said that Anat and Yehudit were “taking” rather than “stealing” the property. The police needed to be summoned only if property was “stolen” – when there was, for example, a break-in by outsiders and strangers. Ziva seemed happy about the theft: It’s good, she said, that they have stolen from “them.” That is to say, the property stolen “belonged” to the agency that employed the workers, and the clothes which had been stolen were taken by the workers, and it is only they who blamed the disappearance of the clothes on others. “They take the goods and they say they were ‘stolen.’” In Ziva’s words, the workers “took” the goods, whereas the term she used for the thieves is vague. She also took this generalized view of the thefts when she was speaking about the immigrants. “‘They’ do not ‘steal,’” she claimed. In Ziva’s words we can see the connection between the thefts and the prevention of access to outsiders. According to her, the workers prevented the entry of Odeda, Amos’s friend, and also their friend from Or-Akiva, because of the thefts. This cause-and-effect relation is again made apparent by Anat, the housemother. “What would you do if people here stole?” Anat asked Odeda, a stranger, who had stopped over at the center. She turned Odeda into a suspect. The description of the thefts or “taking” episodes demonstrates the workers’ various generalized attitudes toward themselves as “insiders,” and the others as “outsiders.” These demarcation lines of the center’s framework were projected onto the social distance between groups on the basis of their affiliation to the center. In conclusion, this absorption center, though clearly an open area, was formally closed. While the center appeared separated, guarded, and independent, it was, in fact tied to the neighboring town, its immediate environment, and indeed, to the world at large. Entrance and exit were not prevented, but monitored and watched. The order of things within suggested that the institution and its inhabitants were not autonomous, but dependent on organizations and people outside to supply various needs to keep things going. This form of closure was effected by various measures: physical, organizational, verbal, social, and other. This resulted in the emergence of mediation positions between the two worlds. The closure structured a segregation between the inside and the outside, between those who belonged and those who did not. Those who came in from outside were made to believe that they had to consult and negotiate with those in positions of responsibility regarding everything concerning the center. 27

01-Ch1

1/21/09

2:40 PM

Page 28

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The means of closure also influenced the inhabitants, by putting a distance between them and outsiders. The concentration of all the living quarters within the closed area pushed the inhabitants toward the officials, who controlled their access to the outside. The next chapter will explore the power-dependence relationships that developed in the social closure of the absorption center as discussed in this chapter.

Notes 1. These few families were the last of the newcomers from the 1950s, left in tin houses on the remains of the local transit camp. The site was inhabited for some twenty years by Moroccan and Romanian immigrants. As a matter of fact the town was founded by those immigrant families. 2. As mentioned in the introduction, a conditional agreement was achieved between the Israeli government and the heads of the Jewish community in Ethiopia. On their arrival in Israel the immigrants go through ritual ceremonies to confirm their Jewishness and their children are sent to religious school without the legal right of choosing between secular and religious education. The women go through ritual baths and the men are partially re-circumcised, by pricking their penis. The presence of rabbis behind the curtains and very close to the bathing women was confirmed by different sources (non-Jewish immigrants who converted told me similar stories).

28

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2.

2:41 PM

Page 29

C LOSURE AND E MERGENCE OF P OWER -D EPENDENCE R EL ATIONS



The perceived closure of the absorption center influenced the way social

relationships developed in and around it. It was, in fact, an integral part of the developing power-dependence structure. The center’s physical separation from its environs and the concentration of people within enabled resources to be obtained and personal interests to be gratified. The center’s officials were able to exercise control over the relationships between people concentrated inside and those outside. In this way negotiating positions were established, instituting control over the immigrants’ possible access to organizations and services outside, and the access of outsiders to the immigrants concentrated in the center. The officials’ control over the people and the resources in the center depended on its self-evident image of closure. The immigrants, for their part, conceived of their world as enclosed within the Galuyot center. They viewed themselves as dependent on the officials in everything connected to negotiation and representation with the world outside. Further, this concentration of people within the confines of a “closed” area served the purposes of many organizations outside the center: a variety of goods and resources were transferred to the immigrants through the officials. In order to justify their active involvement in the immigrants’ affairs, the officials used ideological arguments to rationalize it. In analyzing a number of situations that took place at the center, this chapter will examine the emergence of power-dependence relationships within a framework that functions as a closed system. 29

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 30

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Officials in Search of Recognition The seeming closure of the center was achieved through day-to-day encounters in which those wielding authority related to the institution as a closed framework. This was a reality they perceived as self-evident, and it formed the basis for the battle waged by those in authority for recognition of their power and their right to impose control. From this conception of the order of things was derived the distinction between those who belonged and those who didn’t and between controllers and controlled. This view of the center as autonomous territory affording control over its inhabitants manifested itself on different occasions. One morning, Efraim, the director of the center, told me that Odeda, a white woman, “probably a nurse from Safed,” had stayed overnight with Ziva and Shai. He said: “I told her that if anything happened to her it would be our responsibility. She shouldn’t have slept here without our knowing about it.” On another occasion, following an argument with the director of the ulpan for Hebrew studies, Efraim spoke to me. He was very annoyed that Tova, the ulpan’s director, had refused to allow in some visitors who had already been vetted by him. He told me, “I was very angry with her,” and said to her, “ ‘You are a wicked woman.’” He then told me he criticized her in very strong terms, telling her: “I have reported you to the appropriate authorities. “I’ll show her,” he said to me. “This is unthinkable. I could understand it if a committee of enquiry had turned up, but these were two guests having a general look-around the center, walking through the rows of caravans, looking at the gardens and meeting the director. Tova decides that the ulpan is out of bounds! I almost said to her: ‘Tova, I will count to three and if you continue to defy me I will enter the ulpan by force.’ If the director cannot make decisions, what am I here for? We have enough dolls in the dolls’ kindergarten.” Efraim’s anger with Tova, like his attack on Odeda, showed something about the difficulties in dealing with the possession of power and with gaining others’ recognition of his authority. His attack may have been a defense against a threat to his control. Efraim saw himself as responsible for the center and what happened there, but he was not sure of the extent of his power. He reacted very strongly, even aggressively, when Odeda stayed over at the center, but did nothing when other guests (friends and families from other absorption centers) stayed. So perhaps it was the color and obvious difference of Odeda’s skin that influenced his reaction. In other words, a visitor who was strange and 30

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 31

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

unknown elicited a different reaction, perhaps because others at the center would also recognize the person as a stranger and expect the director to exercise his authority. It is also possible that Efraim thought he had to prevent a white woman from sleeping at the center because she might be putting herself in a position of danger. Whatever the case, it is evident that only a person who was perceptively different evoked a doubting and hostile response from Efraim. This kind of “stranger” represented, perhaps, a threat, a possible usurpation of authority. In Efraim’s own words, “She shouldn’t have done this without our knowledge.” He was disturbed because Odeda took permission to enter the center as self-evident. She had ignored his position of responsibility and control. Shai’s and Ziva’s friend from Or-Akiva was barred from entering the center. There had also been criticism about the photographer’s entry, and my own. It would seem, then, that the barring of entry to all visitors who were, for one reason or another, different, was because they presented a threat. This underscores the significance of closure as a phenomenon allowing control over a defined area, and, in particular, preventing the entry of undesirable elements. An appearance of closure as a self-evident fact was important in strengthening power and authority rights in relation to outsiders as well as insiders. The debacle involving Tova and Efraim underlined the weakness of authority at the center. Efraim felt threatened by Tova’s attitudes. She, for her part, defied his authority and demonstrated her own power over at least one part of the territory. In showing her ability to control the ulpan area, she cast doubt on the concept of centralized authority at the center to which, presumably, Efraim was referring. His statement, “The director makes the decisions,” may be seen as emblematic of his thinking. In other words, if the director cannot decide, he is no more than a figurehead: he lacks any authority worthy of the name. The threat to Efraim’s image of authority was so strong that he admitted to considering the use of force to impose his will and decisions upon the defiant Tova. He stated that he had already taken action by sending letters of complaint to the authorities. He was, according to his own admission, unable to impose his authority. What appeared to be a loss of authority was, in fact, so critical in Efraim’s own eyes that he felt it necessary to appeal to an outside authority to assist him in the reinstatement of it. He would, he declared, “show her [Tova] who is in control.” In speaking of the exception to the rule forbidding entry, Efraim also revealed the need for controlling entry, and exercising control over those 31

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 32

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

who stayed over at the center. In talking of the Tova debacle, he claimed that he could understand Tova’s refusal to have in a committee of investigation. This “I would understand,” he said. Clearly anything associated with potential criticism was dangerous and had to be kept at bay. Hence Fanny’s refusal to allow free entry to the photographer, the journalists or myself, a researcher. We had to obtain special permits. Tova seemed to be reacting in a manner similar to Efraim’s in protecting herself from external threat. Tova’s defiance should be interpreted in this light – in fact, she changed her mind about allowing us entry on the very day of our visit, motivated probably by the small number of students in the classes rather than by an arbitrary decision on her part. She was on the defensive – afraid that, as one in authority, she might be discovered running an institute of education with very few students. This might have resulted in her being criticized by outsiders. Although on the occasion described by Efraim, Tova defied her director, she too was functioning as one who viewed the center as an independent system that endowed her with authority. Tova revealed her sense of responsibility for the manner in which the forms of authority within the center were perceived by outsiders. It seemed, therefore, that Tova herself conceived of the center as having an independent and separate existence, and that there was a significant distance between two groups: the “guests” from whom the inner workings of the center had to be concealed, and the inner circle, which was privy to the way things really were. The discussion with Albert, the maintenance man, was another example of the connection between closure and the perceived distance between those outside and the others inside. The conversation brought out the fact that assuming management rights was not limited to the directors of the center and the ulpan. I met Albert one evening not far from the gate of the center. He said: “I saw Shai just now; he is very angry with me. He had brought in someone he had met in the hospital just today. I asked him, ‘How can you bring somebody here that you only met today?’” I asked Albert: “Why shouldn’t Shai be allowed to bring that person?” “No, it just isn’t right. You don’t bring a person you met only today.” According to Albert, both homeowners and all others were obliged to recognize “home” territorial borders and the right to control entry within them. Albert behaved as if it was self-evident that he could criticize Shai for having brought an “unknown” home to the center. The issue recalled the remarks about reactions to the entrance of “strangers,” made on the basis of their looking “different.” Albert’s remarks were 32

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 33

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

made after he had identified the “stranger,” that is to say, somebody with a white, “non-Ethiopian” face. Albert appeared to distinguish between strangers and outsiders on the basis of skin color. He believed that he had the right and responsibility to prevent the entrance of strangers, and to decide for the immigrants who would or would not visit their homes at the center. From this we could deduce that entrance into one’s home was dependent on permission granted by those in authority. Certain conditions of entry had to be fulfilled if the visitors were to be recognized as “non-strangers.” A division and a distinction was made between “known” and “unknown,” between those who “belonged” and those who “didn’t belong.” Shai reacted angrily to Albert’s interference. He apparently viewed authority over his caravan home in very different terms – that granting right of access and choosing whom to host were his own clear prerogatives. The fact that Albert chose to tell me of the incident and wanted me to know his opinion in the matter suggests that he needed the support of others, of his colleagues, in order to gain reinforcement and agreement with his actions. As Albert saw it, I was “on his side,” either because he identified me with those who knew how to conduct themselves in interactions with strangers or because he identified me as occupying a position of authority at the center. He expected to hear me voice an opinion similar to his own, and thought I would show loyalty to “our side.” I disappointed him aligning myself with Shai’s view. We thus learned that there was no distinction, distance, or demarcation line between people other than what they themselves perceived, depending on their position, function, needs, and desires. These boundary lines were subject to dynamic change resulting from ongoing interaction. We learned that the perceived division between “outsider” and “insider” engendered a division between those in authority able to make decisions as to who should and who should not be allowed in, and those for whom these issues were decided by others. The physical closing-off of the center by means of a fence and a guard at the entrance served in fact to divide the area into two: the inner area, and the space beyond it and around it. Fanny’s words to the photographer and myself drew a picture of an alienated, outside environment as opposed to the inner reaches of the center that constituted a social framework and security for its inhabitants. In these terms the outside was bad, and the inside good. Journalists and the media inflicted harm; the townspeople of Or-Akiva insult; the municipality of Or-Akiva was 33

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 34

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

the enemy which also chose to patronize the immigrants; the “Joint” had bad things to say about the Jewish Agency. These descriptions palpably delineate the idea of a world divided. The demarcation lines, the closure, were perceived as fact. The concept of closure implied ownership rights over the center and all that it contained, creating a social distance between the insiders and outsiders, influencing their interaction so that they behaved like strangers. In reality, however, no “natural” boundaries distinguished or separated the two groups. The appearance of closure was connected to the distinction made between groups that belonged and did not belong to the framework; between those with management rights and authority, and the others who lacked them.

Officials Demonstrate Control While Dependent on Both External Agencies and Their Superiors In spite of the fact that the center was seen by its directors and others both inside and out as an independent system, it was in fact an integral part of its environment and dependent on it. This contradiction created a continual struggle by the management to assert its authority, both in its own eyes and in those of others. In reality, the center’s directors wielded very little power over it indeed, and were dependent on external agencies. Management invested a great deal of time and energy in its attempt to demonstrate control and responsibility for the place. The business of rubbish disposal by the town council pointed out the problems involved in this image-building amidst a reality of dependence. Rubbish disposal was an ongoing source of anguish for all the directors. Each in his or her own way referred to it as the responsibility of the Or-Akiva Town Council. Fanny said the issue was an example of the way the council treated Ethiopian immigrants. Efraim used the garbage cans as evidence of the council’s inefficiency and as the reason he had so little respect for it. Uri, a former council head, used the garbage can problem to express the enmity he felt for the incumbent head. The directors attributed no significance to the fact that the council garbage collectors worked in the same lackadaisical manner in town as they did at the center. This may be explained by management’s sensitivity toward an area for which they were seen as responsible. The garbage cans were also located in a prominent position opposite the entrance to the center. They stood out because of their filth and neglect. Everybody though 34

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 35

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

was implicated, and could thus be blamed for failure to keep them in a reasonable state. The council’s responsibility for waste disposal demonstrated how limited the independence of the center and those responsible for it really was. Management often had no way of determining the outcome of issues critical to its functioning. Its constant preoccupation with the physical condition of the center was an additional example of its dependence on outside factors. Fanny explained the marked neglect in the garden and the clubhouse by saying that she was new to the place and that the center had been about to close before she came. Her apologetic attitude revealed the responsibility she perceived as an “owner,” one who is either proud of that ownership or ashamed of it. She believed that others held her responsible for the state of the center. On my first visit, Fanny spoke about the children who were sent home because of ringworm (that was the excuse given). This incident again indicates dependence on external institutions such as the municipality and the school. The center could not function independently because it required outside services that were not available inside. These external factors could make or implement decisions that impinged upon its life. The “ringworm” incident at Etzion School took place against a background of the council’s attempts to increase its budget for repairs from the Ministry of Education. Again, this incident underlined the dependence of the center’s management not only on its superiors and the Jewish Agency, but also on the council and state ministries. At the beginning of the 1984 school year, the head of the Or-Akiva Town Council announced that a class of immigrant children at the Etzion School would be sent away. Efraim’s appeals to the headmaster, to the council, to the heads of the Jewish Agency, and to the Ministry of Education were all in vain. Nevertheless, he gave orders that the children were to go to school. They went, but were sent home again. Efraim was extremely angry. He said, “I would fight this one out, but I cannot get the okay from my boss. It’s all right for my boss to say, ‘Be quiet’ when he sits in his office out there.” After the children had been sent home from school, I accompanied Efraim on a visit to the headmaster of Etzion School. He justified his actions by claiming a shortage of classrooms; new ones needed to be built. We attacked him strongly for not being able to find any other solution to the problem. In an unguarded moment he said: “Ask Chaim Tal [deputy head of the council]. I can solve the problem, but the coun35

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 36

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

cil ordered me not to accept these children. You need to speak to the council, not to me.” Later on he admitted: “Off the record, the council wants the funds for repairs.” Efraim replied with enmity: “The council will see that I can get back at it, and that roads in Israel go in two directions.” On another occasion the headmaster explained that the school’s dependence on the council was a fact that could not be ignored. If he failed to carry out council decisions, budgets designated for the school could be blocked. There was thus a clear chain of dependence connecting the center with the council and the school. In what Efraim said about his superiors at the Jewish Agency, he revealed his impotence: while he was trying to cope with the center’s problems, his superiors were far away; they not only didn’t help, but occasionally even tied his hands. He saw himself as limited not only by outside factors like the council, but also by those who were supposed to be co-operating with him within the system although outside the center itself. Efraim’s dependence on his superiors was no easier than his dependence on the council since he believed his superiors were preventing him from acting autonomously, in the way he felt necessary. Again, the gap between the cultivated image of an independent territorial framework and the reality of the situation could be seen in the words of Uri, director of the center after Efraim. When I met him soon after his taking up the position, he told me, “Managing an absorption center is like managing a small town.” Continuing, he said, pointing to the book of regulations, “The director’s job here isn’t like a mayor’s. You don’t have the freedom to do what you want. You are, in fact limited by regulations and directives and dictated policy.” Uri, like Efraim, but in his own way, admitted to the contradiction between the image of the director and his authority, and the practical limitations of his power. The director was dependent on others who “tell you what to do.” The center’s directors were engaged in an ongoing struggle to be recognized as possessors of power and responsibility for everything within the center. They functioned as independent, even while admitting the limitations of their power. In this situation closure was perceived as vital because it created the need in the outsiders to turn to the directors for permission to enter the center and reach the immigrants. In this way management’s power was augmented. 36

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 37

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

Bureaucratic Patronage and Responsibility at the “Closed” Center The pattern of closure and the fostered image of ownership of the center and the people in it were linked to the concept of responsibility of patronage over the immigrants. Expressions of care and responsibility for them became management’s means of justifying its ownership rights over place and people. Several advantages could be derived from this patronage. The ideology of care and assistance helped the bureaucrats introduce the need for their patronage. But when the management had to cope with situations in which it was asked and expected to demonstrate power and authority, it was seen to have little power or desire to fulfil any function of authority or responsibility. The incident of the class that was sent home illustrated this conception of patronage. Efraim reacted angrily and with a sense of frustration because he was unable to guarantee the interests of those for whom he felt responsible. “His” children were sent home from school at the directive of the town council, and there was nothing he could do about it. His reaction indicates that he saw himself as responsible for the children, but as dependent on the council and the school. Efraim’s behavior showed that he saw himself as patron of “his” children: he had to protect them from all harm and provide for them. In this context we were better able to understand Fanny’s remarks about the journalists and researchers. She felt responsible for the immigrants and would not, under any circumstances, allow anybody to “harm them.” Likewise, she was concerned about the Ethiopians staying together so that “they do not get lost.” She said, “I really can’t make up my mind about whether they should stay together or live in different parts of the country.” The immigrants were under her care and so where they were going to live was her concern. However, she revealed apathy toward the immigrants in talking about what would happen to them when they were no longer her responsibility, and others would be making decisions on their behalf: “I’m not interested how they decide where they should live.” The inner contradiction in her thinking was also apparent in what she said about the town council. She said, on the one hand, that it “rules with an iron rod”; but on the other hand justified the council head’s refusal to allow the Ethiopians to live in his town. Her first remark referred to matters within her area of responsibility (the garbage cans at the gates of the center); in her second, she was expressing an opinion about matters outside her domain. 37

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 38

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

We thus see that for her, responsibility extended only as far as the extent of her own framework of control. Fanny’s expressions exposed the gap between her declared intentions of caring and the substance behind them. “They will get lost,” was an image of children in need of guidance, advice, and adult protection. “They are innocent,” revealed how the Ethiopian immigrants were persuaded to end their strike. The image suggests inexperienced children who may be saved from harm by lies on their behalf. Fanny employed the diminutive to justify her patronizing attitude. She did in fact admit that the lie was told not for the good of the immigrants, but as a means of ending the strike. The lie was for the good of the management of which she was a part. It sought to restore order in the center. Behind this image of patronage and responsibility lies also suspicion and anxiety about criticism. If the management has responsibility, it must manifest itself in both bad times and good. Those who see themselves as responsible also believe that others see them as so. Criticism of those responsible suggest an abdication of responsibility for those in need of care. Fanny’s words made the concept of patronage clear. She felt obliged to defend herself and others against any complaint about her lack of caring for – or neglect of – the immigrants for whom the Jewish Agency was responsible, and she too as its representative. As such, she saw the “Joint” as an enemy because the organization had denigrated the name of the agency abroad. She sang the praises of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef for his recognition of the Ethiopians as Jews. The children were sent to a religious school because that was seen as appropriate for them, and the parents were sent off to undergo religious conversion rites – another compromise made for their own good. The same fact that Jacqueline has criticized was again explained in terms of patronage: she considered herself responsible for “her” immigrants, and took care that no harm should befall them. She was critical of the possible harm that the rabbis might inflict on “her” immigrants. Jacqueline’s remarks and behavior during our meeting in the nursery served as a further example of patronage. She saw the child as “her” child and shouted at him when he didn’t behave as she thought fit. She saw herself as responsible for him: “He goes nowhere without me, and listens to nobody but me.” The discussion in the office after the death of Avi (Adam and Dorit’s baby) underscores the workers’ need to publicize their caring for the immigrants and, at the same time, deny responsibility. During the discussion there were a number of somchot in the office: Albert and 38

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 39

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

Azariah, the maintenance men; Avner, the social worker; Yehudit, the secretary and Anat, the somechet. Devora, one of the somchot, stated: “Would you believe it? Until I told Ziva [Dorit’s close friend] to cry, she didn’t cry. The moment I told her to cry, she began to cry.” Jacqueline, another somechet, said, “I kept telling her that because she was breastfeeding she shouldn’t cry.” Alice, also a somechet, interjected, “Really! Do you think they are fools? She saw the chairs outside and understood that something was going on.” To this Devora added, “She was in such shock!” The discussion turned to the condition of the babies and sick immigrants. Jacqueline said of the baby that had died: “Poor little thing, he shouldn’t have died ….They really don’t look after their children. They dress them in clothes that aren’t warm enough. They themselves dress warmly, but they bring the children out with very little on them … when I saw Shoshana and Efraim’s child, I shouted at the mother and told her to dress him properly. She took him home and dressed him. He went out into the mud, and peed in his pants. Again I told her to change him. I returned later on to find that he had peed again. That’s how they are. There’s nothing to be done.” The images and expressions used here connote the patronage of the center’s workers employed vis-à-vis the immigrants. The two somchot told us they had told Ziva how she should behave. Their orders were contradictory: one told Ziva to cry, while the other told her not to. Both were sure that they knew what was best for Ziva. They were instructing her for her own good. Their patronage was related to the basic human impulses of sorrow and pain over the death of a close friend’s baby. In their opinion, Ziva didn’t even know when to cry and when not to. They also assumed that she didn’t dare cry without their permission. Devora’s final remarks revealed the meaning of what the other two somchot said: that the immigrants were stupid. Similar attitudes stemmed from what was seen as the unsuitable way the immigrants cared for their children – “The way they look after their children.” Jacqueline spoke of the need to intervene in the way Shoshana and Efraim cared for their child. She seemed to see herself as responsible for the children because their parents were ignorant, apathetic, or without a natural sense of responsibility. The limits of the officials’ responsibility were made clear by something said during the conversation about the dead baby: “That’s how they are; there’s nothing we can do about it,” said one of the somchot. In this, she was shifting the responsibility in case she stood accused of any connection with the tragedy. 39

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 40

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Here one sees more refusal to accept responsibility rather than caring and involvement. The workers made sure they weren’t accused of anything likely to put the value of their work in question. On the one hand they presented themselves as responsible for the immigrants in their care; on the other, they denied any responsibility that questioned their status or their interests. Against this background of perception, terms like “mother” or “father” were easily understood symbolically, but seemed empty of any real meaning. Fanny presented herself as the immigrants’ “mother.” The center’s cultural coordinator hit the children in a “fatherly” way, and described his relationship with them as being that of a father who punishes his children for bad behavior. The significance of this sense of responsibility was that what the workers did for the immigrants was for their good. Any criticism of the manner in which the immigrants were treated cast doubt on the need for the workers in the first place, and on the value of their work. For this reason, even the slightest criticism had to be rejected. The incidents that resulted in damage or serious problems sharpened even further the significance of the refusal to accept responsibility for the immigrants. In these cases, the workers preferred to distance themselves from positions of responsibility. This may be seen in the words and actions of Yehudit, the secretary, when Avi died and when other babies were hospitalized. Yehudit told us that she had contacted a Jewish Agency area supervisor for advice. He told her to get in touch with the regional health officer at the Ministry of Health and ask him to come to the center and examine the babies. At the time there were six babies ill with respiratory problems. Yehudit said: “I don’t want it [the responsibility] on my head ….It isn’t my fault, but I don’t want to have dying babies around me. The inspector agreed. “I’ll stand behind anything you do” – “that’s what he said to me.” Yehudit contacted the regional health officer and spoke to him very politely: “The agency’s inspector told me to turn to you. We have six babies who are ill and in the hospital.” She told of asking the health officer to come and examine the infants, and reacted to the answer she received in the following way: ‘It’s impossible … I understand … The problem is that there are parents who don’t want to hospitalize their children …. You understand … I’m worried.” She accepted without any argument the health officer’s refusal to come and ended her piece by saying: “I’ve done what I was supposed to do. The most important thing is that I’m no longer responsible. They 40

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 41

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

phone me at home every five minutes. Last night at eleven o’clock, somebody phoned me about Adam’s sister. Her parents didn’t want to leave her in the hospital. I finally said that I didn’t want anybody to phone me at home. What will be, will be.” Both Yehudit’s words and her actions suggest the way she viewed responsibility: it apparently existed as long as she was in the office and at the center. The moment she left she was no longer responsible. She refused to be bothered at home with work. “What will be will be.” She stated that her responsibilities were limited to the area of the center, but even there they were restricted. She considered herself quite free once she had “passed the buck” to a higher authority. Incidents which threatened to disturb the center’s daily routine and raise questions of exactly who is in control resulted in patterns of defensive behavior. The refusal to let journalists in, for example, could be seen as an attempt to keep a potential threat at bay; the call for outside help and the involvement of people from the outside in life at the center provided further examples. Yehudit’s story about the windbreakers and Fanny’s behavior were other examples of the workers’ refusal to accept responsibility when problems arose. Yehudit disapproved of Fanny’s decision to change Jewish Agency criteria for allocating the jackets. (She had decided to distribute them on the basis of need rather than on the length of time immigrants had been in the country. ) Yehudit had, she told us, said to Fanny: “You can’t do a thing like that.” About her talk with Fanny, she said, “She told me that the immigrants had sold the jackets on the black market in Netanya. I told her that I didn’t care what they did with them. They could sell them for the price of a lollipop as far as I was concerned. But she couldn’t change her instructions. I refuse to have anything to do with the whole business now.” By then Fanny was no longer employed at the center; she had gone to Netanya to manage an absorption center there. She would visit Galuyot occasionally, especially when Yehudit and Anat, the somechet, felt under pressure. They insisted, for example, that she come and complete the allocation of the jackets because it was a source of anger among the immigrants and had created problems. Yehudit explained her position thus: “Everything I do has somebody’s backing – even when I gave instructions not to supply any more cooking gas to an immigrant who had fallen behind with his gas bills. That time I called an official in Tel Aviv, who said: “You can write to the immigrant who owes money telling him that if he does not pay his bills we will take legal proceedings.’ I often phone the Jewish Agency to get 41

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 42

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

direct permission for something; I’m not going to get into anything without the proper backing. Fanny cooked up the problem over the jackets, so let her come and give them out. The problem can wait for her to solve it.” She added angrily: “I started giving out the jackets and what do I find on the lists? An immigrant who arrived a year ago doesn’t get a jacket, but someone who has only just arrived does!” Yehudit’s reaction seemed a result of pressure rather than of concern for the immigrants. She claimed: “I don’t care what they do with the jackets” during a situation of considerable discontent at the center, for example when male immigrants staged a demonstration and the entrance to the office was blocked, with Yehudit and Anat inside, Yehudit sought to restore order. She seemed to lack any real sense of responsibility, caring, or concern. Management wanted security, stability, and industrial peace. When problems arose it seemed eager to pass the buck to those higher up. Management’s concept of responsibility was thus, judging by its behavior, flexible. It changed according to a given situation and immediate needs. Its readiness to accept responsibility was not only subject to changing conditions but depended also on how others involved viewed the situation. Responsibility was perceived as a test of management’s power, of the official’s ability to run the center and exert full control over it.

Officials as the Center’s “Gatekeepers” The form of closure employed at the center allowed management to control access to the immigrants. In the absence of any real power, the perceived image of closure was vital to their purposes. People outside the center assumed it was impossible to make contact with the immigrants without prior permission from the management. Outsiders saw themselves as strangers and therefore dependent on permission from those in charge. People from outside who desired any contact with the immigrants turned first to the office – not only because it was located next to the gate, but because they were in no doubt that they could gain access to the immigrants only through the office and the agreement and mediation of those who ran it. A number of examples will make this clear. A volunteer from Emunah, a religious women’s organization, told me how the people in the office reacted when she first wanted to meet the immigrants: “When I arrived, they asked me what I was doing, 42

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 43

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

then told me I couldn’t see the immigrants because they were carrying infectious diseases.” This was sometime in June, by which time, I noted, the immigrants had already been in Israel for about a year. The volunteer concurred. “I was really afraid,” she said. “Yehudit told me, ‘I think you should know that I take care not to shake their hands. And when I go home to my children I wash my hands.” This woman also told me about an attempt by some people from a neighboring village to enter the Givat Olga absorption center. They arrived on the immigrants’ first Sabbath bringing gifts of flowers and tangerines. The director told them that approaching the immigrants was dangerous because of the diseases they carried. She refused to allow the villagers into the center. On another occasion my informant presented herself at the office and asked whether one of the workers would help her carry some clothes she had brought for the immigrants. Said Yehudit: “We don’t bother with this stuff any more. Speak to Arie about it.” And then there is what Fanny told me about the time she was director of the absorption center in Netanya during a period when it was inhabited by immigrants who had arrived with Operation Moshe. “Netanya really went out of its way to help the Ethiopians. People came to me every day wanting to help. Each one had to speak to the director. I could talk to only some of them, but I was careful not to dampen their enthusiasm.” She told me that now there was a special person in charge of volunteers because it had become impossible to manage them. One day three people came into Fanny’s office in Or-Akiva. They asked for the director. Anat asked them what they wanted and they told her that they were from a neighboring municipal council and wanted to volunteer to help the new immigrants. Anat went to ask Fanny. In the meantime, I asked them who they were, and one of them answered, “I am head of the Alona Council; this is my assistant, and this is my treasurer.” I asked them what the purpose of their visit was. The council head explained that “because of everything that has happened we feel the need to give of ourselves, to do something for the immigrants.” Then Anat reappeared, saying that Fanny would soon see them. They went outside to wait. After a considerable time they left, and were never seen again. A class from a local school brought parcels of confectionery on the festival of Purim, as is the custom. The teacher came into the office and asked how the parcels could be delivered to the immigrants. Yehudit said: “Leave them here and I will pass them on.” 43

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 44

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The teacher asked: “Couldn’t we meet the immigrants and give the parcels to them personally?” Yehudit’s answer was: “The problem is that I have no one to escort you.” These examples bear out directly the attempt by management – the director, secretary, and somechet – to block direct contact with the immigrants by controlling the channels of access to them. But more than this, they illustrate the recognition outsiders accorded to the office as the place where the contact should be initiated. They accepted the absolute necessity of getting either permission or agreement, or help from the people who ran the office. Direct contact between outsiders and the immigrants was seen as a threat to those in positions of control. If outsiders were allowed access to the immigrants without their assistance, the scope of the services required from the center’s workers would be reduced. Further, independent contact with the immigrants could create opportunities for social intercourse, and again, alternative channels for supplying the immigrants’ needs might be opened. For these reasons management’s readiness to allow contact was limited to a level that would guarantee the center’s continued control over access to and representation of the immigrants. Access to the immigrants was made possible by means of an “appointee” or representative; the coordination of the work by the volunteers in Netanya is an example. Before volunteers could do anything for an immigrant, they were obliged to go through an intermediary. Festival gifts could be passed on only by means of Yehudit’s appointee. The control of access worked in both directions: both insiders and outsiders accepted it as a given. It wasn’t only the volunteers who recognized their dependence on the office. Representatives of various organizations also saw this fact as selfevident. They had to turn to the office, be seen by those in charge, and get permission and help before they could make any contact with the immigrants. Often these visitors would come to the office equipped with a permit or letter of introduction from Jewish Agency officials. The attempt to gain access to the immigrants would often begin in Tel Aviv and continue at the gates of the center and in the office; and this effort did not always lead to an actual meeting with the immigrants. One day, an army officer and a woman soldier came to the center to try and enlist Ethiopian boys who had dropped out of school into the army. They entered the office and, in the absence of Fanny, turned to Yehudit who told them, “I have had no notification from Micha [deputy director of social services at the Jewish Agency]. They should have let me know.” 44

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 45

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

The officer said: “They told me it was all arranged; my visits have been coordinated with all the absorption centers except this one. Why is that?” He sat with a computerized list on his lap, and spoke to Yehudit gently. But she was adamant: “I am sorry, but I must have a letter or something.” During this exchange, the officer enquired about the immigrant whose name was first on the list. He was answered by a somechet, who happened to be in the office at the time. She told him that that person was no longer at the center. The officer continued to press the matter, slowly going over the list of names and crossing out those not suitable for his purpose – either because they were married or involved in studies. After reviewing his whole list, he said: “Look, there are only two names left. We certainly don’t need a big meeting to discuss them.” To no avail. Both the woman soldier and the officer left the center and they too never returned. The army offered two other projects designed to help the immigrants. One was a pap smear for all the women. The office organized the whole thing: preparing a suitable place and persuading the women of the need to co-operate. An Ethiopian nursing sister was enlisted to help. The army also organized a dental checkup for all the center’s immigrants. Permission to enter the center again had first to be obtained from the Jewish Agency. This project too was organized through the office. Again it can be seen how the center’s officials strove to strengthen their hold on the channels of access to the immigrants. This was made possible largely by the form of closure in force, which convinced people that both entry and the center itself were tightly controlled, i.e., dependent on management for access to the immigrants.

Immigrants at the Center as a Social Resource in the Officials’ Hands Closure allowed a concentration of immigrants at the center and monopolistic control of access to the immigrants and their access to the outside. Closure allowed the functionaries to use the immigrants as a “resource,” strengthening their position in social exchanges “outside” and helping them to secure a hold over outside services offered to the inhabitants. The officials could thus further their own interests through their representation of the immigrants. The following description of a visit to the center demonstrates this. Visits by people from abroad and from various parts of Israel were an integral part of life at the center. The visitors, as described above, made 45

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 46

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

their way there via the Jewish Agency. A phone call from the agency was usually received prior to the visit itself. When visitors entered the center they were received by people in the office: the director, the secretary, and the somechet. Usually Anat, the somechet, would tell them about the background to the Ethiopian immigration, describing the nature and the problems of caring for these people. The guests would receive light refreshments, after which they would tour the center. Their route always passed through the nursery, and often through the ulpan and the immigrants’ caravan homes. The visitors would take a lot of photographs, particularly in the nursery. When a large group of some fifty to sixty people arrived, a table and chairs would be set out on the lawn next to the office. There would be a tablecloth on the table, and fruit juice and biscuits set out on it. One day, a Young Jewish Leaders delegation arrived from Texas. As usual, Anat accompanied them on their tour. When the group reached the nursery, the visitors began photographing the children and were photographed together with them. The children were used to visitors; they stretched out their hands in greeting, smiled appropriately, and did everything that was asked of them. The visitors were delighted. It was explained to me that the immigrants didn’t like visitors being brought to their caravan homes, as had been the practice in the past. Now they were taken only to the ulpan, the clubhouse, and the nursery. After one group had left the office, after being served refreshments, Anat very proudly showed me a white sweatshirt the visitors had given her as a present. She pointed out that this was the first time she had ever received a gift from a group, and expressed her annoyance at the ingratitude of past visitors. She said the visitors had asked her to put the sweatshirt on, and added that they had offered her work in America. She seemed to have enjoyed being the center of attraction. When she left the office, the guests photographed Alon, the Ethiopian interpreter, and some other workers they had met on their way. Anat went out to wish them a very friendly goodbye. She told us that “they were very enthusiastic.” One day, Efraim asked me to receive a similar group, saying: “I have a group of tourists coming tomorrow, but Anat won’t be here. You know English well, don’t you?” I agreed to receive the group. Some time later, Efraim spoke on the phone to Gabby, the director of the absorption center in Pardes Hana. He talked about the upcoming visit by the tourists: “So you have a bus load from England? I have a group from Boston. Yes, they’re coming to see the zoo and take photos.” He laughed with enjoyment. 46

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 47

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

After putting down the phone, he told me what would happen the next day. I asked him whether anybody would be organizing the technical side of things, like refreshments. Efraim said: “I’ll see to everything. I’ll make sure everything looks good – but I don’t speak English very well.” I responded: “But you’ll be there, so they can meet the director.” “Of course I’ll be with you all the time,” he said, “but you must tell them about everything we do; how we deal with the medical problems, and what diseases they suffer from – skin and stomach, for example. Tell them about the divorces and the children born outside marriage. Tell them that there are some seven thousand immigrants from Ethiopia already here, and another seven thousand on their way. You’ll need to say we don’t know how the immigrants arrived, or where they are now. The tourists will want to know about the immigrants’ links with Judaism, and about their rituals. We explain to them that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef recognized them as Jews in 1971. We also tell the tourists about their life back in Ethiopia and their traditions there – but you probably know more about these things than I do.” While we spoke, Efraim was looking for some name he wanted to use but couldn’t remember. He picked up a blue file and flicked through it, looking for something. He then showed me background material that Fanny, the previous director, had prepared. During the course of these explanations, he described the route the visitors would take as they walked around the center. He explained that groups were foisted on him all the time, and added that he had tried not to take the group that was coming because he hadn’t been given any notice. He then warned me that the tourists wouldn’t be interested in any long-winded explanations. “What they want is to take photos.” He told me that I had to warn Tova, the ulpan director and also the teacher there about the group coming and that he had already spoken to Betty, who was in charge of the nursery. He also pointed out where the guests would sit when they arrived. “When they arrive, they are seated here and then taken to the nursery. They’ll arrive this time tomorrow, and all of them will immediately run to the toilets to pee.” We walked on, and met Anat. I told her, half-apologetically and halfjokingly, “Did you know that I’ve inherited your public relations job for tomorrow?” Anat seemed taken aback. She reacted reluctantly with: “My pleasure!” “Efraim asked me to take your place for tomorrow because you will be away,” I explained. 47

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 48

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Efraim said: “They are sending one bus to Pardes Hana, and one to Galuyot. The Jewish Agency told me I had to take the group, and I was forced to agree.” I asked Anat to tell me something about the diseases of the Ethiopians, which was something she usually talked about. Without saying anything, she took out a sheet of paper with a few words written on it. She then explained what she usually told visitors. In the end, however, the bus got sent to another place, and never reached Galuyot at all. Visitors to the centers were the guests of the office, of the director and the somechet in particular. Both were responsible for receiving guests, and the preparing of chairs and refreshments. They also informed those responsible in the nursery and the ulpan. As hosts, they guided visitors round, offering the necessary explanations. They talked of the “special problems” associated with the Ethiopians, and represented them in any dialogue with the tourists. The encounter between visitors and immigrants were impersonal. The visits to the caravans were cancelled at the immigrants’ request. There was no mutuality about these visits: the guests arrived by their own request, but the immigrants weren’t asked if they wanted to meet them; neither were they invited to meet the visitors. To those who organized these visits, the choice of the absorption centers seemed obvious: that was where immigrants were concentrated; the adults in the ulpan, the children in the kindergarten. Neither was there any need to ask the immigrants whether they wanted to receive guests, to inform them of a coming visit. As far as the center’s management was concerned, it was with them that visits needed to be negotiated. The immigrants themselves also saw things in these terms. Their only qualification was to express annoyance at the intrusion into the privacy of their homes. The managements of the Jewish Agency and the center saw this concentration of immigrants as a potential means of advancing the affairs of their respective institutions. Tourists were directed to the absorption centers, where they could be suitably impressed by the work done by the Jewish Agency for the Ethiopian immigrants. That was one means of raising funds. These visits also allowed the agency to polish up its somewhat tarnished image both in Israel and abroad. Their care for the Ethiopian immigrants, which had attracted a great deal of public attention, served to enhance the image of those engaged in the activity. The many groups that came and all the photographs taken by the tourists for showing at home bore witness to the management’s real interest: it wasn’t sincere concern for the welfare of the Ethiopians. 48

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 49

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

The management of the Galuyot center was interested in visits by tourists. These brought certain advantages, such as the recognition by superiors of the work that was being done. Perhaps this was the reason it was important to Efraim that everything at least look as if it was in order. He was ready to make all the technical arrangements as long as I agreed to present the care of the immigrants to visitors in a positive light. For this reason too, Anat didn’t take kindly to the idea of my replacing her as the guide. It was a threat, an invasion of her territory, of her responsibility and expertise in matters of health and knowledge of English. She was manifesting her fear of being dispensable. The importance attached to hosting the tourists, by her colleagues and her superiors, explained her negative reaction. My embarrassed apology, and Efraim’s unconvincing explanations also underlined the significance of the threat. I said, “I have inherited your job,” words that posed a threat to her job. Efraim said: “I was forced to agree.” He explained his position as being one of no choice. The bringing together of a bus load of foreign visitors and the concentration of immigrants at the center afforded Efraim the opportunity to strengthen his position vis-à-vis his superiors as the director of an impressive and sought after absorption center. Efraim denigrated the visits by tourists, evincing a lack of good will in putting himself out to welcome them. But the facts showed that this wasn’t the whole truth. Efraim in fact took pains and was anxious about every small detail associated with the visit. He explained to me everything the tourists would do from the moment they arrived. Attitudes toward such visits were complex and problematic. On the one hand they were useful in strengthening positions and contacts; on the other, the workers at the center saw them as in bad taste and infringing on the dignity of the immigrants: note Efraim’s expressions of denigration of the guests, like his remark that they weren’t interested in really serious information about the immigrants, that all they wanted to do was take photographs. Efraim sarcastically described the center as a zoo – a description that dehumanized the very people he was presenting to his visitors. As one lot of visitors were taking photographs of the children, Anat told me how much the immigrants disliked the tourists visiting their homes. It would seem, then, that the workers themselves were uneasy about these invasions of privacy. They couldn’t ignore the fact that the immigrants were being used by both the Jewish Agency and by the guests simply because they were under the center’s control. It is for this reason, perhaps, that 49

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 50

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

the center management expressed reservations about the guests, blaming those responsible at the Jewish Agency for imposing these visits on them. The immigrants could be used to improve social exchange with the outside world. This exchange was based on continually describing the immigrants in generalizing and stereotypical terms. There was talk of “the diseases they have,” and “their culture,” and they were said to suffer from skin and stomach disorders. They were socially “deviant” in their attitude to divorce and birth outside marriage. “They” also had strange traditions and strange rituals. The immigrants were thus presented as a homogeneous collective possessed of inferior qualities and characteristics, all denoting primitiveness and backwardness. Describing the immigrants as so very different from “us” made it easier to sell “them.” Visiting tourists received a similar treatment, becoming the subject of generalizations. They were described in pejorative terms as wanting “only to take photographs.” They were viewed as superficial, interested only in the visual aspects of the immigrants and their “piquant” story. The description of the way they ran to the toilets to do “pee-pee” upon arrival turned them into children. The workers described themselves in terms of “we”: “We do this and that for them and care for them,” when relating to the immigrants and “we tell” anecdotes, when referring to the visitors. Superiority, authority, control, and right of representation were all implied. This categorization of “us” and “them” at the center was arbitrary. According to what the workers did and said, they perceived the visits as a meeting between three intrinsically different groups: workers, immigrants, and guests. The descriptions implied a polarized dichotomy: primitive and civilized, traditional and modern, children and adults, cared-for and care-givers, ignorant and knowledgeable. But in the final analysis, Efraim knew that these categories were fictitious. His sentence about just wanting things to look good revealed his real intent: merely to put on a show. “We must tell them” this and that, he repeated – again revealing his need to look good and in control of the situation. Efraim wanted explanations to be given to the visitors in terms of what he believed they wanted to hear. “They’ll ask about the links the Ethiopians have with Judaism and about their rituals.” Tourists should hear only what they are supposed to hear, that is, “everything we do here.” Efraim offered me a prepared text for presentation. From the conversation with Gabby, the director of another absorption center, it could be inferred that Efraim was obliged to act in this way because of the expectations of his superiors at the Jewish Agency, who sent these groups 50

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 51

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

along. Nevertheless, he revealed his hidden weakness: the poor English with which he was unable to present the center to the visitors in the best light. He was aware that people saw him as responsible for and representative of the center. This was why, in criticizing the shallowness of visiting guests, he was revealing his own shortcoming, his limited knowledge of English. He made mistakes regarding the number of Ethiopians in Israel and the number en route. He was also mistaken about the year in which Rabbi Yosef recognized the Ethiopians as Jews. He asked me to help in presenting the center in a positive light – either because he believed my English was better than his, or because, as a researcher, I was better informed than he. Efraim’s intention to grant me the public relation function, albeit temporarily, made Anat feel threatened and disgruntled, and revealed her personal interest in the group visits. This choice might also have accorded Efraim an advantage. I was there only on an informal basis, as a volunteer, and Anat’s monopoly over the guiding job may have made Efraim feel he was being edged out of a position of responsibility and representation. Anat’s pride both in her gift from the visiting group and in the praise lavished upon her again pointed to benefits that could accrue from contacts with guests. Such contact also strengthened her position vis-à-vis the other workers. Her monopoly over the center’s public relations made her vital to the intrinsic scheme of things. Only she could speak to visitors in English; only she could supply details, in that language, of the diseases the immigrants suffered. This function allowed Anat to make contact with people from abroad and also, perhaps, to receive work offers. The contradiction between her criticism of the guests and the manner in which she boasted of her contact with them could be interpreted as an attempt to diminish job benefits that might have made other workers jealous. A visit by a group of workers from the Mevaseret Absorption Center near Jerusalem is a further example of the way the immigrants – conveniently concentrated in one spot, categorized, and controlled – were exploited for ulterior motives. For this visit, Anat prepared special refreshments: filled bread rolls decorated with vegetables were added to the usual fare. Anat said of this visit: “They were very impressed, they said the insides of our caravan homes are very clean.” She added that the guests had also told her that there were five hundred English-speaking “Anglo-Saxon” immigrants in the absorption center at Mevaseret and that “They aren’t very clean.” Yehudit also said: “They [the visitors] gobbled the food.” 51

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 52

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

There were some differences between this visit and those of the tourists. The group from Mevaseret was “local.” This didn’t just mean that they spoke Hebrew but also that they were familiar with the character of an absorption center. They were received at Galuyot as respected colleagues. Anat, for example, took pains to prepare something special by way of refreshment. The route they took was also different. As colleagues, they visited the caravans, while tourists could only visit the center’s institutions. Also, a different significance was attached to the two groups: the tourists were denigrated, while the opinions and feelings of their colleagues mattered. The concept of “looking good” clearly varied from situation to situation. In the workers’ opinion, this meant that the tourists had to be impressed by a well-kept center, by its institutions, by the dedicated work of the team, and by the pathos of the immigrants’ presentation as weak and backward. Thus the tourists were told about their diseases, customs, and rituals. A visit to the caravans could draw criticism from outsiders, because they would be considered poor living quarters, for instance. In contrast, “looking good” to colleagues seemingly meant clean caravans. The workers at the Galuyot center didn’t feel threatened by a visit from colleagues who shared the same responsibilities and the same problems. In any case, they were quite familiar with the way the immigrants lived. They were, after all, representatives of the same organization. It is thus clear how the workers at the center used the immigrants to promote their own interests and social contacts; to better relations with their superiors, and with colleagues inside and outside. The office was a source of information about the immigrants. It played host to guests and decided how the center’s inhabitants would be presented to the guests. The immigrants were at once black, downtrodden and Jewish; all qualities that made them attractive to tourists and therefore a convenient focus of social exchange. They possessed, too, a certain mystery owing to their exotic past, the circumstances of their immigration to Israel, and the altruistic help and treatment proffered them.

The Immigrants as a Social Resource for Organizations Outside the Center The concentration of the immigrants as a categorized collective served the interests of organizations and people beyond the center. The office invariably functioned as a substitute for the contacts between the immi52

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 53

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

grants and organizations and not only as a control over access to and by the immigrants. There are a number of examples of this. Two psychologists from Aliyat Hanoar, an organization working for the welfare and education of young immigrants, sought positions as counselors for Ethiopian immigrant children. The center and its immigrants, as described, afforded them the opportunity to enter a new area of work “treating immigrant children.” Their involvement in this area and the control of it would bring the psychologists several benefits: employment during a period in which there had been cuts in the number employed by Aliyat Hanoar; and the kudos involved in treating immigrants of a unique kind. More on this later. A meeting on the subject of Judaism studies for the immigrants offers another example of the ways in which interests of organizations outside the center were served through organizational exchange. It also shows the connection between the ideology of assistance and the self-interest of management achieved by its negotiation on behalf of the immigrant collective. The meeting took place at the center upon the initiative of the National Supervisor of Religious Education in the Ministry of Education. In addition to this supervisor, the following people participated in the meeting: three members of Emunah, a religious women’s organization, a local volunteer, a volunteer from the area, a national supervisor, two representatives of the Or-Akiva municipality, the chairman of the religious council, its secretary, the director of the center and two other representatives, the cultural director, and myself. One Emunah representative explained the work of her organization: “We work with Ethiopian and other immigrants wherever they live. Our aim is to offer them spirituality above and beyond the material services the Jewish Agency organizes so well.” The supervisor from the ministry then made clear the purpose of the meeting, which took place near the time of the expected closing of the ulpan: “We must exploit the presence of the immigrants at the center and continue teaching them after the ulpan closes. We can teach Judaism studies and give lectures in other areas too.” He pointed out that the council intended to employ the necessary teachers. The volunteer from the area told us about a project for the “adoption” of Ethiopian families by religious families in the area; she also mentioned a project for the guidance of Ethiopian women. She added that there had been difficulty in finding host families because of rumors that “the links of the immigrants with Judaism are problematic.” She said “They are shy and sensitive; if we are to invite them it will have to be on a personal basis – inviting couples, for instance.” 53

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 54

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The chairman of the religious council took a practical view: “I like deeds, not words,” he said. “I have a practical suggestion: Do the families have guides? I have heard that there is one such guide for every ten families.” The director affirmed that every ten families have a somechet. The chairman continued: “Let each somechet bring ten families to the synagogue, and we will train the synagogue ushers in how to receive the immigrants. If we can make two local families responsible for ten Ethiopian families, they will be able to teach them how to pray in the synagogue. All the somchot will have to do is to get the families to the synagogue. In addition, I will organize some special events, and bring cantors to sing melodies with the traditional Ethiopian intonation. I did something similar in all the synagogues at the time of the new moon. But the financial situation of the religious education council is much tighter than the municipality’s. If you could let me have a budget for these activities, I could organize them in the best way possible.” At the close of the meeting, it was decided that all the immigrants would meet at the center with the Ethiopian inspector one week later. In fact, nothing more was to happen. A number of comments: It was the representatives of the different organizations that initiated the meeting at the center. Representatives of the local council were invited to the meeting. From this we can deduce that the municipality was not, in the view of those gathered, the responsible body. The meeting was arranged at the center, and its workers participated in it. It is they who were seen as responsible for organizing further studies after the ulpan closed, and for the “spiritual adoption” of the immigrants by the town of Or-Akiva. This recognition of the center’s office demonstrates again a perception of it as responsible for the immigrants and access to them. It had the power to order the women somchot to bring the immigrants to the synagogue in Or-Akiva. In addition, the representatives of the organizations presented themselves as negotiators and organizers of contacts between the center’s management and the town. There was no need to meet the immigrants themselves. They could thus instruct the office to organize activities for the immigrants. The participants in the meeting described above assumed patronage of the immigrants. They talked about caring for them, and about wishing to help them – an anxiety to assist that was almost like that of parents for their children. The woman from Emunah would “grant” the immigrants spirituality; the Ministry of Education representative would “teach” them; the Emunah area representative spoke of the “adoption” of families and “guidance” for women; the man 54

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 55

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

from the religious council suggested that they should be “guided in prayer.” The words of the area volunteer added to this image of patronage: “They are sensitive and shy and will have to be led one by one if they are to come at all.” All the declarations notwithstanding, what emerges is that different organizations and people have different interests. The words of the religious council representative expressed this very sharply when he spoke of his organization’s financial difficulties and asked for funds for his project. Others too express their interest in organizing activities for the immigrants – though with more finesse. All the speakers were in error about their contacts with the office, because this was the conduit for obtaining financial resources earmarked for the immigrants. The words of the supervisor from the education ministry pointed out the connection between care of the immigrants and the importance of Judaism studies, between resources and self-interest, between revealed agendas and hidden ones. The ulpan was closing, and the immigrants would no longer be studying anything. They had to be taught something important like Judaism. This would be done by people employed by the religious council. An opportunity had presented itself with the closing of the ulpan, and the departure of the teachers of secular studies. Religious organizations and the teachers they employed could now take over. Seen in this light, the words of the national supervisor now become clear. Emunah would offer spiritual guidance. Its volunteers were considered suitable for the task. As the participants left the meeting described above, the supervisor for religious education bumped into an Ethiopian boy; the boy had left the boarding school where he had been studying, and the discussion that ensued between the two strengthens the above argument. The supervisor saw Daniel standing by the office doing nothing in particular. When he asked the boy what he was doing, Daniel lowered his eyes without answering. When the question was repeated, Daniel said quietly: “All they do is talk.” I explained that the boy was disappointed with all those who had taken care of him. The supervisor wanted to hear details but the boy wouldn’t co-operate. The Ethiopian supervisor now approached and was appealed to for help. At first, Daniel didn’t want to speak to him either, but slowly he began to answer the questions in Amharic. The Ethiopian supervisor, translating for his colleague, explained that Daniel had been in two boarding schools, and didn’t want to return to that kind of framework. He preferred to work. Daniel had no family in Israel. The supervisor now 55

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 56

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

turned to the volunteer standing next to him and asked her to find an adoptive family for Daniel in the neighboring town. She immediately took out a notebook and jotted down the details. The Ethiopian supervisor continued talking to Daniel, but his colleague pressed him to continue on their way to the school. The supervisor’s contact with Daniel underlines his lack of interest in any direct communication with the immigrant. The adoption by a local family that he asked the volunteer to arrange suggests that he had no expectations that the volunteer herself might establish any direct contact with Daniel. Neither did she herself expect to do any such thing, but acted only as an intermediary negotiating and organizing such contact on the behalf of others. Neither the supervisor nor the volunteer has since spoken a word to Daniel – and, of course, the mooted adoption was never realized. The visit to the center by the two representatives of the Council for Ethiopian immigrants again points up a link between the use of the office as an intermediary agent and the expected benefits it might offer. When I first met Yael and Yosef, members of this committee, at the gate of the center, Yael asked me who was in charge. I told her that Fanny, the director, was away. I suggested that she speak to Yehudit, her secretary, or to Anat, the somechet. She asked me what my job was. When I told her that I was an assistant to Arie, the cultural coordinator, she gave me a booklet in Amharic and told me what it was. She asked me to give the booklet to the immigrants and tell her how they reacted to it. Yehudit went into Fanny’s room with the visitors. I was later asked to join them. Yael asked to hear from us about the children who were in secondary school. She asked us what vocational directions the girls would take, and why they were learning sewing. At the close of the discussion, she said: “I want you to put your heads together on what studies would be most suitable for the women.” On her way out of the office, she said to me: “If you have any ideas, I’m open to suggestions,” and gave me the council’s visiting card. The visit by Yael and Yosef began and ended in the office that day. Nothing further came of it and they made no direct contact with the immigrants. Thus we see even the Ethiopian representative body treating the office as a substitute for direct contact with the immigrants. They also saw it as an authority on vocational guidance. Yael was interested in vocational training for women in particular – this was her field and connection with the office. Those who exercised control over the immigrants’ affairs might serve to strengthen her own position. The 56

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 57

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

knowledge possessed by the office and the help it could give in executing projects would certainly aid her in entering a specialized field which, until then, nobody had dealt with. Contact with those responsible at the center would also serve to obtain recognition of her work and control over the field, and would facilitate the acquisition of resources. This interpretation of Yael’s one visit accords with my knowledge of the intention of the “Joint” and the Ministry of Absorption at this time to become active in the field of vocational training for women, a subject that had not been dealt with hitherto. This intention never materialized – which perhaps explains why Yael didn’t come to the center again. The description of the way two Aliyat Hanoar psychologists attempted to join the Galuyot center team broadens my range of examples in this section. The account of the Jacob and Aviva case [below] also serves to show the clash between different interests over the monopoly of representing and caring for the immigrants. This clash occurred, for example, when people perceived of as outsiders wished to join the working team for the sake of benefits that could accrue only to insiders. In attempting to question the rights and responsibilities of the workers, the psychologists were destined to fail. The distinction between insiders and outsiders, between those responsible inside and the others, was preserved: it reinforced the monopoly over patronage and interests of the center’s staff. Aviva and Jacob first came to the center as protégés of Na’ama, the supervisor from the Department of Social Services at the Jewish Agency and superior of Avner, the center’s social worker. Over a few months the two psychologists would come to the center, singly or together, on Thursdays. They would conduct long meetings with the workers and meet the teachers from the school in town where the children studied. The first of these meetings lasted three hours. Efraim, Arie, Avner, the Ethiopian counselor, Na’ama, and myself as assistant to the cultural director, participated. Jacob and Aviva wanted to know about everything we did, and how the immigrants were helped. After this meeting, and in answer to their request, we took Aviva and Jacob on a tour. After this they came to my caravan where we chatted into the afternoon. During the course of the discussion, Jacob suggested, in a friendly manner, that I take the care of the adults upon myself. During their second visit, we took them around the school. On the third Thursday, Jacob came alone. Arie gave him a list of three immigrant children who were studying at Miftan, a vocational school for weak learners. Arie expected a report from them on these children. Yossi, 57

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 58

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Miftan’s director told me about the meeting, saying that Jacob had sat in his room for two hours. Eventually, Yossi found a way to excuse himself. Jacob never met the students concerned. On the fourth week, Jacob again arrived alone. After he had talked to Fanny (who replaced Efraim for a few months) for a long time, he came to speak to me. When I asked him about the reports on the children, he said that he didn’t make out reports alone, and that “a report of this kind takes four to five hours to prepare, sometimes even eight hours.” He added that he and Aviva weren’t interested in preparing “diagnostic” reports because they were too time-consuming. A series of prolonged meetings continued to be held on Thursdays. At the end of a meeting in which the psychologists, the supervisor, the social worker, and myself participated, the psychologists asked the team to prepare a list of concrete expectations from their work. This was to be the subject for discussion the following week, but the discussion never took place because Arie didn’t turn up. Jacob said: “We must have Arie present at the discussion because there are still many things to be clarified – what, for example, are the areas each person is responsible for? What is to be our contribution, and what is expected of us?” A discussion was then held about Igzu, a boy who was hard of hearing. This went on for some two hours, and at its close the psychologist, Aviva, proposed a division of labor. She said somebody had to assume responsibility for getting Igzu into school so that his failure at Miftan School wouldn’t be repeated. She spoke of the need to prepare the school, the headmaster, and the teacher so that Igzu would be properly received. His older brother should be asked to help him during those difficult first days at school, and Igzu’s father was made responsible for making sure that Igzu wore his hearing aid. Aviva pushed us to accept responsibility for the various stages of the boy’s absorption into his new school. She divided the tasks up in the following way: Avner, the social worker, would be responsible at the center and I at the school. I said: “It looks rather odd that up until now nobody has shown any interest in the boy, and suddenly two people appear at the door.” It was decided that Avner would speak to the family. I took the preparation of the headmaster, the school, Igzu’s older brother, and Igzu upon myself. Avner said the psychologists should be responsible for monitoring the child, and Aviva agreed. Na’ama wrote all these decisions down and Avner noted with satisfaction that “all of us have been given homework.” Jacob grinned awkwardly, as if he had some reserva58

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 59

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

tion. As he shifted the pipe in his mouth, he said: “I didn’t know I had any homework.” Talking to Arie, I admitted that I had no more patience for these two psychologists. He answered, “I decided I wanted nothing to do with them some time ago. I had some harsh words with Aviva; I told her what I wanted from them, and gave them a list of children I wanted them to check. They did nothing.” I remarked that it was very strange. “They spend whole days in discussion with us, but don’t talk to the children.” Arie smiled. “Perhaps we are the subject of their research?” he suggested. Talking to the social worker, he said “They are just bluffing.” Avner suggested that we all meet with Aviva and Jacob before the next meeting in order to come prepared: “Instead of them handing us our work schedules, we will tell them what we expect of them,” he said. A week later another meeting took place. Jacob and Aviva arrived, as they usually did, after they had met with the teachers. This time too, the meeting was devoted to Igzu’s progress. Avner tried to get me to fill out forms for the boy’s private coaching. Arie didn’t participate in the meeting, and the discussion on Igzu was postponed until the following week when Arie would be there. The meeting at which Arie was present was full of tension. It took place after we had sat in on a lesson in Orli’s class. Orli, a teacher, was counseled by the two psychologists. Avner opened the meeting by saying that we expect to hear what Jacob and Aviva intended to do. Aviva tried to divert the discussion to other subjects; she insisted that we talk of expectations and division of tasks, so it would be clear what each person had to do. Avner continued to press them. Now and again there was an embarrassed silence. Avner asked once more about the areas that the psychologists intended to deal with. Aviva answered, “I thought you knew what we’ve been doing up to now. Since we came, Igzu is in school, and we’re looking after Gadi [another immigrant child]. We’re also counselling the teachers – as we did with Orli’s pupil, Penina.” Avner now turned to Arie and asked for his opinion. Arie responded: “I know I made a list of children I wanted the psychologists to check, but they did nothing about it. I’m sorry; I’m not an expert in psychology, and I don’t want to tell you what to do. But as I see it – and I know this from my four sons in the kibbutz – if there is a problem with a child, the psychologist goes to see the child and his parents. I expected that you would both see the children and report back to us on their condition. If, for instance, you gave us a letter for the boarding school, 59

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 60

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

the attitude there would be very different. If I had a child like Gadi, I might need to give him some private coaching, or have somebody guide him; these are cases you could have checked out and of which you might have advised us.” Aviva told Arie that he was contradicting himself. Jacob intervened, “Many social workers and teachers ask me for help in an accepted and orderly way. But all I got from you was a piece of paper with names on it.” Na’ama said “I think we need to talk this out, because there is a lot of bad feeling here.” She asked me to express my view of things, which I did: “I think we were disappointed because we expected certain things, and you didn’t give us any indication of what you were doing. When it was suggested that perhaps Miftan School wasn’t suitable for the children and I asked Jacob to write an analysis of the situation, he told me that preparing a diagnostic report takes some eight hours. It seemed to me that he was evading the main issue – though you do deserve our thanks for what you did for Penina.” (After talking to Penina’s teacher, the psychologist discovered that Penina came late because she had to look after her baby brother. They had also advised the teacher on how to deal with hostility from the class.) I also said I approved of the things they were doing and mentioned other things they might do in advising teachers – though I said I was of the opinion that this kind of work was the province of the educational counselor in the school. I concluded by saying, “whatever the case, we haven’t been able to see your contribution clearly. In fact, you might even have done some harm here. Igzu got into school not because of your efforts, nor as a result of all the tasks you assigned to us.” Avner agreed with everything that I said and even reinforced it. Jacob answered thus: “I have never had to sell myself or talk about my worth, and don’t intend to do so now.” Then he added “There are tests I conduct that take more than eight hours; they evaluate different areas of knowledge and ability.” I told him I thought that what the center needed was an educational counselor, and not a psychologist. After a short silence, Jacob said that he saw “this room as divided from about here …,” indicating the space between Na’ama, Avner and himself, and Arie and myself. Na’ama then added, “I have enjoyed our discussions very much. It was all very interesting. I think things have to be talked out. There was a problem of lack of communication between Esther and Arie and Avner.” I asked Avner what lack of communication was being referred to and if I had perhaps missed something. Avner did not reply. 60

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 61

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

Later, Arie concluded that “As things stand, I am the one who knows all the children and all the work being done by Esther and myself. I don’t have the time to sit with Avner, and he isn’t here the whole week. When I come here and see a lot of people, I can’t bring up my problems with the children. But now I’ll prepare reports on all the children. I do everything I can to get here, but I’m not going to come just to sit in meetings.” Na’ama nonetheless responded: “But there are a lot of meetings where we sit and don’t see any immediate results.” Aviva spoke up: “We are waiting for you to bring cases to us,” she said. “It isn’t up to us to identify them; you choose the cases, and we will all discuss them.” Arie agreed: “I will prepare occasional lists describing all the difficult cases. How many cases do you want?” Aviva screwed up her face up as if disdaining the whole situation. But when she had regained control of herself, she said: “We can discuss two cases each time. If you can let us know whom we’ll be discussing next time, we’ll speak to Orli, their teacher about them.” Arie gave the names of two children from Orli’s class, and one from Shulamit’s (she also taught the immigrant children). As the meeting drew to a close, Avner insisted on knowing which area the psychologists intended to work on. Aviva said that she expected that their advice to be sought on matters like counseling the teachers about transferring children from absorption classes1 to regular ones. She emphasized that when children were moved from an “absorption” class to a regular one, she and Jacob should be consulted because harm could be done to the children. Once they had been moved, she said, it was difficult to move them back. A week later, when the psychologists arrived, they were disappointed not to find Arie; he had absented himself, claiming that he had to be in school. So, the meeting didn’t take place. Aviva and Jacob chatted for a while with Na’ama, the supervisor, and left. The following week, I did not go to the meeting, but Arie informed me of what went on: “I’m fed up with them,” he said. “All the time they talk and talk. I asked them about Abraham and Gadi (children of fourteen and eight years old), and they began asking all kinds of questions: ‘Does he have a bed?’ ‘Does he have a table?’ They said, ‘Perhaps Abraham shouldn’t have been taken away from his home – his mother needs his support.’ They make everything long-winded. They want to be involved in the transfer of children to regular classes. I told them that I couldn’t agree to this. I have a team here: Esther, the guides and the somchot. We decide things together. We can’t wait for these meetings every 61

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 62

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

two weeks. We have to get things done. They said that they would bring the matter before their superiors and see what they had to say.” After that meeting the psychologists didn’t come to the center’s office again. They spent Thursdays in meetings at the school with Orli, one of three teachers at the school who had accepted their counseling. This encounter between the psychologists and the center’s workers might almost be described as a battle over living space. In this struggle over the control and care of the immigrant children, the psychologists seemed to be following a plan to gain domination over both process and product in the care of the children: first they learned something about the center and its environment, then they talked to the workers and sought to find out who was responsible for the different areas. They spent time with those in charge. Slowly they tried to create their own niche within the “occupied territories.” In order to establish their control, they attempt to eject any workers occupying the areas they were interested in. Here Arie and I were the candidates: they suggested to me, for instance, that I move over to work in family guidance. In their attempts to fortify their control, the psychologists looked for allies. They were aided by the supervisor, who was also interested in those areas of education in which Arie and I occupied positions of control. Avner was somewhat divided in his attitude to the struggle. As Na’ama pointed out: “There is a problem of lack of communication between Arie and Esther on one side, and Avner on the other.” On the one hand, Avner wanted to belong to the team; on the other, he was interested in entering the field of education himself. He was, however, obliged to remain loyal to his supervisor. The psychologists found an ally in Orli, the teacher. Through her they could widen their intervention in the treatment of the Ethiopian children in school. Arie fought them off and suggested that the teachers not co-operate with them. Only after a period of probing, preparation, and integration did the psychologists reveal their intentions. They sought the “super-status” of counselors and rejected any attempt to impose a lower executive status on them. They refused to engage in diagnostic studies or accept homework, and only allocated work. Thus they rejected Avner’s attempt to find a compromise that might allow their acceptance as members of the team. They insisted that it was their job to allocate functions. But Arie and I – the ones most threatened by their incursions – fought back. Arie feared for his monopoly over contact with the teachers of immigrant children. I was threatened by the possible loss of my control 62

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 63

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

over educational counseling, through which I had been able to establish my position at the center. Arie was ready to compromise by accepting the psychologists as his assistants. He brusquely gave them the names of the children needing diagnostic reports. They, of course, rejected his offer. This struggle was over the control of the immigrant children. Jacob defined the conflict in the following way: “Many things are unclear – the areas each person deals with, and each one’s responsibility.” The clash focused on these issues of “division of labor and expectations.” Aviva and Jacob tried to avoid Avner’s demand that they clarify the different areas of work. They refused to talk about it, claiming that it ought already to be clear. Only when they had no choice did Aviva reveal the area in which they wanted to function. They wanted to be “supercounselors” in regards to the children’s education. By the end of the meeting, positions had become more extreme; they related to the issue of control of the field. My attack on Jacob was meant to imply that the presence of the psychologists at the center was superfluous. Avner changed his stance: he would agree with my criticism, then tacitly agree with Na’ama’s remarks about the lack of communication between himself and us. He hoped, perhaps, to gain partial control of the field. The very fact that he took part in the discussions established him as a partner in debates over educational matters. Arie’s words contained a hint of rejection of Avner as a partner in the responsibility and control of educational matters. In his claim that Avner was too busy and therefore not available, he emphasized the importance of his own close link with the children – compared to Avner and the psychologists who “only talk all the time.” Arie’s gesture of compromise was designed to keep them out of his area of work by occupying them with diagnostic reports. Arie attacked the psychologists because they refused to work on these reports. Jacob’s reaction suggested that he was not going to be pushed into this trap, and be satisfied with only partial control. Scornfully he rejected Arie’s attempt to assign him tasks. After all, Arie was neither a teacher nor a social worker, the people from whom Jacob usually received requests for reports on children. His attitude was expressed by his emphasizing that Arie had written the request on no more than “a bit of paper with names on it.” Aviva expressed a desire for control when she said: “We are waiting to receive cases from you. We do not identify them. You do this for us.” When they told Avner that they wanted to be involved in the transfer of children from one school to another, it became apparent that they weren’t interested in the children as individuals, but as a group, a collec63

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 64

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

tive. Personal communication with the children would not afford them the sought-after control. Jacob’s excuses about the time needed to prepare reports also revealed his lack of interest in any personal treatment of the child. The psychologists weren’t interested in meeting either the children or the parents. They wanted to listen and advise, but only through the channel of the office and its staff or the teachers. In this manner they preserved their option of obtaining supreme responsibility for all the children. If this was their purpose, they had no need to occupy themselves with details. They wanted only an indirect relationship, not a personal one. In their own words, they themselves “want to be involved in the transfer of the children.” The psychologists expressed anxiety about the process of transference to regular classes. It wasn’t the segregation of immigrant children that concerned them; in fact, they indirectly supplied the rationale for division into categories, and only sought a way to soften its damaging ramifications. The treatment of Igzu, the new boy with hearing problems, was an extreme example of their impersonal attitude. In both word and deed the psychologists turned Igzu into an object to be used for their different purposes, an object for analysis, useful for the reinforcement of their control. They talked about the boy for many hours, but never once exchanged a word with him, or met him, even though during one of these discussions, Igzu came along on his bicycle, and Avner pointed him out. They referred to him as a “problem,” using him to demonstrate their expertise to us (and expecting our recognition of it). They listened to the details of the case, analyzed its various aspects, and concluded by making others responsible for Igzu’s care. The boy was thus clearly used as a means of gaining control over the team. In the final analysis it was probably Arie and myself who brought about the departure of Jacob and Aviva. They were left with only the school to function in and contact with just one of its teachers. They failed to enter and take control of educational matters because they posed a threat to the center workers, especially Arie and myself. Their initial incursions were accepted through lack of choice; they had been brought in as part of an agreement between the Educational and Social Welfare Divisions of the Jewish Agency. The psychologists’ activities were tenable as long as the center workers could expect benefits of some kind from them – for instance, a sharing of responsibility in problematic cases like those of Gadi and Abraham. The possibility of their joining the team was also real enough, as long as their work was seen as peripheral 64

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 65

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

and didn’t harm the interested parties. But they had set their sights somewhat higher. Jacob’s sentence of denial – “I didn’t know that we had homework” – demonstrated this. They wanted others to be responsible, not them. They stubbornly refused to be seen as accountable. They took up positions as distant counselors. Their attempt to invade the territory was doomed to failure from the start because “those who do all the work,” in Arie’s words, hold the rights to their positions. They were there every day and had relationships with other workers at the center and beyond it; they controlled access to the immigrants and their contacts with functionaries on the outside of the center. The psychologists were assisted by their superiors outside in gaining initial access, but this could not help them remain inside – it certainly couldn’t help them gain control over an area already occupied by others. Jacob said he would bring the matter before his superiors – an admission of failure, rather than any real threat. In order to find the niche they sought, the psychologists were dependent on the other workers, particularly on Arie and myself. We had a monopoly over representing the children and their parents, and over the two-way links between them and the educational institutions. From the above descriptions of relations with the psychologists emerges a picture of marked harmony in regards to the parents’ involvement and the school’s responsibility. Arie and I were perceived by individuals and organizations outside the center – and indeed in our own eyes – as responsible for the children, and at no stage was it suggested that the psychologists should meet the parents and accept some responsibility themselves. The parents weren’t seen as a party to the issue except in an indirect way. When the allocation of tasks within the team was referred to, no surprise was expressed that the school itself didn’t deal with the child Igzu and his hearing problems, even though he was of school age and a pupil at the school. Neither were questions asked about the role played by his parents, and their concern about their son’s hearing problems. Igzu’s parents accepted the fact that the workers at the center were responsible for their son’s welfare. Anat, as somechet, saw to it that he received treatment. She arranged Igzu’s visits to the hospital, and it was she who maintained contact with doctors and others assisting in Igzu’s treatment. Igzu was always accompanied by a somechet on his visits for treatment. At one of the meetings, the social worker said he was very happy when Igzu’s father came and asked him why his son was wandering around doing nothing and why no school had yet been found for him. 65

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 66

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The social worker was surprised at the father’s unexpected (to the social worker) show of interest. He was, however, not surprised that the father hadn’t visited the school to try to solve his son’s problem. A similar attitude was found in the reaction of the headmaster of the same school, when he received a complaint that the immigrants had no schoolbooks. He saw this as the responsibility of the center and its office. When it was suggested to him that perhaps the parents should be involved in the matter, he answered: “For me, you [i.e. the center’s office] are the parents; I refuse to do business with a hundred different people. For me there is only one address.” What he was saying was that he was not interested in addressing the parents of each child directly and that they should be represented as a group. The office functioned as a substitute for direct contact with the immigrants. The army officer and the woman soldier didn’t have to contact the immigrants directly; they went to the office. The officer wasn’t interested in any particular young immigrant who had dropped out of school or those without families. He was looking for groups of Ethiopians. As long as this was the case, the office was the right address – but when he discovered that only a few people were involved, he no longer needed the office or a special meeting just for two or three people. Like the representative of the Committee for Ethiopian Jews, the guests, the tourists, and the volunteers who came to the center, the officer was quite satisfied to receive such information as the office provided. Again the connection was impersonal and indirect. In the cases discussed, all concerned seemed quite satisfied and even preferred these mediated relationships between themselves and the immigrants. This treatment of the immigrants as a collective entity was made possible by the avoidance of direct, personal relationships. Structured patronage enabled monopolistic control to be exercised over the care of the immigrants as a social category. Immigrants were not “people,” they were a category to be manipulated by officials and visitors alike. When the psychologists tried to usurp the place of the workers as intermediaries for the immigrants, trying to gain control and responsibility for the immigrants as a body, the workers opposed them because they saw their interests as likely to be damaged. The workers perceived the psychologists’ incursion as a threat when the psychologists attempted to change their status as “outsiders” who need the workers’ mediation to “insiders” possessing control and authority over immigrants and workers. In conclusion, this chapter has discussed how and why closure is structured. It has focused on the personal and organizational interests 66

02-Ch2

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 67

Closure and Emergence of Power-Dependence Relations

that develop when people are concentrated into a social category and a place that functions as and is perceived as a closed system. The dialectic of dependence situations and the demonstration of control underscore the importance of closure as a means of realizing purposes of self-interest within a reality of minimal power and fictional control. Closure allowed the absorption center’s workers to establish a monopoly over areas of responsibility and right of access to the immigrants. It also brought in its wake a power struggle aimed at the preservation of these rights.

Notes 1. The Ethiopian children were put together into separate classes, with their own teachers, often for a few years. Those "absorption classes" were claimed and justified as a means for advancing the immigrant children and to enable them to achieve "normal" levels of academic achievements. The children were described as lacking fundamental abilities of learning and suffering from a significant cultural and academic gap in relation to other children. However, they were left there, separated and segregated from other children for a long time.

67

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 68

3. T HE E THIOPIAN I MMIGRANTS AS A S OCIAL C ATEGORY AND S OCIAL P ROBLEM



The emergence of social categories represents one aspect of bureau-

cratic workings. This chapter considers the bureaucratic treatment of the Ethiopian immigrants based on their definition as a category “with a special social problem.” They were, from this point of view, identified as different from others and treated as such by the absorption officials. This pattern of events established power-dependence relationships and allowed absorption officials and organizations to reap the benefits of self-interest from the process. The closing off of the immigrants into a homogeneous group, separated from its environment and in need of special care, created power bases that controlled access to the world outside the absorption center. Categorization facilitates official control over areas of responsibility and over groupings of people. It became clear that this categorized view of the immigrants was linked to the way in which public resources flowed to the center. The categorization became a lever in the battle for resources allotted to solve the “special social problem” involved in absorbing the Ethiopian immigrants. Similar findings are recounted in various sociological studies. Gusfield, in his 1981 work on the social problem of drunken driving, points to the connection between the emergence of public problems and power struggles between groups and institutions. In 1986, Shamgar Handel68

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 69

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

man described the process by which the status and categorization of war widows is created and public resources are allocated for dealing with their special problems, as well as the systems of “special care” and the interests of workers and organizations that develop in this context. Siegel in her 1989 work on treating violence in the family, discusses the process by which the recognition of the problem of battered women comes to be seen as a “severe social problem” (Segal 1989: 28). These works and others (Handelman and Leyton [1978], Vatzlavic et al. [1979], and Shachak [1985]) all claim that this type of special care does not necessarily help the needy group. Very often it creates the “problem.” Shachak, in his work on the rehabilitation of a development town, writes: It would seem that the extensive aid given to the town of Yerucham has, from the townspeople’s point of view, been no better than a bear hug, preventing the emergence of private enterprise and rendering the inhabitants impotent in their own agenda. It has also served to label the town and its inhabitants negatively … I have tried to demonstrate that the population of Yerucham is not ‘special,’ and that this extensive system of care for people creates more problems than it solves (72-73).

The absorption of immigrants into Israel is a clear example of the emergence of a “special social problem.” Bureaucrats and organizations relate to the Ethiopian immigrants as a problem, as a social category in need of special care. In connection with resources earmarked for absorption, the officials define special areas of care and assistance, and sub-categories are established. The absorption center is a basic device for the bureaucratic handling of immigrants as a “special problem.” The care of the immigrants in the center at Galuyot was involved with the struggle for the limited resources available. This mode of care for immigrants, concentrated in absorption centers, was rationalized in moral terms, and perceived as a vital means of handling immigrant groups in need of special care.

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Special Social Problem The categorization of people serves bureaucracy in its treatment of what it sees as a “special social problem.” It becomes part of a system for obtaining some of the (limited) public resources available and passing them on to those in need of them while preserving the power positions of the officials concerned. These aspects of the topic will be studied in 69

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 70

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

this chapter by referring to the documents of the three principal organizations involved in the care of Ethiopian immigrants: The Jewish Agency, the Ministry of Absorption, and the Ministry of Labor and Welfare. All three presented themselves as suitably equipped for the professional care of people with special problems in need of care. The documents generally described the immigrants, and the Ethiopians in particular, as needing such care. On these grounds, additional resources were demanded. The Jewish Agency described the vital role played by the absorption centers in caring for the immigrants overall. In a 1970 document produced by the organization, the centers are seen as almost unique instruments for handling the social absorption of the new immigrants into Israel: A. They allow the heads of families to learn Hebrew. B. They prepare the immigrants for permanent settlement. C. They bring the immigrants close to Israeli society and the values of its people and the state.

In their 1975 work on the absorption centers, Horowitz and Frenkel define the rationale for this particularized care of new immigrants: “In a generalized statement, those engaged in absorption defined the purpose of the absorption center as a framework that allowed, in their words, ‘a soft landing,’ an army expression suggesting absorption into the country under optimal conditions. The psychological assumption, derived from the military jargon, points to the inevitability of pain and inconvenience when an immigrant lands in a new reality. The term used is ‘immigration shock.’ In order to obviate any traumatic effect the landing of the immigrant into the new reality should be cushioned as much as possible” (5). There is a direct link between the definition of the depth of the “social problem” calling for treatment and the range of resources demanded for this. The care of Ethiopian immigrants was claimed to call for larger resources than those needed for “regular” immigrants. The rationale for such investment was based on the presentation of the problem as extreme. A 1985 Jewish Agency document entitled “A Page of Directives for a Think Tank” (3-4) stated the following: The tasks before us are: training the immigrants from Ethiopia for absorption into Israeli society, passing on to them knowledge, understanding and the tools that will allow them to cope with a new reality while preserving their traditional social and cultural frameworks. Preservation yes – but in 70

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 71

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

formaldehyde no! … In order to ensure their absorption in Israel, the Ethiopian immigrants need to undergo the following stages of preparation: A. The acquisition of skills needed to care for their families and homes according to Israeli standards. B. The knowledge and the ability to understand contact with, and the reception of services from, the establishment. C. The understanding of the family cell and the direct responsibility parents have for children and the functions of each member of the family. D. The learning of the language. E. The study and understanding of various aspects of life in Israel: cleanliness, health, dress, living quarters, work, salary, rights and obligations, payment for services rendered, etc. F. The study of religious customs as practiced in Israel, etc. These needs can be answered within the transitional framework of the absorption center. This framework offers a basic project that aims at alleviating the shock of transition, arranging medical treatment, facilitating socialization processes, offering study programs and vocational training, and imparting the first stages of language learning.

The managing director of the Ministry of Absorption published the following directive in January 1985, which again reveals the link between presenting the immigrants as a category in need of special care and the demand for extensive resources: “The Ethiopian immigrants cannot adapt their functioning system to that of Israeli society and are therefore in need of extended and massive help from the absorbing system. A focused and all-embracing program will be required to be carried out by those who deal with absorption in order to rehabilitate the immigrants’ functional system”(2). The Ministry of Labor and Welfare also viewed itself as a partner in working with the Ethiopian immigrants. The Ministry published a 1986 document further clarifying the categorization-resources link and insisting on control of the care for Ethiopian immigrants. In its “Program of Welfare Treatment of Ethiopian Immigrants,” the demand for control was rationalized thus: “The current program of absorption, initiated by the Jewish Agency and the Ministry of Absorption for the first three years of immigrant settlement, has not ended the Ethiopians’ need for care from the departments of the Ministry of Welfare. Today it has become clear that the involvement of our office in the care of this population has grown cumulatively greater, and there are already initial signs that this immigrant group is poised on the periphery of Israeli society” (3). 71

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 72

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The vital importance attached by the Ministry of Welfare to the care of the immigrants was emphasized in the generalized description of them as a social category, whose members were all in need of the Ministry’s professionals. The matter was thus stated: The fact that whole groups of Ethiopian immigrants, now living in permanent homes, have come under the care of the Social Services strengthens the understanding of the needs of individuals and families as part of the absorption process. This current treatment of the immigrants by the Social Services also creates groups of people which are defined by special ethnic characteristics, a fact that has ramifications beyond the group itself … This situation obliges an adjustment in Ministry policy in all areas pertaining to its treatment of the immigrants. This must be done in a manner that will answer the special needs of the individual, the family, the community and society in general (Ibid., 13-14).

In insisting on total control over the care of the immigrants, the Ministry of Labor and Welfare went beyond the other institutions. The document referred to here speaks of the need to “augment” its involvement in all aspects of immigrant welfare because it is “the social services that are responsible for the social ramifications stemming from each of the following areas: housing, employment, education, and health. Hence the need for deepening the involvement of all the organizations and relevant services … This can be effected by the Department of Social Services as a branch of the relevant municipality responsible for absorbing the Ethiopian immigrants into the town. This is to be done by turning the whole population of Ethiopian immigrants, as soon as they are transferred to permanent housing, into the target population of the Department of Social Services” (Ministry of Labor and Welfare 1986: 15-18). It follows that special problems require special treatment, which then requires especially large budgets: the “caring” stance and the “professional” approach serve as rationales for the patronage of different institutions over the Ethiopian immigrants and control of the resources allotted to their “treatment.” A pitched battle took place among the bodies that saw themselves as responsible for the care of these immigrants. A 1982 document of the Division of Planning in the Ministry of Absorption, entitled “The Role of the Ministry of Absorption in the Permanent Housing of the Ethiopian Immigrants” refers to the competition between the Jewish Agency and the Ministry, and offers a rationale for the very existence of the latter: 72

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 73

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

Today the Ministry of Absorption has two alternatives: A. To decide that it is the function of the Ministry to deal with the absorption of immigrants in general and the Ethiopian immigrants in particular, and to realign itself in a manner that can answer the needs of the immigrants. B. To admit that the ministry is not equipped to deal with the subject and to transfer, in an orderly manner, the care of the immigrants to the Jewish Agency. Both these alternatives have advantages and disadvantages that must be taken into account. The advantage of the latter course is that the immigrants would be dealt with by one body only, which would increase efficiency and make things easier for them. Transferring the subject to a single “address” would end the frustrating encounters that take place between Ministry officials working in absorption and the Jewish Agency. The disadvantage lies in the fact that the Ministry, which by definition was established to care for whole populations – in this case a group in need of extensive intervention by establishment offices – was absolving itself of responsibility in the matter. This raises the question, in more extreme terms, of the Ministry’s very existence. If it admitted that it lacked the means to care for immigrants requiring special treatment and to arrange services different from those hitherto acceptable, why shouldn’t it stop dealing with other special groups? In such a situation, the Ministry would find itself caring for groups that were, by definition, not in need of support or intervention by its offices and could organize themselves independently. In light of these issues, it is clear that the Ministry has to see itself as responsible for absorption in general and, as such, responsible for the Ethiopian immigrants. For this decision to become significant in operational terms in the field, the realignment of services has to serve the needs of this decision. Only in such circumstances would the Ministry be able to function as an initiating and active factor in matters of absorption (7- 8).

These statements substantiate the arguments put forth. The social categories in need of the specialized treatment offered by the Ministry of Absorption were called “maladjusted groups.” The Ministry’s existence was perceived as dependent on the control “over a whole population that demands, in its absorption process, a specially intensive intervention of establishment factors.” The immigrants “who call for this kind of care will require a different alignment of the office than that which has existed hitherto.” They were seen as a “social problem” over which the Ministry sought property rights. The definition of this control was expressed thus: “the Ministry must see itself as appointed to deal with immigration as a whole and, as such, will also deal with the Ethiopian immigrants.” 73

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 74

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

This document makes it clear that controlling the immigrants’ absorption implied control of the immigrants themselves. The Ministry was not interested in dealing with “groups that by definition are not in need of support and intervention … and able to organize themselves independently.” It would seem that the Ministry was more interested in immigrants who were dependent on its employees than in immigrants who could function independently. The Ministry’s document offers co-operation as a solution to interorganizational conflict. The coordinated treatment is justified in the case of the Ethiopian population in terms of “a process of absorption and socialization that is much more extensive than is the case with other groups of immigrants.” For this reason, “an agreement is needed between the Ministry and the Jewish Agency which will clearly define the division of tasks, a plan of action and power of representation between the two bodies” (10). The partnership proposed was to be based on a division between two categories of special care, “care units for immigrants who have entered an orderly functional routine” and units for immigrants who were still encountering specific integration difficulties. In the first case the families would be put in the care of the Ministry of Absorption; in the second, as is usual with other groups in this category, that care would be the concern of the Jewish Agency’s Division of Social Services (11). In other words, control over absorption could be divided as long as each organization received part of the available resources. But the question remains: what portion of the resources allocated to immigrants in general and to Ethiopians in particular was actually received by them? It transpired that the lion’s share of these resources fell into the hands of the officials themselves. In this way the relevant institutions could ensure the immigrants’ continuing dependence on the officials as mediators. According to a document entitled “The Rules of Aid for Immigrants from Ethiopia,” published by the Ministry of Absorption (November 1985), the Ethiopians were entitled to aid similar to that received by other immigrants, except that this was to be prolonged for a period of five years rather than the normal three years. In reality these immigrants received very little by way of direct aid, in spite of the organizations’ claims that this population was in special need. The different kinds of help offered, as stated in the above document, were the following: an allocation of basic equipment to include a table, a chair, a bed, a mattress, bed linen, and kitchen utensils such as a gas ring, a frying pan, a kettle, pots, cutlery, glassware, and crockery. Cleaning equipment included a broom, a dustpan, a pail, mop, a floor cloth, 74

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 75

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

toilet rolls, and electric bulbs. The equipment was given as a grant to families, the elderly, and single people from countries in distress. Out-ofpocket expenses (25 pounds sterling) were given at the airport to refugees. They also received some £208 for initial settling-in and domestic expenses. Immigrants from Western countries received between £128 and £208. Those immigrants directed to development towns in Israel were given sums of between £160 and £360. The Ethiopians received these sums as a grant when they settled in permanent housing. Those who took vocational courses received maintenance grants in addition to the other payments. The Ethiopians also got a grant for their children’s educational expenses, covering travel, extra-curricular activities, professional diagnostic reports and examinations. These were “given to them during the period of entitlement.” The Ethiopians were also entitled to health insurance for a period of twelve months from the time of their arrival. The usual period for other immigrants was six months. A general evaluation of the material and financial aid (excluding special aid from the “Joint” for purchasing electrical goods and furniture, granted to the immigrants when they moved into permanent housing) showed us that no extensive direct aid was given. Some £208 to £368 were given to immigrant families from prosperous countries. Immigrants from distressed countries got £368. Such extra sums as were given to the Ethiopians accorded with the view of them as a group needing extra aid. Let us look at the assistance received by one particular family. As the Jewish Agency was accustomed to recording the details of assistance given on the immigration certificates, this information is readily available. Shai immigrated to Israel with his family in July 1983. He came with his wife Ziva. They were directed immediately to the Galuyot Absorption Center, where they were to live for the next two years with their children, Eitan and Mordechai, both of whom were born in Israel. What follows are the details of the assistance given to this family as they appear on Shai’s immigrant card: 1. A request from the Jewish Agency that he and his family receive a free membership to a Medical Health Fund for six months. 2. A grant from the “Joint” for electrical goods and furniture: a washing machine, television, refrigerator, gas stove, and wardrobe. All were bought during 1985, when the family moved out of the center to a rented flat in town. 3. The installation of gas and water in their rented house in Hadera by the end of 1985. 75

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 76

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

4. Maintenance costs and tools required for a pre-vocational training course (£10). 5. Eligibility for housing. This in fact meant that the family was entitled to receive a mortgage by the end of 1989. 6. A grant for a baby in 1988. 7. A grant of £30 from a refugee fund. 8. A maintenance grant (12/83–12/84) of £250.

There were also the out-of-pocket expenses given at the airport; a maintenance grant of £800 (1983); and a clothing grant of £51 (1986). Although it is difficult to assess the exact value of these grants from these details, the total value of direct aid and material grants was very small. The money given by the “Joint” was exceptional in this respect. In comparison, the resources given indirectly to the various claimant organizations were very extensive. Much has already been said about the importance of the absorption center and of the management rights of the Jewish Agency as the factor engaged in the task of absorption. In the absorption of the Ethiopians, these centers gained even greater significance, as new services and many new workers were added to the existing setup. Most of the resources intended for the Ethiopians reached them only via the centers and their officials. Two Jewish Agency documents (November 1984 and March 1985) detail the cost of absorbing some twelve thousand Ethiopian immigrants, and describe the different services they received. They were directed to different absorption frameworks such as the absorption centers for families, temporary absorption frameworks (hotels and hostels), and centers for young people (ages fourteen to twenty-one). All the absorption centers were basically the same – in structure, in the way they rendered services, and in their running costs (relative to size). Following are the running costs of one center (inhabited by 300 immigrants) over a one-year period: A. B. C. D. E.

Ulpan: £6,000. Social and cultural activities: £6,000. Maintenance: £30,000. Furniture and equipment £5,100. Director and Staff: £126,000.

Thus a single immigrant “received,” through this indirect aid, some £1,450 a year, or £121 a month. These costs did not include the salaries of outsiders serving the center, such as inspectors, health visitors, educators, and others. 76

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 77

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

It follows that a significant gap exists in the sums allocated for direct and indirect aid. The concentration of immigrants in an organized framework resulted in the channeling of most of these public resources earmarked for the immigrants to the organizations appointed to assist them. Furthermore, the assistance and services given the immigrants via these organizations involved dependency on the organizations’ officials. The caravans and other types of housing given to the immigrants for a long period of time through the officials increased their dependence on them. Maintenance services, which the immigrants needed daily, even further increased their dependence on the officials’ good will. The presence of different welfare workers was another important means by which the absorption agencies ensured a monopoly, based on their professional skills and resources allocated. By employing these welfare workers the agencies augmented and prolonged their control over the immigrants. In a document written by Donio, the director of social services at the Jewish Agency, she calls for “intensifying the socialization process because of the regression occupying the Ethiopians’ daily functioning as a result of their radical change of environment” (1983: 9). In this way Donio justified the need for her agency’s paraprofessional women workers. Welfare assistance for the Ethiopians was organized in different ways by different institutions. The Jewish Agency supplied social workers, paraprofessionals, and guides in addition to the administration and maintenance staff that it supplied for all the other immigrants. The Ministry of Labor and Welfare, which hitherto had not served immigrants as such, created a new alignment of officials, and offered care via social workers and paraprofessional assistants (somchot). Brought in by the Ministry of Absorption, the somchot’s role went well beyond the merely bureaucratic; they provided the channel through which resources were transferred to the immigrants, while preserving bureaucratic control. A 1985 Ministry document outlines the rationale of the work of the somchot: “Our experience teaches us that the process of socialization is specially prolonged and complex; this demands a new conception of the absorption worker, one that takes us beyond the merely bureaucratic and administrative functions, which are not sufficient for treating the Ethiopians. In order to play a more efficient and active role in absorbing Ethiopian immigrants, the Ministry must organize itself within the field of welfare by introducing Ministry of Absorption paraprofessionals, who must be more involved in their absorption process” (13). 77

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 78

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The Ministry, moreover, was interested in long-term control over the immigrants and the resources earmarked for them. In the same document such control was justified as follows: “It is clear that this population requires close and continuous monitoring, allowing for immediate intervention and guidance where necessary. This monitoring should continue even when the immigrants have settled into permanent housing and have established day-to-day routines.” These documents thus show how the various organizations ensured their continuing control over the immigrants via a relationship of dependence. They justified this welfare patronage by describing the Ethiopians as a category with complex and special problems. This did not, however, prevent the organizations from asserting that their purpose was achieving independence for the immigrants in the long-term. The practical import of these power-dependence relationships manifested itself in fat budgets and the concomitant power they brought with them.

Bureaucratic Care of the Ethiopian Immigrants: An Example of the Emergence of Social Categories as Closed Systems As stated, the definition of a group of people as unique, homogeneous, and in need of special care is a means for organizations to seek control in terms of responsibility and resources. As part of the struggle for resources people are described as belonging to groups that are viewed as “natural” units rather than bureaucratic “products”; they become inseparably associated with an image of social closure. Much may be learned about the characteristics of this categorization from the following interview that I conducted with Fanny, the director of the absorption center at Galuyot and later director of the center at the Princess Hotel, in Netanya. Fanny helped to draw up position papers outlining Jewish Agency policy on Ethiopian immigrants. Her status in the organization gave her views special weight. She perceived social categories in terms of closed frameworks: immigrant status, family status, age, and sex. She referred to the Ethiopian immigrants under three headings: families, youngsters, and women. The connection between categorized care and the struggle for resources and its justification in terms of care for the immigrants has already been presented as a given pattern of bureaucratic systems. Fanny’s words showed clearly how these “caring” officials viewed things: they readily accepted images of 78

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 79

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

defined and closed groups and demanded resources on the grounds of helping the immigrants. This interview with Fanny took place in mid-1984, at the beginning of my field work at the center. These are some of the things Fanny said: These people come from a primitive way of life. They are religious in an extreme way – not as we are, in a cultured society. Religion is a way of life with them. They know nothing else. As a baby is born and learns to brush his teeth, so they learn the dietary laws and the laws connected with a woman’s periods.1 Their lifestyle, of course, places the father at the head of the family and the grandfather at the head of the extended family. He is the representative on earth of their religion. He carries out all the religious rites. The moment you take their religious observance away from them, their whole lives collapse like a pack of cards. This is such a complicated story that I must leave out a few parts about the time the Ethiopian immigrants spent at a refugee camp in Sudan. There, their social and religious frames of reference were totally destroyed – exactly as happened to European Jews during the Holocaust. It was like an earthquake. Then they came to Israel, totally divorced from their village framework – with its facilities for allowing the wife to live outside the home while she has her period. Here, in her [menstrual] impurity, she defiled the house. They are now in a very difficult emotional situation, forced to change their familiar religious rituals. They accept this willingly, believing that the days of messianic deliverance have arrived. From the family’s point of view, however, it does a lot of damage to their systems of authority and to their ability to pass on their life experience to their children. It is the youngsters who are now in charge; they are the bosses; the adults’ authoritative framework had disappeared. This has happened with other ethnic frameworks; but is particularly obvious among the Ethiopians …. In Israel, instead of legitimizing the religious authority of the adults, we neutralize them, referring to them as, ‘the generation of the wilderness,’ for whom nothing can be done. We say, ‘It isn’t worth investing in this generation.’ To preserve their authority we need to provide certain conditions. We should have taken all the heads of families when they arrived at the absorption centers and given them intensive courses in Hebrew, taught them all the blessings, Torah readings and the commandments. They, in turn, would pass it all onto the next generation …. The youngsters arrive here and quickly take in all the wealth and plenty around them. They are dying to study and learn how to get a share of it. We are pretty well organized in getting them into the work system, but we do not ask ourselves what kind of citizens we are raising. We are prepared to invest money in them and teach them a trade; but we aren’t well enough organized to help them become, not European exactly, but at least people who have 79

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 80

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

entered the twentieth century. We must teach them some science and arithmetic, even if it means investing another year or two in them. We have taken a whole generation of people and grown an abscess that will burst one day. These aren’t the usual kind of immigrants. We have taken in primitive material; we ought to have acted as if we had taken in children who were two-years old. Now they are here, we should at least treat them like four- or five-year-olds. The opportunity we have is great. And what do we say? We say: okay, we won’t give fourteen years of schooling to them, just one year – apart from teaching them Hebrew. With the women, we have a dilemma. On the one hand we want to push them ahead, give them the tools to reach the level of Israeli women. We tell them that it is impossible to live on only one salary; so we have to help them reach the stage where they can begin to work. On the other hand if they do go out to work, their children will be neglected: they lack the level of responsibility of twentieth-century women. They don’t know that if they go out to work, the house still has to be tidy and the children looked after. They do their day’s work and then come home and lie on the bed. And the children wander about outside all day. That’s how it is. I have some experience in this area, and I was taught by people with experience. They taught me that it is a disaster to push these women into going to work. Sheer disaster. My social worker, Liat, worked in “direct absorption” in [the town of ] Maalot. She says that the children were neglected, ran wild in the streets and were filthy dirty. They had no proper food. The immigrants began to fight among themselves, which destroyed the family. Liat said she got the women to leave their jobs and return home, and she invested time in improving their self-image as housewives. It isn’t only the children who are destroyed, but the wife and home too. There are fights between husband and wife. A woman runs off and [her husband] ends up murdering her. Then we say, okay: we won’t push immigrant women to go out to work, but the opposite. We will try to stop them going out to work. But we have to give them some kind of enrichment – for after all, it is the women who educate the children. They should be able to sit with a child and see what he is doing. I don’t say they have to guide them – they can’t get that far. But at least we would get them into a situation where they weren’t afraid of their child’s exercise book, or of singing a Feast of Lights song together with the child. We have to give them enrichment of some kind so they can meet their child half way. It would take only another year or two. I tell the women that each has first to ask herself how much she can take on. Each has first of all to be sure of herself as a woman. Only then, if she feels that she has the potential, can she develop it and cope with both home and work. But let us not push everyone into a job just for the money, because we will end up paying more. They might earn a few pounds as industrial workers, but we will end up paying more for childcare than they can earn. 80

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 81

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

It’s better to put this money into the home and encourage them as housewives. In most cases they love it. They go out to work only for money. If you respect a woman as a housewife, see her as equal to the male within the system and see her job of educating the children as important as that of the male – perhaps even more so, she will be happy. If they want to go out to work, we won’t say no. But we shouldn’t encourage it. Once they understand what it is to be responsible for the family and the children, then only can we say, okay [go and get a job]. But this [i.e. home and children] comes first. You can’t all at once convey to the men the idea of responsibility for providing for the family needs, with all the implications of the Western world in the twentieth century, and burden them with sharing domestic duties too. The two can’t be done at the same time. So we have to choose. If we burden them with too much, it will only cause an explosion. We have got into deep water in these matters. In order to climb out we have to put on boots, but they cost money. We mustn’t save money. We must think about this if we want a progressive state. We can’t absorb these people the way they absorbed the black slaves in America. We must bring them to the point where they are citizens of the state. Yes, it’s true; it was easier for me to give a clear picture of what I believe in the first two headings. They were much sharper and clearer; this one has several directions. But we must cope with it. These are the three headings under which I would put the things I have to say.

Fanny’s words draw a fairly complete picture of how the officials perceived the Ethiopian immigrants. These perceptions could be summed up thus: these immigrants weren’t like other immigrants. They were a special group with special problems, and for these reasons it was vital to invest resources in them. The Ethiopians were a distinctive social category made up of people quite different from others in Israel: their culture, family structure, social framework, and psychological state were all used to totally differentiate them from other people. Their “village backgrounds” were compared to “our” Western society, their “cultural frames of reference” to “modern Israel.” Their “primitive society” was set in opposition to “our Western twentieth-century world.” The description of these immigrants as a distinct, closed group was underpinned by such terms as: “primitive mass,” “a burst abscess,” “system,” “framework,” and “generation of the wilderness.” The idea was also contained in Fanny’s use of the word “heading,” which closed off an area, a subject, and a people. This dichotomous perception of the distance between people in closed and separate units wasn’t unique to Fanny. Her views were no different from popular ideas or research of immigrant absorption in gen81

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 82

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

eral, or absorption of Ethiopians in particular. Frankenstein (1953), Patai (1970), Shokeid and Deshen (1977), for example, insist on concepts that point to the segregation of the so-called Eastern immigration and Israel. They refer to the use of such terms as “ethnic group closure” and “the social world of the transition generation.” Many others have this same perception of Ethiopian immigrants. G. J. Abbink speaks of “a distinct group of African Jews” (1984: 2); Schneller refers to them as “an isolated culture” (1985: 33); and Rapaport calls them “a tribe” (1983: 227). These are only some of the terms used in a dichotomous approach that closes off categories of people seen as essentially different. Fanny’s insistence on the uniqueness and difference of the Ethiopians was obvious in several claims: she called them primitive, saying that they came from backward villages and that he structure of their families was primitive (for example, the authoritarian status of father and grandfather). Fanny likened the immigrants to infants who needed to learn to brush their teeth and suggested they were naive. They thought, for example, that “the days of the Messiah have arrived.” Hence, according to Fanny, their acceptance of the enforcement of different religious rites. Next, Fanny spoke of the extremes of Ethiopian religiosity. In this too they were set apart. They had, too, fallen into a very difficult state of mind, one she termed “a disaster.” Fanny went on to describe this difficult mental state, the result of the fact that they were forced to change their lifestyle. These changes wreaked havoc in their traditional systems of authority. She chose to skip over their history in the Sudan, only comparing their lives there with the Holocaust. She ignored the similarities of their experiences in concentrated bureaucratic situations in Israel and in the Sudan. Finally, Fanny spoke of the special difficulties of the Ethiopians in terms of past tragic occurrences. She mentioned the absorption of other ethnic communities, hinting at a parallel with the failed absorption of the Jews of North Africa in the 1950s. All these claims led to one central point: something had to be done for these people. And the resources had to be found for handling the difficult and special problem. The need to see the subject as one demanding overriding preference and urgency is explained by the warning of a future collective disaster – an “abscess” that would eventually burst unless something was done. Fanny referred to the immigrants as a category: a special cultural, ethnic, and social group. It will be remembered that her various “headings” dealt with three respective groups: family heads, youngsters, and 82

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 83

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

women. Her divisions referred to the main problems of integrating the immigrants and the means of dealing with their problem. Her rationale for dealing with the problem was based on categories stemming from what she described as their primitive culture and their poor mental condition. The dichotomy of change as opposed to cultural preservation, presented by Fanny, ended with a call for resources in the form of “enrichment” programs. Fanny’s approach was one of the practical patronage. If the group was weak and primitive, it had to be cared for and, of course, somebody had to be responsible for the work. Various expressions she used hinted at her sense of responsibility for nurturing the immigrants in general and specific groups among them. She spoke of the need “to bring them to the point” where they would become citizens. Under her “heading” of families, Fanny spoke of their unique religious rituals in a primitive, village setting presided over by the hallowed authority of the men or “family heads.” She advised that resources be invested especially in the adults. The concentration of immigrants at the absorption center was seen as an opportunity to strengthen the authority of family heads as a preferred group. Fanny recommended special studies and training for them. The uniqueness of the young people (the second “heading”) was described in terms of their primitiveness compared to “Europeans.” Only special treatment would “produce a progressive population.” Here too there was a need for resources. Fanny suggests that one year of investment in the young people would be necessary. The “heading” of women suggested another example of a bureaucratically categorized care system. The Ethiopian women were also described as different and in need of special care. They possessed nothing like the responsibility shouldered by the modern mother, who was capable of coping with both outside work and the demands of home. The immigrant women were described as weak and limited, both culturally and educationally. The children were more knowledgeable than the mother, who was seen as afraid of competition with her children. Fanny’s description of women as a group with special problems in need of care was linked to her negation of their lifestyle and their identity and worth as mothers. Shachak’s comment on “the use of categories that results in a stained social identity” is relevant in this context (3). The negative label pinned to the Ethiopian immigrant women provided the rationale for the need to intervene in their lives. As mothers, they were perceived as utter and complete failures. 83

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 84

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The concept of responsibility was central to Fanny’s comments about the gap between these women’s skills and the demands modern society would make of them. In different ways she described them as irresponsible; unable to work outside their home; irresponsible regarding their children. Fanny called upon her so-called experience with Ethiopian working women to prove the irresponsible attitude of the Ethiopian women toward motherhood, something that should come first in life. On the basis of Liat’s experience, Fanny concluded that pushing these women to go out to work was disastrous. Fanny used extreme expressions to present her claims as absolute. She quoted Liat on how working mothers neglected their children by leaving them “filthy and dirty and with no food.” She emphasized her threatening message by associating anticipated future destruction with women’s working outside their homes. “We will destroy the next generation … we will get criminals and misfits.” Nor did Fanny stop at this pessimistic prognosis. She said steps should be taken against women who were already working: “We will try to stop them working.” She admitted to the contradiction in her argument. On the one hand she wanted to advance these women; on the other, to limit their rights to work and make private and independent decisions about their lives. She overcame this contradiction by a compromise: demanding that the women ask themselves whether they were capable of shouldering the dual burden of work and home. Yet her ultimate solution was to send the women back home to the children. That was their place. It seems that Fanny had difficulties in justifying her gender differentiated attitude. Fanny also had difficulty explaining the difference she conceived in distinguishing between the Ethiopian women and what she called “modern women.” The women’s right to work like men wasn’t self-evident but dependent on their fulfilling all their duties in the home. Fanny perceived the division of labor between men and women as an absolute: men were responsible for the income; women for children and home. The men, Fanny said, would find it difficult to cope with twin tasks of earning a living and helping at home. Thus they too were seen as a special group, primitive and able to cope with a single task only. The failure to relate to the immigrant men and women as special categories and to distinguish sharply between their life functions would court disaster in the future, according to Fanny, who used images like “destruction,” “disaster,” and “explosion.” She employed moral arguments to strengthen her gender distinctions, speaking of the “wrong84

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 85

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

ness” of “throwing” women into jobs. Women might be murdered by their husbands as a result of forcing them to go out to work. Fanny claimed that, in most cases, women “loved” being encouraged to stay at home. This was yet another justification for intervention and direction. Fanny was saying that what they really wanted was to stay at home. She used Liat’s experience to shore up her uneasiness about taking women away from work. Fanny expressed all the concern of the caring patron, talking as if she was an expert on the complex social problem of absorbing the Ethiopian immigrants. She justified her patronage by demonstrating knowledge of how these problems could be solved. Her language expressed her championship of Ethiopian immigrants’ advancement in general and of various groups among them in particular. She was concerned about the men being unable to cope with both jobs and home, and talked of the need to preserve the “hallowed authority” of the male family heads. Young people should be invested in, she said, so that a sound basis for a new generation could be established. Women should be advanced as mothers, and children shouldn’t be neglected. In the patronage Fanny offered the immigrants, she would determine the “where, what and how” according to category. She would preserve the system of authority of the past in order to ensure that the young were controlled by their elders. She sympathized with the men and relieved them of household chores, placing these responsibilities wholly on the shoulders of the women. She determined too that it was better for women to stay at home than work in industry. Her control, as she described it, was far-reaching, extending to the right to prevent these women from working. She would prevent them from doing what they thought was right or needed. Fanny’s beliefs evinced a hidden but consistent connection between the category-grouping distinctions made for purposes of organizational patronage and the allocation of resources. She saw the problem of the Ethiopians as a difficult social problem for society at large, both in the short and the long term. The problem could be solved by the allocation of large sums. Absorbing the Ethiopians would cost a lot of money; they couldn’t be absorbed the way the black slaves were into America. Resources were needed for courses for religious leaders, for vocational training for young people, and for the enrichment of women as mothers. Fanny saw herself as presiding over all these plans for education and redirection of the women. As such, she was to be the recipient and controller of the resources allocated. Were this care and education to be 85

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 86

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

given on an individual basis, such control would be impossible, hence Fanny’s criticism of the women who worked. They wouldn’t be present at the center during the day, and so no budgetary demands could be made on their behalf as a group. This was yet another example clarifying the connection between a concentration of people in one place, their handling as a collective, and the control of resources intended for them. Fanny’s opposition to the idea of working women has wider, indirect, socio-economic ramifications. What is implied is that the officials preferred to have the women engage in child-minding rather than outside work because otherwise that would cost the state a lot in child-care services. The women’s position, it seems, was influenced by vested interests in the social order around them. Government resources were allocated to social categories by the preference of one over others. The bureaucrats in the field also reacted to category distinctions in order to obtain state budgets. Because it was men who controlled the resources and power centers of the state it may be that they acted to leave women outside the competition for resources and positions of power. The avoidance too of a man-woman partnership in the home resulted in limitation of the women’s ability to compete for these state resources. Fanny seemed to believe that she was capable of influencing the social organization of people at the center by using resources available to her. She conceived of the family as the basic element in the social life of the immigrants and one that must be preserved at any cost. In her view, a gender-based division of labor had to exist. The man had to provide for the family, and the woman had to stay at home to look after the children. The need to look after the children was at the center of Fanny’s thinking about women. She seemed to perceive a chain of dependence relationships as the basis of social order. She saw herself as responsible for all the immigrants. Among the immigrants, the men were responsible for the whole family and the women for the children. There is a need, Fanny claimed, to preserve the Ethiopians culture and systems of authority in order to avoid future disaster. In order to achieve this end, various “tools” had to be given them; these would give power to one group and deny it to the other. In conclusion we see how Fanny’s conception of categories within the community of Ethiopian immigrants was connected to the images of closure associated with separate, special groups and sub-groups. This connection reinforced the need for their special care. Again their concentration in one place – and that of the women in particular – would justify a flow of resources to those responsible for their care. 86

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 87

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

Bureaucratic Preferences for Sub-Categories Officials clearly preferred to deal with groups of people rather than with individuals. Examples from areas like housing and vocational training point to a preference given to certain groups within this categorized care system. In the allocation of resources, the various institutions differentiated between families and individuals, between men and women, between young and old, and between educated and uneducated. Preference was given to the first of each of these pairs. The treatment of the immigrants on the basis of family units needed their “past” and their “culture” as the rationale for the choice of sub-categories in the transfer of resources. It seemed that the needs of management, control, and survival dictated the mode of care. In other words, the bureaucratic environment of the immigrants influenced the emergence of the “family” as the bureaucrats’ focal point of reference. This bureaucratic unit was represented by men. It was perceived and presented as a closed system and possessed a decidedly independent existence, even though it didn’t really possess these characteristics. The “family” served as an administrative unit for bureaucratic needs. Resources were channeled through it, and it became a pawn in the struggle for resources. The division of power between men and women at the center was a function of the biased and categorized bureaucratic system.

Housing as an Example of Biased, Categorized Care The housing of immigrants at the various absorption centers demonstrated the bureaucratic process of resource allocation. Housing units were matched up with defined social units. The allocation was influenced by and its criteria changed according to bureaucratic needs and pressures; here lay the connection between the biased categorized care of the Ethiopians at the center and administrative needs. The preference in allocating resources to families rather than individuals and to men rather than women was anchored in a social reality that viewed the centrality of the family as self-evident. The state institutions and officials influenced the alignment of the family frameworks by allocating family housing units. They also influenced the emergence of “heads of families” – in most cases men – by channeling resources to the families through them. These conclusions are based on available documents such as the Jewish Agency’s “Lists of 87

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 88

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Immigrants” at the Galuyot Center (1983) and at the “Kayit V’Shayit” (1985). The exceptions in these lists point to the difficulties in the standard bureaucratic treatment of people as family members. At the Galuyot Center, the immigrants lived in caravans. The right to live in them was in the purview of the officials, the Jewish Agency representatives. These rights were generally given to new arrivals who were recognized as Jews and termed “newcomers,” according to the law of the state, which recognized them as entitled to free state-awarded temporary housing. The allocation of caravans at the center was done on a family basis. Each group of people considered to be a family received a caravan. A “larger unit” (usually five people or more) generally received a larger caravan (3 by 16 meters); a “smaller unit” (usually up to four people) received a small caravan (3 by 8 meters). A family of immigrants living at an absorption center was entitled to a range of state assistance, besides the housing, and the maintenance of it. An Ethiopian family received special additional assistance such as a grant from a refugee fund, a maintenance grant for a year, vocational training, family guidance, assistance for children’s homework, boarding school education, and continuing Hebrew studies. All these were given to them by state institutions and the Jewish Agency through their workers. The resources were transferred to “family” units based on a gendered role division. The two lists referred to above and others compiled by different organizations demonstrate the way in which the officials made use of the lists according to the practices and concepts of the bureaucratic system in which they functioned. With the help of these lists, which at first seem innocent and of no special significance, the officials dealt with the immigrants. This type of analysis continues the work of Garfinkel (1967), who claims that such documents have much greater significance than is apparent on the surface. According to him, “the manner in which they report, their consequences and the use to which they are put are all inseparable characteristics of the social order which they describe” (201). From an examination of the housing lists, it can be inferred that the housing of immigrants was based on a categorized attribution of people to a “family.” The lists registered people according to a perceived relationship with a family group. On this basis people were directed to a caravan allocated to their family. The lists were sent to the centers by the Jewish Agency before the arrival of the immigrants and were in daily official use. At Galuyot the lists were used mainly by the secretary and the somechet for daily monitoring of the housing situation and in 88

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 89

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

the search for caravans for new arrivals. They were also used for the collection of money, which took place later on, and for dispensing pills to the immigrants. The lists revealed a number of things. They were made up of groups of unequal numbers of people; spaces were left between one group and the next. Two important characteristics distinguished the groups: the number of the caravan was noted to the right of the names and the immigrants’ identity card numbers to the left. The number of the immigrant certificate in each group of names appeared next to the name at the top of the group names. All members of the group received the same immigrant certificate numbers and were listed in inverted commas under the number at the head of the group names. This is also characteristic of the Kayit V’Shayit list. The groups were “family” groupings. Furthermore, the accommodation arrangements were made through the male representatives of the groups. The right to be housed in these separate family caravans depended on an immigrant certificate quite different from other certificates. Each member of the family grouping was given an identical certificate number – the one given to the “head” of the family. The consequence of this system was that all members of the family were tied to the one member who received a certificate. Only via the owner of the certificate could immigrants benefit from the privileges it afforded. Most owners of certificates were male, and the officials seemed to give preference to the men. In only nine cases out of forty on the Kayit V’Shayit list were the names at the head of the list women; on the Galuyot list it was only nine out of fifty. Women were given this privilege only when there were no adult males in the family group. This bureaucratic bias toward the male was made obvious in that only the father was listed next to each name. The criteria for accommodation at both the Galuyot and Kayit V’Shayit centers also had an age bias. This kind of preference tended to be easily taken for granted. Older people were given marked preference over younger people. Parents appeared before children on the lists and adults before those accompanying them. The oldest person was the one who appeared at the top of the family grouping. Young people over eighteen were usually put at the head of groups of young people, or they might be listed on their own. The allocation of housing was based on the family unit, but only insofar as it accorded with administrative needs and availability of housing units. A study of the exceptions showed that practical considerations rather than those of principle usually prevailed. Basically every caravan 89

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 90

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

was allocated to a group of people bearing the same surname. In some cases, however, additional surnames appeared. For instance, on page two of the Galuyot list we found three members of the Abraham family and two of the Manayurs, living in caravan 94. On the same page two of the Ofekah family were listed, one of the Almanash family, and one Zanbah, all living together in caravan 39. In Kayit V’Shayit too, people of different families were housed in one caravan; these were usually single people or parts of a family. In room 147, there were two single women, who didn’t know each other. In room 231 there was a woman with two children and a widow. In room 145 there were two women together with their two daughters. Thus it emerges that the criterion was not always the nuclear family; this merely provided the basis to which distant relatives, grown-up children, grandparents or even complete strangers were added. The so-called rules would be changed according to immediate administrative needs. Categories pertained as long as they served the needs of the officials and accorded with available housing resources. The addition of youngsters to the caravans suggested the extent to which the principles could be flexible. People of eighteen and over, the age of legal responsibility, were put in the parental home. Only when there were no parents did single people get caravans of their own. In these cases, singles would be grouped together without there being any family connection between them. The officials were expected to ensure that the caravans filled up so that there would be room for new arrivals. The criterion of “family” or the needs and wishes of young people were easily brushed aside under administrative pressures. This situation put a great deal of power in the hands of the officials. At the Safed center, for example, the immigrants were housed in a single building that became an absorption center. In many of the rooms families who had no real connection with each other were pushed together. This is recorded in Banai’s work (1988: 43-44) and in the Ministry of Absorption’s 1985 “The Absorption of Ethiopian Immigrants: A Basic Project,” which states: “The flats in standard transitional centers are not usually suitable for families of varying sizes. In practice more than one family is housed in one flat. The overcrowding that is a consequence and the presence of strangers damages the family’s attempts to organize itself as an independent unit and therefore the process of integration is delayed” (40). Housing in Safed, therefore, entailed the allocating of few housing units to many families. In their use of hotels and guest houses as accommodation for the Ethiopian immigrants, considerations were again a function of availabil90

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 91

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

ity of resources. In these locations, the families were split up into small housing units (37). When new immigrants arrived, those responsible at the Jewish Agency put great pressure on the absorption centers’ staff to make living quarters available. When this happened, the officials had no qualms about crowding people together. The principle of the family unit for housing the immigrants was well-documented and argued, but again and again gave way to administrative necessity and constraints. In a directive on permanent housing in the 1985 “Basic Project” (4556), the Ministry of Absorption suggests that housing solutions for the immigrants be handled on a family basis. Groups of families should be directed to permanent housing in various settlements. The documentation speaks of the need “to integrate single people, young and old, into the community.” This is to be done by ensuring that suitable housing is found for them within the community itself. Despite this we were told that the budget for housing “didn’t take account of the cost of housing for single people.” The family provided both the means and a rationale for obtaining resources, since funds are allotted on the basis of the family unit. At the Jewish Agency, caravans and social welfare were organized on a family basis and the Ministries of Absorption and Labor and Welfare activated social workers and somchot in the same way. “The project for the Falasha’s permanent housing” (Jewish Agency, April 1981: 5) reveals something about how housing was allocated: “When the time comes for announcing decisions on permanent settlement [of the immigrants], the social worker or the auxiliary will call on the head of the family to have the housing application form filled out.” Here again the “family” unit is seen as self-evident, and the head of the family as the sole representative for negotiating purposes. It follows, therefore, that obtaining the benefit of housing forced the immigrants to belong to “family” units and fostered their dependence on the individual representing them in most cases, a male. These categorized criteria appear again and again in these documents as reflecting the immigrants’ needs and wishes; as we have seen, the officials claimed that these points of reference reflected traditional social frameworks. One recommendation on housing policy states: “The family unit among Ethiopian immigrants has a special significance that reflects their traditional way of life … the unit acceptable to them would include parents and children living in close proximity and representing one integral unit … In planning the make-up and size of the group intended for settlement, these factors should be taken into account” 91

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 92

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

(The Ministry of Absorption, “Basic Project”: 49). A 1984 Ministry of Absorption document states: “A family is the only significant social unit in this ethnic group; the extended family has important social and psychological functions” (4). The concept of the extended family grouping or hamula is used in referring to the Ethiopian immigrants, and appears in documents on housing policy. “As far as possible, the hamula should be concentrated in one absorption center” (Jewish Agency Working Paper 1984). From the same paper: “Family relationships should be checked; each group of four to five generations should be seen as an extended family group.” This idea of the extended family rather than the Western nuclear family is emphasized in other Jewish Agency documents. The unit is said to engender strong mutual responsibility, something that in Israel is found only in the nuclear family, and even then not at the same intensity. In practice, however, very few extended families were housed at the same absorption center. Members of these families who arrived at different times were sent to places convenient for those at the “head office” – in other words, to centers where accommodation was still available. The groups were adjusted to fit the accommodation, and not vice-versa. The immigrants had to take what was offered. The “unusual cases” emphasized the primacy of the bureaucratic needs in dictating the categorized treatment of the immigrants. When, for instance, a married couple decided to separate, alternative housing was not found for the partner leaving the caravan. Such cases weren’t exceptional, judging by the various studies on the subject, (see Knizinski’s report on the situation of “Ethiopian Single Parent Family,” 1985). These cases were problematical for the absorption agencies (Cohen 1986). They “represent a burden on the community that absorbs them as well as their immediate family” (Ministry of Absorption, “The Absorption of Ethiopian Immigrants”: 13). “Until the couple marries they cannot officially be put into a caravan. For this reason there is a wastage of living space” (Cohen 1986: 16). The solution found by the officials was “to disobey the rules and regulations.” This meant that false reports were being submitted regarding couples who were living together, but weren’t married (19). The absorption agencies, it seems, found themselves in trouble when faced with split families, being unable to offer individuals accommodation in units designed for families. The criterion of the family unit may be termed logical insofar as the optimal exploitation of accommodation was concerned, because it grew out of the prevailing housing conditions. Negotiation through the fam92

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 93

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

ily “head” obviated the necessity of dealing with individual cases, and left the officials in control of resources. It has been shown that housing conditions influenced processes of social organization among the immigrants. The “family” was, then, the social unit which filled the existing housing units. This in turn created a control system allowing officials to deal exclusively with the family unit and its usually male representative. This bureaucratic system of housing allocation was influenced mainly by bureaucratic pressures – yet it was presented as stemming from the Ethiopian tradition.

Vocational Training as an Example of Biased, Categorized Care Based on Gender and Age The following pages focus on the link between the policy of vocational training for the Ethiopian immigrants and the power relationships within the surrounding environment. It again seems that the system of categories answered the needs of these power relationships and influenced integration patterns. The privilege of receiving vocational training based on gender and age strengthened the status of the male immigrants as breadwinners and the young people’s chances of receiving this training. Here again bureaucratic action that strengthened the family system and the females’ dependence on males was justified by citing “Ethiopian tradition and culture” as its reason. The above description of housing allocation shows how officialdom influenced the grouping together of immigrants as a “family” unit, and underlines the gendered power relationships within this unit. This becomes clear in several documents dealing with the vocational training of immigrants from Ethiopia. The institutions entrusted with immigrant absorption were concerned with the economic future of those in their care, and wished to offer them vocational training to ensure that they began life in their new country on solid economic footing. Training was again offered to the immigrants using the family heads as a medium of negotiation. What follows are the directives as outlined in a Ministry of Absorption paper (“The Absorption of Ethiopian Immigrants,” January 1985: 5-6): Pre-Training: Stage 1 starts from the eighth month of study in the ulpan. Adults of working age will be directed to this training … training will take 93

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 94

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

place three times a week in the afternoons. This framework embraces, to date, some 250 [all figures here mentioned are taken from the Ministry’s document, therefore, any inconsistency is in the original] breadwinners. Some 4,200 more are expected to pass through this stage of training, of which some 600 immigrants who arrived before the start of “Operation Moshe,” and 3,600 immigrants who either arrived as part of the Operation or are expected to arrive in the future. Pre-Training Stage 2 is designed to prepare immigrants for jobs or the Ministry of Labor training courses. The duration of this course will be three months, for eight hours a day. Some 115 family breadwinners are now participating and some 330 have completed the course. Five hundred immigrants who arrived before “Operation Moshe” are to participate. Some 1,800 breadwinners who arrived during the course of the Operation and those still expected to come will also participate in this stage. Those immigrants who complete the preparatory courses or those with appropriate skills will be integrated into vocational training courses, like engineering and electricity, metal working, carpentry, and upholstery. Veteran Israelis and immigrants from other countries will also participate in the courses. One-hundred-fifty family breadwinners have graduated from these programs and some 50 are now participating in them. Some 350 of those who arrived before “Operation Moshe” are expected to participate. There are plans for 1,000 more family breadwinners to participate from among those who arrived during the Operation and those expected to arrive.

While the institutions showed interest in the future employment of immigrants and veteran Israelis, they appeared especially concerned about the Ethiopians’ employment prospects. They created a prolonged system of training based on the claim that the immigrants needed it to improve their chances in the job market. Again they were viewed as possessing special needs for which specially large resources were required. The link between the two was decried in the 1985 Ministry of Absorption document as such: “There is in fact a significant gap between the abilities of the Ethiopian immigrants and the levels of vocational training required in Israel. The process of training, matching the immigrant to the job, and his final integration into a place of work is long and problematic and one that will demand ongoing treatment from the stage of the ulpan for Hebrew studies to integration in the place of work” (1985: 58). A 1989 document by Amishav and the Employment Services entitled “Vocational Absorption of Ethiopian Immigrants, 1984-1987” states that the main purpose of the pre-training program was to close the large 94

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 95

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

gap between the immigrants’ abilities and the needs of Israel’s labor market. Understanding technical language, appropriate work patterns, the ability to use tools correctly, the efficient exploitation of raw material, security training, and hygiene were some of the skills the immigrants were said to need, making preparatory training vital (22). The institutions also intervened in the process of workplace integration, justifying this intervention because of the special problems of the immigrants. This attitude persisted, although it was known that this mode of treatment hadn’t proved itself. The “Basic Project” notes the following: “The original prolonged Ministry of Absorption project … was changed – even while it was in progress – in order to prevent [the forming of ] habits of dependence on the absorption agencies. The Ministry of Absorption has shortened the vocational training process and the period of time before the immigrant is expected to begin work” (46). A senior Ministry of Absorption official spoke of disappointment with the vocational training program. Discussions in the Ministry during this period revealed an awareness of the fact that separate, prolonged treatment of the immigrant was a failure. Yet, the system in which categorized groups were chosen for special treatment continued, preferring group needs to individual needs for job placement. Amishav and the Employment Services Authority stated: “We have decided to give the Ethiopian immigrants top priority, paying maximum attention to the needs of this population” (1989: 5) Separate procedures were developed to deal with the training and employment of the Ethiopians. The statistics on these immigrants were thus recorded separately; briefings on the authority’s work were geared specifically to them; special meetings were held at which a personnel psychologist and an interpreter were present; special reception hours were arranged, and enquiries made by means of a social worker and an interpreter. The director of the concerned office identified potential places of work for the Ethiopians. The bottom line was that this group continued to be monitored as a collective. As with the case of housing, vocational training too was offered on a discriminating, categorized basis, with the “family” given precedence over the individual, and the male over the female. In the family, the male was granted the status of “breadwinner,” and, as such, was responsible for supporting the members of his family. The privilege of vocational training was also granted on a categorized basis, that of age. The expression “mature immigrants of working age” shows that the right to vocational training by the state was given to people “under the age of fifty-five.” 95

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 96

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The discussion will now turn to the link between the bias toward men rather than women, and toward younger rather than older immigrants, in terms of the right to receive vocational training. The recommendations that “answer the special needs of this ethnic group” sent to the directors of absorption centers for Ethiopians state the following: There is a need to prepare various study programs for different population groups … for married men under the age of fifty-five … there will be a morning ulpan for Hebrew studies; then, once the medical examinations are over, programs should be offered stimulating interest in learning a trade (three hours a day, twice a week). There will be religious studies and a course in cultural enrichment once a week. Married women will study at a morning ulpan and, immediately after the medical exam, will learn domestic science. The children will be kept in the nursery three times a week and will have their lunch there. This will ensure that they receive a balanced diet during their first months in Israel” (Jewish Agency Working Paper 1984).

It follows that one person in the family, mostly married males under the age of fifty-five, was perceived as the one responsible and the recipient for the resources offered to the whole family. The family was seen as a unit comprising two adults with dependent children. One adult was considered responsible for supporting the others in the family. The second adult, the female, had no choice but to live under the patronage of the male breadwinner. The environment that nurtured official thinking and decision-making created not only differentiated responsibilities for men and women, but also the choice of work open to the two sexes. This helps to understand why, in the allocation of resources, different areas of training were offered to men and women respectively. The workshops available for the men included subjects like basic metalwork and woodwork, tools, the workbench, plumbing, and electricity; those allocated to the women included: the oven, cooking utensils, sewing. Under the heading of “Home Aesthetics” the men were offered courses in painting (ten hours) and carpentry (twelve hours); the women were offered housekeeping, cleaning, pest control, furniture maintenance, kitchen upkeep, textiles, sewing, washing, ironing, cooking, menus, food storage, baby and child care, house aesthetics, cosmetics, family budgeting, and house maintenance. The total number of hours is fifty-seven. Again these distinctions between the sexes were justified in terms of tradition and culture differences, as explained in “The Basic Project” (The Ministry of Absorption 1985: 104). It was claimed that tradition 96

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 97

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

insisted that the man be responsible for the support and welfare of the family; it was from this fact that his status as head of the family stemmed. This situation, it was said, would continue to exist for a long time because these traditions were imbibed from childhood. The immigrants weren’t flexible and didn’t adapt easily to change. For this reason absorption policy needed to take cognizance of the traditional role of the man in the Ethiopian community. Vocational training should, therefore, be adjusted to the male’s traditional roles and should enable his job advancement, personal and economic security, as well as the widening of his social horizons – all would serve to strengthen his status within his family unit. This approach tended to increase the family’s dependence on its male breadwinner, and the woman’s responsibility for the home and the children. This policy was not the consequence of deliberate prejudice, but stemmed from the perception of a certain social reality that emerged from a bureaucratic environment that saw the man as breadwinner or “main breadwinner.” When there were no men in the family unit, officials treated men and women on similar terms. The “Basic Project” of the Absorption Ministry calls for the integration of women heading single-parent families into the work force by offering various kinds of childcare assistance (14). In 900 single-parent families, 750 of the family heads are women. The areas recommended for vocational training for these women were technology, nursing care and tourism – all of which “offer a variety of solutions for both men and women” (9). Ministry of Absorption officials offered the following explanations for the preference given to men in vocational training: women were preoccupied with caring for their children; their education was minimal; cultural convention and traditional social patterns precluded the possibility of women working outside the home. Women’s limitations in the social integration process were described thus: “The problem of Ethiopian women focuses on the gap between their potential functioning during the process of absorption and their ability to integrate themselves in practice. They have the care of their children, their range of experience (including basic education) is narrow and they suffer from the limitations deriving from social and cultural convention” (Ministry of Absorption, “Basic Project”: 14). Officials engaged in absorption claimed that a solution to the problem would only be found in the distant future because “the process of integrating Ethiopian women is slow and complex when we compare it with that of men. Women not only have to overcome a cultural gap but also 97

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 98

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

have to adopt a sex role for themselves which would allow them to go out to work.” These women, like all modern women, also have to find a balance between the different roles of companion, mother, and worker (Amishav 1989: 221). This process is described in terms of generations. There is gap here between the way Ethiopian women were perceived, the policies pursued in vocational training, and the needs and wishes of the women themselves. According to information contained in the Ministry of Absorption’s “Basic Project,” some 30 percent of immigrant women were actually employed (8). Another document, states that some 40 percent of those seeking jobs at the employment centers were women (Amishav 1989: 48). Having children did not, it seems, prevent women from going out to work and therefore could not really be considered a reason for keeping them out of vocational training courses. Neither could their “limited education” explain the gender discrimination evident in allocating vocational training to the immigrants. Among the men sent for this kind of training, many had only minimal education. There was, moreover, no significant difference between the professional skills of men and women. According to 1984-1985 data obtained from the Employment Services (Amishav 1989: 46) 95 percent of Ethiopian men who sought jobs lacked any kind of profession. The figure for women was 99 percent. Cultural conventions too were an unconvincing explanation for gender discrimination in everything concerned with employment opportunities. There is evidence that women did work in Ethiopia, contributing to the family’s income. According to Rathjens: “Weaving, basket-making, and pottery [were] the principal trades of women in Ethiopia” (1921: 68; see also Faitlovitch 1959:61; Cahana 1977:35-40; Weil 1985:13). A male immigrant from Ethiopia commented thus: “The women usually engaged in household matters, in childcare and in helping the breadwinner of the house … they made pots and baskets for sale and for her own use in the house. In the farming seasons she did various jobs in the fields” (Banai 1988: 54). In recommendations made in 1985 stated in the “Basic Project” on the work of immigrant women (written three years after the arrival of the Ethiopians and after a period in which the privilege of vocational training was given mainly to men) we read: “According to our perception of things, the penetration of Israeli cultural life and the imbibing of that culture into the family based on mutual connections with the absorbing society, can best be achieved through the women. For this reason it is suggested that the process of social absorption socialization be based on them. Vocational training and integration into trades – beyond its economic 98

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 99

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

value – will speed up the encounter with the new reality and its acceptance into family life. Women must be encouraged to work outside by the provision of vocational training courses, and facilitating conditions (14). The practice in the field was very different from the spirit of these ideas. The then-director of immigrant employment at the Ministry of Absorption admitted that the functionaries in charge of immigrant employment disagreed over the issue of women’s employment. Whatever the case, women didn’t participate in vocational training courses, not because of lack of ability, lack of desire, or because there was no need for them to learn a trade. The reasons lay rather in the policies of the relevant institutions and their implementation in practice. The prevailing economic reality, more than anything else, pushed women out to work. They went to work in spite of the poor pay offered unskilled workers and the fact that, over the years, the training resources given to the absorption centers were, in the main, geared to the men. Even if the man was the sole provider in the family in Ethiopia, this pattern could not be preserved in Israel, where both men’s work and women’s work are needed to achieve a basic standard of living. Official Israeli vocational training policies also influenced the power relationships between young and old among the Ethiopians. There was a bias toward the young, who are seen as “a group of immigrants from which the future leadership of this ethnic group will emerge” (“Basic Project” 15). Preference was given to this group in allocating training resources, in work opportunities, and in education. This age group (seventeen to twenty-eight) was made up of single people or childless couples and their number was estimated at one-thousand. This arbitrary demarcation of a social category was again specifically linked to the flow of resources from institutions to the groupings – inevitably controlled according to the official needs. The closing off of the “young” Ethiopians as a group, significant in size, offered rich pickings in terms of bureaucratic control. The declared purpose of the officials engaged in absorption was to advance the integration of this “ethnic group” into Israeli society. But although they claimed that in Ethiopia the immigrants were guided by the older people (“Basic Project”: 25) it would seem that in practice the officials acted according to the perceptions and structural constraints of the society of which they themselves were a part, disregarding what they perceived as Ethiopian traditions. The resources that were in the hands of the officials enabled them to influence the immigrant groupings and the balance of social power between them. They acted intentionally to create a chain of control and 99

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 100

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

mediation of which they were the beneficiaries. A leadership was nurtured by channeling resources in the direction of the favored group – young people – destined by the officials for future leadership. This group was housed, almost in its entirety, in an absorption center “designed for young people.” These youngsters were separated from their parents and from others not defined as belonging to their category: “Special efforts in the form of study and social enrichment are invested in the group” (15). Further distinction and bias was made using the criterion of educational level. For purposes of budget allocation, three sub-groups of young people were identified: “The educated group (15 percent) who have completed ten years or more of schooling, the middle group (75 percent), and the lower group (10 percent) comprising those who cannot learn, or are not interested in learning.” The officials themselves understood that this excessive categorizing, done for the purpose of channeling resource allocation, did not reflect the immigrants’ social reality. They admitted that the group wasn’t homogeneous from either an educational or a family point of view (“Basic Project”: 15). Yet the ratings above seem to indicate that the officials persisted in thinking of the immigrants as a divided, dichotomous, and hierarchical group. The bias toward a group of young singles without children again suggested the Israeli norm according to which young people are expected to study. Young parents are believed to have no time for study and, therefore, must be considered a poor state investment for the future. The forty-five plus age group is also not included among those the Ministry of Absorption considers worthy of secondary and vocational education. The officials knew that “a large proportion of them have relatively young children and are likely to be enjoying a higher income as a result of the studies of the breadwinning member. It is also admitted that this group (some 900 in number) belongs, according to accepted criteria, to the potential work force.” Again, the prejudice toward this group is explained away by the following: “According to the culture of their origin, they are thought of as old” (“Basic Project”: 15). This age categorizing was subject to change. In a 1984 Jewish Agency document (“Working Paper”) the cutoff age of this older group is fiftyfive. Married men up to that age are seen as the target population suitable for vocational training. However, according to the Ministry of Absorption, the eighteen to forty-five age group is seen as “a potential work force” (“Basic Project”: 69). However, it is explained that “Within 100

03-Ch3

1/21/09

2:41 PM

Page 101

The Ethiopian Immigrants as a Social Category and Social Problem

the total community of Ethiopian immigrants, some 5,200 fall into the eighteen to sixty-five age group and are formally recognized as a potential work force. From our experience with this population, it is clear that most immigrants falling within this age range find difficulty in integrating themselves into work. Therefore some 500 people should be deducted from the total of 850” (69). We thus see that the policy for vocational training is derived from the traditional working age limit in Israel (sixty to sixty-five), a bias which results in the exclusion of other groups, serving to define who is regarded as “old.” Moreover, the age criteria used in vocational training policy influences the prospects of the individual and his group in the labor market. The documents reveal how the organizations involved in immigrant absorption ensured the continued dependence of the immigrants on the services and resources controlled by them. They justified their intervention by referring to the Ethiopians’ problems as both “deep and special.” The flow of resources nurtured this dependence – though the officials claimed that their ultimate purpose was for the immigrants to achieve a state of independence. Again, categorization was the means by which bureaucratic control was exercised, involving the emergence of defined administrative units. The “family,” “gender,” and age have been discussed as the main social groupings used in this bureaucratic context.

Notes 1. I assume that when Fanny talks about the “dietary laws” she refers to slaughtering the animals for eating, according to the immigrants’ traditional custom, namely sharpening the knife and slitting the throat in one go, while reciting a blessing. The Ethiopian Jews used to follow biblical injunctions forbidding certain animals as proper food (“Kosher” food). Pork and other “impure” animals are forbidden. It should be noted that although Fanny's description implies a clear difference in the practice of “dietary laws” in Israel and in Ethiopia, this is not the case. Regarding “the laws connected with a woman’s menstrual cycle” Fanny was probably referring to the strict customs of women's isolation at times of their menstruation and after giving birth. For seven days during their menstrual cycle, for forty days after the birth of a boy, and eighty days after the birth of a girl the women stay in specialdistanced huts (Messing 1956).

101

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 102

SOCIAL CLOSURE POWER-DEPENDENCE

4.

AND RELATIONSHIPS AT THE GALUYOT ABSORPTION CENTER



The ethnographic data on everyday life collected at the Galuyot absorption center lent weight to the conclusion that the bureaucratic and categorized care of the Ethiopian immigrants was a function of both the struggle between the different organizations for budgetary resources and the environmental norms related to the officials’ reality. This care was characterized by the channeling of resources based on preference for certain groups, and created social categories that were perceived and managed as closed systems. The social interaction observed in everyday life at the center appeared to occur between people from closed, distinct groups. This perceived closure and social distance emerge in the bureaucratic situation that structures power-dependence relationships. These relationships are subject to change, when the situation itself changes and as the result of encounters between the different groups.

Micha’s Encounters With the Immigrants: The Emergence of Categorization and Social Distance The meetings between Micha, the senior official, and the Ethiopians, and the circumcision ceremonies discussed in this chapter are examples of the way a given bureaucratic framework can build up closure and 102

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 103

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

social distance. The meetings and family events took place in the clubhouse, which was controlled by Micha and other officials, and in a caravan where the immigrants lived. An analysis of these meetings shows how the character of an encounter could change according to place and situation. It reveals the connection between Micha’s behavior as an official and the creation of social distance.

The First Meeting: Micha Lectures at the Clubhouse The first meeting took place in the clubhouse, where Micha gave a lecture as part of a seminar aimed at preparing the immigrants for their departure from the absorption center into permanent housing. The title of his lecture was “New Immigrant’s Privileges and Obligations.” It was scheduled to begin at 2:30 P.M., but only at 3:00 was there an announcement about the lecture in Amharic on the public address system. This announcement continued for some twenty minutes. At 3:20 the first people began to gather. The men came in through one entrance after kissing the religious emblem on the doorpost. A few women came in through a second door, some accompanied by young children. One carried a baby. Most of the men sat on the right-hand side of the clubhouse, filling the first two rows of seats. The women sat on the left-hand side at the back of the room. Micha shook hands with the men sitting close by as he entered the clubhouse. Other men drew near to him, wishing to shake his hand too, but no women attempted this. Micha talked with the men in Amharic. His lecture was delivered in Hebrew and translated, sentence by sentence, into Amharic. During the course of the lecture the men and women sat and listened. After it was over, Micha asked for questions. Only the men asked questions; they also made complaints. The Second Meeting: Micha Meets the Immigrants in a Caravan The second meeting took place some two weeks after the lecture at the clubhouse. It convened in a caravan belonging to two of the immigrants. Some ten immigrants took part: men and women between the ages of twenty and forty. There were also two babies in the caravan. Micha had been invited to the meeting with Fanny’s approval. The subject to be discussed was the delay in the payment of maintenance grants to the immigrants; they wished to complain to Micha about their difficult economic situation. They hoped that as an official at the Jewish Agency’s central office, he would be able to do something about the problem regarding these grants, paid to the immigrants during the first 103

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 104

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

six months of their stay in Israel. At first the payment was made by the secretary of the absorption center and an official of the Jewish Agency. Later they were made via a social worker in the social services department of the Jewish Agency. I arrived at the meeting together with Micha and Fanny. Some men and women were sitting on the two beds in the caravan’s living area. Shai, Ziva’s husband, was sitting on a bed, as were two young girls, one of whom held Eitan, Shai and Ziva’s baby. Fanny went up to them and took Eitan in her arms and sat down next to Shai. Micha sat on the second bed and invited me to sit next to him. When Ziva came in, I invited her to sit with us. Micha remarked that the women should be sitting separately. Later on, Micha went over to Ziva and kissed her several times on the cheek, in the way the Ethiopian immigrants did. Micha chatted and joked in Amharic with the people in the caravan. Fanny engaged in baby talk with Eitan, still holding him in her capacious embrace. The baby began to cry; Fanny said he was tired and, with Ziva, took him back to the family caravan. After a short while they returned to the meeting without the baby. When Micha began to speak seriously to the gathering, he switched from Amharic to Hebrew. He opened thus: “I hear from Fanny that you want to talk to me about money problems.” Shai began clumsily to explain that the monthly maintenance grants weren’t arriving on a regular basis now that Liat, the social worker, was responsible for them. Shai explained that when Yehudit had been seeing to the payments, they arrived on time. Liat, however, kept saying,”Tomorrow … leave me alone … I have no money” and called them derogatory names. “When we ask her where our money is,” explained Shai, “she answers, ‘What do you want? Kill me if you like.’ She asks us to leave her office, and gives the checks on time to some of us, but not to others.” Micha interrupted Shai and said that he understood the problem, but defended Liat: “I know things are very difficult without money. There is no money, so you have a problem. But Liat is also in trouble. You cause Liat heartache; she wants to help you, but she can’t. The check comes from the Haifa office, where there is a big mix-up. The check goes through a number of hands … So Liat gives out whatever money she has. You think it’s because Liat doesn’t like you? She’s okay. She hands out whatever she has. Why should everybody suffer?” Shai made another effort to clarify the problem: “When Yehudit gave out the checks, we got them on time. Now we do not have enough money to buy food.” 104

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 105

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

Micha interrupted him again: “You’re right. It’s tough without money. It’s difficult for everybody. It’s difficult for all of us – especially for Liat. She cares about you, but you aren’t nice to her. You mustn’t do this to her.” He demonstrated his point by slamming his hand on the table. “You have to understand that Israel is not Ethiopia. There, when somebody uses words like ‘idiot,’ ‘fool,’ or ‘ass’ – it’s tough to take, it’s a tragedy.” Micha demonstrated the seriousness of what he was saying by assuming a tragic expression. “But in Israel when somebody uses such words, it means no more than wishing someone ‘good morning.’ That’s how it is here. It’s not the same as in Ethiopia. So if Liat uses a bad word, it’s not the same as it was in Ethiopia.” Fanny looked at me, and I said, “It’s not so simple.” Fanny whispered in my ear: “They don’t have money to buy food.” Micha concluded the discussion with the following directive: “I want you to speak to Liat. If we don’t speak to people, problems can’t be solved. We must talk and fix things. Liat wants to help you, so you must speak to her.” Fanny got up and left. The immigrants continued to speak to Micha in Amharic. As he made his way to the door, he answered some emotionally charged questions about what immigrants had arrived the night before. The immigrants clustered around him, young men and young women, to ascertain from Micha’s description if any of their loved ones had arrived from Ethiopia.1 If we compare the meeting in the clubhouse with the one in the caravan, it seems that the distance between groups was more marked in the clubhouse. The degree of control exercised by officials influences the collective-based difference and the distinctions people perceive in the interactions. The officials’ ability to dictate distance even in the caravan (over which the immigrants had control) indicated a balance of power in favor of the officials. The meeting in the clubhouse took place under the auspices of those in control of the absorption center. They were responsible for the clubhouse, organized the lecture, and picked the lecturer. The announcements made over the public address system and heard throughout the center were an audible expression of the control the officials exercised over the center and everything in it during the hours they were there. The residents had no choice but to accept this hegemony and co-operate with the officials. During the meeting, Micha was in control; in the caravan, the immigrants were in control – though even there Micha felt free to direct things. 105

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 106

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The control Micha exercised over the immigrants in the clubhouse on this occasion was a function of his status as lecturer. He spoke; they listened. They asked and he answered. He stood in front of a table, and the immigrants sat facing him. He opened the meeting and determined when it would finish. His control was also manifested in the language he used. He spoke either Amharic or Hebrew, as he chose. He also manipulated the distance between himself and the others. In spite of the fact that he knew the immigrants’ language and talked to them in it, he switched to Hebrew whenever he returned to the subject of his lecture. He went a step further in widening the distance between himself and his audience by using the medium of an interpreter. Perhaps Micha was anxious to ensure complete understanding of what he wanted to say. And yet this cannot be the only explanation of his use of an interpreter. All those present had already been in Israel for six months and therefore had a little Hebrew. Micha could have spoken slowly and simply in a language the immigrants already understood. In fact, he said nothing of vital import to the immigrants nor did he go into any specific detail. He also mixed Amharic words and expressions with his Hebrew. His lecture in the caravan was in Hebrew – which increased the impression that the immigrants could understand Hebrew without needing an interpreter. When Micha switched to Amharic or made use of an interpreter, he was choosing to distance himself rather than draw closer to his audience, as he had done before the lecture began. He distanced himself by using an interpreter and a language which he knew well but which the immigrants had difficulty with. These allowed him greater control over what was said, and over the situation in general. What made it even clearer that Micha switched languages in order to create distance and achieve advantage and greater authority was that, up until the start of the discussion about something that really concerned the immigrants – the delay in the payment of their maintenance grants – he had chatted with them in their own language. He only changed to Hebrew when he began on the main topic. This suggests that he preferred to be on “home ground” when the issue was controversial – complaint about the failure of officials, for example. It should be noted that Liat (about whom the immigrants were complaining) was employed by the department in which Micha worked. Compared with the clubhouse, there was more of an atmosphere of intimacy in the caravan – this was especially evident in the meeting itself. It has been suggested above how the “distancing” in the clubhouse 106

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 107

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

was achieved. In the caravan, by contrast, Micha and Fanny sat with the immigrants. Fanny was especially friendly to the baby; Micha too displayed closeness to and affection for the immigrants. He addressed Shai and Ziva with special warmth and the other immigrants with camaraderie. He told them everything that he knew about their relatives who had just arrived in Israel. His warmth in the caravan served to highlight his relative aloofness in the clubhouse. In the caravan, he went so far as to kiss Ziva; in the clubhouse, he only shook hands with the men. In the situations described here, the aloofness or closeness of the people involved was observed to change. Speech, their way of sitting and other mannerisms were indicators of this change. There was a different behavior format in each of the two meeting places. The different degrees of closeness during the two meetings were an expression of the relative positions of control that pertained in either place. In the caravan the customs of the immigrants had greater influence on the general behavior; in the clubhouse the immigrants behaved as Micha and other officials expected. These differences in closeness suggested the complexity of the relationships involved. When we examined the varied interaction between the immigrants and the officials in the caravan, the distinction and difference between them seemed less clear. In fact they appeared to connect in a manner that did not reflect any dichotomous division between the two groups. Neither did the division of power in the situation demonstrate any definite distinction between the two groups. Fanny identified with the immigrants in word and deed. She helped organize the meeting with Micha and expressed regret over the immigrants’ economic difficulties, created by the officials’ inefficiency. Yet she had to be cautious and spoke to me secretly. But Micha, in his confrontation with the immigrants over the matter of the grants, acted like one who belonged to the group of officials, one who carries the burden of responsibility. He offered support for Liat, the social worker, and abruptly interrupted complaints about her conduct. This suggests that the distance carefully maintained by the officials during their work at the center was not confined to the relationship between “officials” and “immigrants.” In the caravan, we perceived the links and divisions that cut across the group demarcation lines designated by the bureaucrats. There Micha and Liat, both officials of the Department of Social Welfare, were allies in confronting Fanny, who belonged to another department of the Jewish Agency and demonstrated closeness to the immigrants. 107

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 108

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

If this was the case, the care of the immigrants and the resources intended for them influenced the way in which those in positions of responsibility saw those in their charge. They saw them as either close or distant, for or against them, and belonging to the same group, or not. The confrontation between the officials and the immigrants over the delay in the payment of the maintenance grants took place in a caravan. We noted the potential ability of the immigrants to present a threat or cause a disturbance. The officials were called upon to react. In the caravan, the immigrants had more power and were thus able to present their complaints. Micha defended Liat, but in so doing exposed the weakness of Liat’s position in the sharp confrontation with the immigrants, and even his own since Micha could not help them given that the resources in question were not under his control. He shifted responsibility for the problem onto the Jewish Agency officers in Haifa. He claimed that things weren’t properly handled in this office, referring to the manner in which the officials there transferred the grants. The immigrants had invited Micha to speak to them supposing that he had the power to help them. Liat too was dependent on the regional officials who were supposed to transfer the funds to her. Only Fanny could identify with the immigrants because her involvement in the issue was indirect. The responsibility Micha perceives himself as having forced him to defend Liat. It became clear that everybody was dependent on the head office which held the funds but were too far away to blame. Yet, in spite of the fact that all those present in the caravan were dependent on the officials, both officials and immigrants behaved as if they belonged to different groups. By supporting Liat and switching to Hebrew, Micha attempted to demonstrate that he belonged to the officials’ “group.” He didn’t control the resources, yet saw himself as belonging to the group that did. What I am trying to show is that the groups were not theoretically closed, and that the distance between them was not necessarily dichotomous. Distance changed, and depended on the concept of responsibility toward the holders of resources in any given situation. Though the immigrants might pose a threat or cause a disturbance, their weakness was revealed in the caravan as well. Micha had admittedly come to hear their complaints, but he couldn’t help them and even reprimanded them for hurting Liat’s feelings and not understanding why she had acted as she did. The immigrants were more dependent on the officials in Haifa than Micha or Liat were: they needed their grants for immediate living expenses. 108

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 109

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

In the situation described here, the control exercised by the officials created the distance between the men and the women. In the clubhouse there was no physical contact between them. Micha only shook hands with the men, and only they approached him. Thus, in a situation over which the officials wielded control, everybody accepted the implicit distinction between the expected behavior of men and women. The women sat further away and bunched together. They made no attempt to shake Micha’s hand or to talk to him. The men sat close to the lecturer’s table. They shook his hand and spoke to him. Micha reacted similarly: he neither shook hands with the women nor referred to them during his lecture. In contrast, in the caravan, Micha got up to meet Ziva and kissed her; he also chatted with the other women. However, when Ziva entered the caravan and I invited her to sit next to us, Micha drew my attention to the fact that Ethiopian women were accustomed to sit separately from their menfolk – even though this clearly wasn’t the case at that particular meeting. The concept of distance between the sexes did not in fact seem to be relevant for the immigrants. Micha didn’t see the contradiction between his kissing Ziva and the gender distance about which he whispered to me. Through his changing position he expressed the influence of location and circumstances. In the clubhouse, closeness was linked to the men and manifested itself in the shaking of hands, which is usual in any formal situation. In the caravan, intimacy was evident among all present. They kissed each other in the manner of Ethiopian immigrants. Micha believed the immigrants were behaving according to accepted norms of separation between the sexes – even when he could see that this wasn’t the case. He himself showed a preference for talking to the men about the serious issues as it was to them alone that he addressed his words. His lecture was an example of how officials categorize people in relation to their own stereotypes and resources allocated by the state. Micha’s lecture was translated sentence by sentence by Josh, the instructor, who was himself an immigrant. The immigrants listened attentively throughout the lecture; occasionally laughing when Micha used a word in Amharic. His lecture began thus: “Today I am not Micha, whose business is absorbing Ethiopian immigrants, but a lecturer who will talk about the rights and obligations of immigrants in Israel.” He then asked rhetorically: What are those rights and obligations? I will give you an example. Every man has the right to receive a salary – but only when he works. Here every person 109

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 110

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

has the right to receive a salary. There is something special about new immigrants that makes them different from other people. We know that if we give people something now they will repay us later on. But with new immigrants it is different: at first they have a lot of rights without having to fulfill a large part of their obligations. The idea is that if in the beginning we give an immigrant a lot – he can, for instance, learn a trade – afterwards his contribution will be all the greater.

From this point on, Micha detailed the immigrants’ “rights” and “obligations”: It is easier for me to begin with rights. Every citizen in the state has rights. First of all, every person has the right to his own opinion. He doesn’t have to say everything he thinks out loud, but it is his right to think what he likes. There is also what might be called freedom of speech, but on this issue I have to make one point: one shouldn’t say anything that could cause a person to be sent to prison. For example, I can’t go about spreading all kinds of lies that might harm someone. In the state of Israel a Jew can practice his religion – but so can Christians, Moslems, or Bahais celebrate their festivals. Now every person has the right to decide where he will live. But here the problem begins. He can choose where he would like to live if he had the money to make that kind of choice. I, for example, would like to have a big house in Tel Aviv with a room for each of my children. If I have the money, I can buy such a house; if I do not, all I have is my desire to live in such a place. I can also travel freely from place to place. Israel is not Ethiopia where one needs a permit to travel from Tigrin to Gondar. You probably discovered this fact when you traveled in Israel to visit your relatives. You didn’t need any permit. Again, we aren’t allowed to force a person to work in a place because somebody else has decided he must do so. Each person can decide for himself where his place of work will be. A man cannot force the government to give him work in the place that he wants. If a man has a trade he has to go where that trade is needed. In the state of Israel, in addition to the benefits given in other countries, we have what we call the “Welfare State.” This is difficult to translate. It means a state which cares for its citizens. This whole subject can be found in the National Insurance rule book. These rules tell us that no one should suffer because he is physically limited or unable to work a full week. The state of Israel decided that a man of sixty-five and a woman of sixty should not have to work for a living. So they receive a pension that isn’t very large, but enough to live on. They can’t hold parties every day. Then take a man who, for example, has worked for two or three or twenty years and injures his 110

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 111

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

hand. We don’t say to him, “You have injured your hand. May God help you.” We will help this man. Another person may have had to do a period of army service. A person who serves in the army has to have his salary paid. Let us now speak about obligations. All these payments I have mentioned come from the citizens of the state: people give part of their salary to a public fund. This fund is the state’s bank and we call these funds income tax. Josh, for instance, gets money from the Jewish Agency; part of his salary will go to income tax. The state takes care of all of its citizens. Judges and policemen have to be paid. All the people who work for the state have to be paid. This means what you have understood: everybody has to pay his bit for both the judge and the policeman. But this isn’t all; we have other obligations. I have to go to the army. I have to be loyal to my state. I have to send my children to school because there is a law that says every child must study from the age of five to fifteen [somebody in the audience corrected Micha, saying the compulsory education was up to age sixteen]. If a mother or father tells a child, “Don’t go to school,” they will be sent to jail. Generally, then I must keep the laws of the state. I can’t decide that my neighbor’s house is mine. Or let’s not go so far; if I enter his house by force, I will be sent to jail. It is the same in Ethiopia. Anyone who doesn’t keep the laws of the country sits in jail. When does a man lose his rights? If he doesn’t fulfil his obligations. If a person doesn’t pay his fees to his health scheme, he won’t get medical treatment when he needs it. He will have to pay a private doctor. You might be able to afford a doctor once but you won’t be able to afford hospital payments, which are very expensive. The cost of one day in hospital, for instance, is more than the month’s allowance given to an immigrant. I said before that with immigrants the situation is different. They start to pay [health fees] six months after their arrival. So what are the immigrants’ special rights? First of all the state takes it upon itself to see that the immigrant has a house. This is no small thing. The state realizes that every immigrant who comes to Israel left a house behind him somewhere. Some are given houses, and the state pays the rent. The immigrant has the right to learn Hebrew. This isn’t just an invention. In Israel Hebrew is spoken everywhere. Abroad, the immigrants spoke the language of their country. Here we give the immigrant the right to learn a new trade, if he has a trade that isn’t of use in Israel. Let’s take the immigrants from Russia. If thirty, fifty, or a hundred teachers come from Russia, we will have more teachers than we need, and some will have the right to learn another profession. What has been said about the adult immigrant is true of his child as well. He too has the right to learn Hebrew and a profession, and have a roof over his head. The state gives all these rights to the immigrants. Only later will he have obligations and will then be in a much better position to fulfil them. What I have had to say, I have said, and now I will answer any questions. 111

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 112

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Questions can be asked by giving examples. If no questions are asked, it might mean that people haven’t understood what I have said.

A question was asked about education and the possibility of the state paying for it beyond school-leaving age. The interpreter translated it for Micha, but Micha didn’t wait for the questioner to finish. He was in a hurry to answer: If somebody wants and has the money he can sit and learn to the age of eighty. But it’s another story if he says that the state owes him this right. Education isn’t just a matter of what a person wants, but also what he can afford. I, for example, would like to be a doctor, but I am “shamgila,” or old, as you say in Amharic, and unable to study. In Israel, things are a little different from how they are in Ethiopia. There, children of different ages sit together in the same classroom. I have seen photographs of ten years ago in which a child of six-years old was sitting with a man of twenty-four. Today, I understand that conditions in Ethiopia are similar to those in Israel. Now something about the new immigrants, and especially Ethiopian immigrants. We know it took some of you years to get to Israel. We want to give to those people who have the ability and can make progress. But it all depends on ability. Take Adonia, for example. If someone has the ability but his “adil” [luck/fate in Amharic] didn’t allow him to get a certificate, we will try to correct this situation. If he is able, we want to help him. But there is a limit to this: we can go on helping people until they’re twenty-eight.

A young man of nineteen got up and spoke in a tense but articulate manner. The interpreter translated thus: “When he came here, he heard that he would have the opportunity to study, but he has now heard from his friends that we will not be able to study because we do not know the language.” Micha answered: “I have already told these friends that everybody can do every trade well – but there is a limit. It is impossible for each person to learn exactly what he wants. I have already said that if I, for instance, want to be a doctor, like someone who came to Ethiopia from Israel, I wouldn’t be able to.” The young man refused to give in on the matter, and continued to make it difficult for Micha: “There are many people of my age who did not go to learn a profession.” He asked about the possibility of statefunded university study and was interrupted by Micha: “There is a difference between learning a trade and studying at university. I will say it once again: one can study at university until the age of eighty – but not 112

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 113

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

with the help of the state. If I am sixty, I cannot ask the state to give me the money [for studying].” One immigrant asked: “How many times can an immigrant change his mind about where he wants to live?” Micha answered: “It’s not how many times, but for how long a period. During his first five years, an immigrant can refuse to live here or there but after that he must go out and look for a place by himself.” A large group of people were really annoyed by Micha’s words. Josh, the interpreter, pointed to one of them, then asked in his name: “What happens if he has an apartment and wants to move?” Micha answered: “He will have to sit and write a request, and in Israel, he will need a very good reason for making such a request. It isn’t any good just saying he wants to live near his cousin. He will have to give sickness or place of work as reasons. In Israel it is very difficult to persuade the authorities that you need to change your apartment. You only get one apartment.” The interpreter said: “Adonia has another question.” Micha then announced: “I’m in a hurry. I’ll take one more short question.” Adonia now spoke: “If, for example, we give a man his rights and he does not fulfil his obligations, what happens in such a case?” Micha rapidly answered: “Let us take a man who doesn’t pay his rent as he had obligated himself to do. Here again there is a limit to everything. If an immigrant doesn’t pay for two years the matter will be passed on to the court.” Micha went on to suggest that another date be fixed to continue the discussion. He then left, but the discussion was never continued. The bureaucratic context fostered distinctions between groups of people at the absorption center. The distinction, for instance, between groups based on sex or age was mainly the result of a bureaucratic regime that allocated resources via the officials, its representatives. When the subject under discussion was housing, studies, or maintenance grants, the women weren’t party to the negotiations with the officials. It was the men who represented them. The officials turned to the men and ignored the women. The women accepted this as a given and didn’t take part, for example, in the discussion in the clubhouse. They took no active part in discussing these subjects. They sat further away from Micha and had no direct contact with him. It was as if they didn’t exist. It was in the caravan that the women seemed most free; there they spoke to Micha and asked about the immigrants who had just arrived. But not even in the caravan did they intervene in the issue of the grants. We thus perceived that even in a situation of greater equality, the 113

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 114

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

women’s distance, established by those who allocate the resources, was preserved. This distance served to further marginalize the women in their own eyes and in the eyes of those around them. The officials reinforced the status of the men as breadwinners; it was to them that the maintenance grants were paid and professional training was offered. In these contexts the officials dealt only with the men, whose power was thus augmented by them. This power manifested itself in the men’s ability to negotiate with, complain to, and make demands of Micha. For him, the men represented the women and children as well. In the clubhouse, the men asked questions and Micha answered them. The questions addressed to him after the lecture centered on two main issues: studies and housing. Three groups emerged: Micha and the interpreter; the men, and the women and children. The women and children sat in silence as if they didn’t exist. The crying of the child in the woman’s arms was the only thing to break the women’s silence; it served to underline their “non-existence” and their “not-belonging.” Throughout the meeting there was interaction between Micha and the men via the interpreter. The physical closeness between the seated men and Micha, who stood, expressed itself in the handshakes, the questions, and the answers. Before the lecture, Micha exchanged some words in Amharic with the men. The subject of the lecture was seen as having nothing to do with the women. They listened but didn’t react. As a result of the discussion on studies, yet another category emerged. Here the older people were excluded as a result of the decision made by the institutions dealing with the immigrants. Studies were intended exclusively for those up to the age of twenty-eight. Micha attempted to please the younger people, who in their questions expressed a sense of disappointment. His answers included words in Amharic such as, “shamgila”2 and “adil” (luck), and the word “certificate” in English. Micha assumed they understood these words. His style of speech suggested that he wished to win over the young people and placate their anger. He used, for instance, the example of the Israeli who wanted to become a doctor in Ethiopia in order to present himself as someone with problems similar to theirs. He said he was also too old to learn medicine. Micha seemed to associate the limitation of the right to receive education up to age twenty-eight with those categories of age accepted and understood by the Ethiopians from their country of origin. We understood from his words that he believed the immigrants considered an elderly person as someone to be honored. The young people in the audi114

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 115

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

ence identified the contradiction in Micha’s words. On the one hand he said that old people could no longer study, and on the other that if a man had money, he could study until he was eighty. The “real” question was: Whom would the state pay for? Micha’s answer was that it would pay up to age twenty-eight. But the immigrants weren’t convinced. One immigrant gave an example which contradicted this idea. He mentioned that he knew of people who had begun their studies when they were older. As Micha’s arguments were negated, he retreated from his stand and admitted to another difference, between vocational training and academic study. The criteria for eligibility and assistance were thus changed during the course of the confrontation, without any qualms. Micha seemed to believe that the age criterion best justified the decisions of the state and the Jewish Agency, which on this occasion he represented (“We know that …” and “We are interested in helping these people.”). The logic here was absolute: everybody knew that the old couldn’t work, either in Israel or in Ethiopia. This line of argument almost reached the level of absurdity in Micha’s summing-up: “I will say it once again: one can study at university until the age of eighty, but without the help of the state. If I am sixty, I cannot ask the state to give me the money.” When is a man too old to study at university? At eighty, when the state doesn’t help? At sixty, when he is too old to ask the state for help ? Or at forty-plus, Micha’s age, when he can no longer learn medicine? According to this it would seem that in academic and vocational training for new immigrants and in determining criteria for eligibility the state created different categories of people who saw themselves as either belonging or not belonging to this or that group. This process emphasized distinctions of age and sex, allowing one group to strengthen itself in relation to the other. The opportunity and right accorded to young immigrants to obtain a higher education empowered them. They could make demands on the authorities. They weren’t satisfied with the vocational training offered, but wanted the opportunity to go to university. The resources given them as a favored group strengthened their bargaining power. This dynamic resulted in the emergence of identity groups. People affiliated themselves and others to defined groups, and behaved accordingly. The women in the clubhouse, for example, sat in silence because they didn’t see themselves as belonging to any of the eligible categories. The greater the formality of the situation, the greater the distance that opened up between the groups – a distance which had been nurtured on 115

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 116

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

the basis of administrative decisions. In the clubhouse, the women behaved as if they had no connection with the proceedings: they were passive listeners while the men were active. They didn’t ask, demand, or complain. In the discussion on studies, only the young men participated. The older men were silent and excluded. In the caravan, when the discussion became formal and Micha represented his organization, the women were outside the active circle of participants, and old people didn’t participate. But when the discussion turned personal, the barriers fell and the categories were broken. In the caravan both the men and the women talked to Micha. Clearly in this everyday setting there was no separation on the basis of sex and age. Men and women met and talked and there seemed to be no distinction between young and old. From this we concluded that the different forms of separation came into being and persisted as a result of organizational decisions and official action. The barriers were seen to fall away when the conditions that gave rise to them were absent. The system of categorization the officials used to allocate resources was akin to the way the state singled out certain groups as needing patronage and special care. Immigrants were one of the groups to which the state allocated special funds. Micha expressed this idea when he said: “There is something special about the immigrants that one doesn’t find among other people … it is different with them: in the beginning they receive many rights without having to fulfill a large part of their obligations.” The uniqueness of this group was associated with the resources allocated for it by the state. Micha’s example of the laws relating to retirement demonstrated the link, as he perceived it, between a categorization of people and the rights and resources the state offered to groups defined as needing special care. Micha perceived weakness as a significant group marker; groups defined as weak were the subject of state concern and treatment. Micha orientated his explanations about assistance to the notion “to help”: “Nobody should suffer because he is weak.” About the assistance given to disabled people, he explained that their welfare wasn’t left to chance; the state would offer a helping hand. The immigrants were seen as a group needing help, a concept behind which lay an attitude of patronage. They were weak and so the state had to help them – and if this was so, the immigrants were “special.” In order to be helped, the immigrants had to be singled out. Sub-groups were also separated off, on the basis of family, sex, or age. All these distinctions entailed the patronizing attitude of those who allocated these state resources. 116

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 117

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

Micha saw himself as appointed by the state to be responsible for its resources. He referred to them as a grace, and to those who received them as children in need of patronage. He used terms of reward and punishment, much as one would do when speaking to children who need to be taught a lesson. Several times he threatened those who stepped out of line with jail, for example, when he talked about the non-payment of taxes and the laws relating to schooling. From what he had to say, we learned that Micha perceived the immigrants as children who didn’t understand the facts of life and needed to have them explained in simple terms. He told untruths in order to placate the immigrants as one might with children who felt they had been insulted. Words like “fool” or “idiot” in Hebrew, were, according to Micha, no more than “good morning” in Amharic. Micha’s chiding implied a fatherly relationship toward the immigrants. He told them off for hurting Liat’s feelings and allowed himself to teach them how they should treat her. Micha used overstatement and simplified analogies – his remark about everyone’s right to be paid for work, to think what they wished but not speak in a way that would result in imprisonment. Again he explained, with an air of authority, that people could work where they chose and couldn’t be forced into working in a place the authorities had determined. However, he warns that an immigrant “cannot force the government to give him work in the place and of the kind he wants.” Another method Micha used in his lecture to present matters in a simplified way was to make recurring comparisons between what went on in Ethiopia and how things were in Israel. His words demonstrated a view of the Ethiopians as belonging to a primitive world and unfamiliar with the modern world. He mentioned the lack of freedom of movement in Ethiopia, as compared with Israel. He pointed out that in Ethiopia, people of greatly differing ages studied together in one classroom. He used ridiculous examples, such as the need to explain wanting to move from one place to another. He connected the impossibility of studying beyond the age of twenty-eight with old age, and presented himself as someone who wanted to study medicine but couldn’t for reason of age. Micha was patronizing in his references to money, using simplistic examples. He saw the immigrants as people who didn’t understand the value of money. He often used money to clarify an issue: a man could, for example, choose to live where he wanted, study at university until eighty, and visit a private doctor – if he had the money. In this way he emphasized the immigrants’ dependence on the state and on people like himself as the channel through which resources were distributed. These 117

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 118

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

examples reinforced the limitations these resources imposed upon people in their situation of dependence. Again, Micha used emotionally charged words in a patronizing manner. He didn’t seem to believe that the immigrants were capable of understanding a logical explanation, and so he resorted to pathos and visual demonstration. “You are causing Liat heartbreak,” he said. “Do you think Liat doesn’t love you?” He used body language to make his words concrete, banging the table to suggest that the demonstrations they held were wrong. He put on a doleful face to indicate a difficult situation. Micha’s use of over-simplification was especially evident in the content of his lecture. Throughout he offered no practical suggestions on the subject of immigrant rights and obligations. He talked about housing, employment, studies, vocational training and learning Hebrew – but didn’t say anything practical about any of these. When he mentioned housing and the way the state assisted in purchase or rental, he indicated nothing about the scope of this aid, its constituents and conditions, and nothing about the procedure necessary to obtain it. Talking about studies, he again mentioned only the right to an education and the readiness of the state to allow those who hadn’t had a chance to study to do so. There was no mention of the parameters the assistance offered. He went into detail only when the reaction of the audience obliged him to do so – and even then his explanation remained partial. His hasty exit suggests that he lacked the information necessary for any definitive answers. The immigrants’ reaction demonstrated better than anything else that they understood far more than one might have expected from Micha’s attitude. Their penetrating questions showed a rather good grasp of what was what in Israel and what benefits they, as immigrants, could expect to receive from the state. They asked about their right to study at university, something Micha had mentioned only in passing. They were aware of the qualifications required to study at university in contrast to requirements that qualified their right to vocational training. They also knew about the limitations regarding their choice of where to live. Seen from this point of view, the meeting in the caravan was similar to the one in the clubhouse. Here too, Micha brought little information of consequence; nor did he make any practical suggestion regarding the delays in maintenance payments. All he had to say was that the immigrants should treat Liat nicely. The immigrants were aware that there were difficulties in transferring these payments from one department to another, and realized that a more forceful attitude on their part would be more likely than politeness to advance their interests. 118

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 119

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

Both the meetings discussed above were about the immigrants’ problems – but no solutions were forthcoming. The meetings served the various administrative needs of those responsible for running the Galuyot absorption center. Micha appeared at these meetings as representative of the Jewish Agency and defender of its policies and staff. The meetings were basically revelatory of encounters between people who saw themselves as belonging to opposed groups: immigrants and officials, old and young, men and women. My discussion of these meetings with Micha focuses on the connection between treating the immigrants as a separate category at the center and the social distance that developed. I suggest that the perceived distance in relationships between people, as belonging to separated groups, developed out of the bureaucratic situation. The allocation of resources, based on categorizing people, played a major role among officials and within organizations in negotiations for obtaining resources and power. Situations where greater equality and closeness reigned seemed to exemplify a need on the behalf of those in charge to repeatedly reaffirm superiority by creating distance between immigrants and staff. This can be seen by comparing the different circumcision ceremonies that took place at the center, which is the subject of the next section.

Circumcision Ceremonies as an Example of the Link Between Social Distance and Power-Dependence Relations The circumcision ceremonies and festivities organized by the officials for the children born to the immigrants bore witness to the social distance emerging from the bureaucratic context. A comparison between the ceremonies emphasizes the power relationships that were structured by a categorized separation and distance. This comparison underscores the dependence and the manner in which it varied in relation to the degree of control exercised by the officials. It also emphasizes the distance and the power relationships among the immigrants themselves – a function of the officials’ actions. Circumcision ceremonies formed part of the center’s social life during the period I lived and worked there as a volunteer assistant to the cultural coordinator (September 1984 to October 1985). During this period, most of the inhabitants were immigrants from Ethiopia. Fifty-five new immigrant families from Ethiopia lived in caravans set out on the center’s lawns. With the arrival of the immigrants from Ethiopia, the number of staff working at the center grew considerably. To the existing staff, consisting 119

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 120

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

of director, secretary, housemother, cultural coordinator, maintenance man, and a Ministry of Absorption official were added one social worker, one nursery teacher, creche workers, and somchot. These women who came from the nearby town instructed the immigrant women in domestic matters and childrearing. The Hebrew studies offered to the Ethiopians were also expanded beyond what had hitherto been the practice at the absorption centers; six months of study was extended to ten months. The functions of housemother and cultural coordinator embraced far more aspects of the lives of the immigrants than hitherto; these officials supervised medical care and oversaw domestic life and child care. They were the official contact with the educational institutions and they dealt with the problems of the immigrant children, including extra lessons and other extra-curricular activities. They also organized ceremonies and social events, among which were the circumcision ceremonies. The organization of these ceremonies, which took place in a cultivated and protecting framework, sharpened the bureaucratic nature of life at the center. The immigrants lived in an environment dense with officials who managed many aspects of their lives. They were made dependent on the resources administered by these bureaucrats. These were allocated on a group basis, notably that of the “family.” The caravan was given to a family unit; it wasn’t just a place for the family to live. It also defined the family as an autonomous group. Circumcision ceremonies are usually considered family occasions that celebrate the birth of a male child and his acceptance into the Jewish community. At the Galuyot absorption center, these celebrations were bureaucratic in nature, organized almost wholly by the center’s officials, where interaction was based on inequality. Events commemorating the birth of three boys – a joint ceremony in honor of two babies, a “fortyday party” celebrating the birth of one of these babies, and a circumcision ceremony at the clubhouse, with the ongoing celebration in the family caravan – will be useful in allowing us to compare the character and influence of changing bureaucratic contexts.

The Joint Circumcision Ceremony and the Forty-Day Party The joint circumcision ceremony for the firstborn sons of Josh and Liora and of Rachamim and Alma – two new immigrant couples – offers evidence of the benefits derived by the center’s staff in return for their orga120

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 121

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

nization of these events. The officials’ ability to dominate these events influenced the growth of social distance between them and the immigrants. To the staff, this intervention was part of their work at the center. In fact their control of these events relieved the immigrants of responsibility and control. On these important occasions, the immigrants were in fact harmed: they found themselves in a condition of increasing dependence on the staff, and began to see this dependence as one to which there was no alternative other than to accept the services offered. However, from comparing the two events we learned that the immigrants’ dependence was not a constant, but changed and was influenced by the degree of control exercised by the staff.

The Joint Circumcision at the Clubhouse On the day of the joint ceremony, I met Rabbi Zvi in the office of the center. The rabbi asked Yehudit, the secretary, about the babies he was about to circumcise. She said she didn’t know, and then asked, “When will you circumcise the Chagos boy?” referring to a family that had not taken part in the “Renewal of the Covenant”3 ceremony determined by the religious establishment as a precondition for accepting the Ethiopian immigrants as Jews. This family had therefore not been recognized as Jewish and was not eligible for the rights accorded to the immigrants by the Law of Return.4 The most important privilege was the maintenance grant, and Yehudit explained to the rabbi that the Chagos family hadn’t received a maintenance grant for a whole year. The rabbi looked in the office’s card index for information about this family and the two families whose children he was to circumcise that day. Josh, a twenty-five-year-old immigrant from Ethiopia, was the father of one of the babies. He worked as an interpreter at the center, where he and his wife, Liora, had lived since their arrival in Israel in 1983. Josh arrived at the office and, with a movement of his eyes, invited me to join the proceedings. I told him that I had to be in the office and jokingly said they were waiting for the rabbi, and not for me. The rabbi had by now concluded his search through the file and went to the phone. He asked to be collected in twenty minutes. He turned to Yehudit and asked: “You don’t want to come?” She replied: “I want to eat. If there is food, I will come.” The four of us, the rabbi, Yehudit, Josh and I, now started walking in the direction of the clubhouse, where some people had already gathered. On the western side, sitting together and close to the food table were the male immigrants. The table was piled with plates of biscuits, salted snacks, sweets, olives and pickled cucumbers. In the front, close to the 121

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 122

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

door on the northern side, and opposite the men, sat the women immigrants. I sat in the corner next to Liora and her baby. Jacqueline, Alma’s somechet, moved about as if she was the hostess. The guests, the rabbi, Yehudit and Arie, the cultural coordinator, all stood around the table on which the circumcision was about to take place; the workers, the somchot, and the kindergarten workers all sat. At one point Jacqueline went up to Liora, the mother, took the child out of her arms and out of the blanket in which he was wrapped, walked toward the kindergarten staff and showed them the baby, saying: “What a cute baby.” She spoke to them in Arabic, and they all laughed with gusto. Jacqueline then handed the baby back to its mother and encouraged the women ululating. She wasn’t satisfied with the sounds they produced, and told them they were still asleep. She again demonstrated the noises and called to the women to join her. Some obeyed and made the appropriate noises. Jacqueline laughed. She was enjoying the game. She continued ululating for some time to the enjoyment of the staff, who laughed in embarrassment. Arie too moved around the guests as if he were the host. He wore a prayer shawl, as he was to be godfather to Rachamim and Alma’s baby. He enlisted Avner, the social worker, as the godfather to the second baby. After the circumcision was over, Arie asked the somchot to hand the food around. They did so together with the two fathers. After the ceremony, I met the rabbi and Yehudit in the office. Yehudit teased the rabbi for his delaying of wine for the babies while they were being circumcised. His answers were smart, and when he had gone, Yehudit said: I told you that this rabbi is as crafty as a monkey. There is nothing he doesn’t know. Do you know that on the day of Avi’s funeral, he came to ask for details about Dorit’s and Adam’s child, the one that died in hospital of breathing problems? The rabbi came to find out about the child and if everything was okay. I told him that he himself had circumcised the child. He is one of those rabbis who are very strict in their religious judgments. He would have been quite capable of taking the child out of the grave, like they did with the Yankelovitz woman on the order of the Rabbinate.5 You heard before when I spoke to him about the Chagos – they’re Arabs. He knows exactly what’s going on.

The Forty-Day Party In their country of origin, on the fortieth day after the birth of a male child, Ethiopian Jews hold a celebration. If the child is female, the cele122

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 123

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

bration is held eighty days after the birth. Professional literature has linked that custom to the end of the period of the woman’s impurity after birth and to the naming of the child. Kashani (1976) explains the ritual thus: “On the completion of the period of cleansing, a celebration is held in which the child is named, the mother and the baby are purified, and the Book of Ardat is read. This is the book of the Falasha scholars that is associated with the cleansing ceremony of the baby. If a male child is born, his parents redeem him from the priesthood by a payment of money or a substitute, such as cattle or sheep. The priest blesses the child and the woman who leaves the hut of the new mothers.” According to Aescoly, “The name is given to a child not when he enters the Covenant of Abraham, as is traditional among Jews, but on the day the newborn is cleansed by water. This is done on the fortieth day after the birth of the male, and on the eightieth day after the birth of the female” (1943: 41). Similar claims are made by Shelemai (1986: 42). Waldman adds that “The circumcision does not take place at a large and joyous ceremony as is the case with the Purification Ceremony of the new mother on the fortieth or the eightieth day” (1985: 45). I did not, however, find this substantiated by the immigrants at Galuyot. According to them, the principal celebration was at the circumcision ceremony. They didn’t always hold the fortieth and eightieth day ceremonies. Four days after the event of the joint circumcisions, an additional event related to one of the babies who had been circumcised took place in the clubhouse. The parents celebrated the “forty-day Feast.” On the same morning I was invited to the party, and later went to the office with a present I had bought for the event. I stood in the kitchen near the office and listened to the conversation between Jacqueline, the somechet, and Anat, the housemother. Jacqueline asked Anat to give her some money so she could buy a present. Anat answered: “What for? They keep breeding like flies.” But she opened the petty cash box and gave Jacqueline some money. I turned toward the clubhouse, but saw that there were only a few people there. I was about to leave and come back later. Just at that moment Rachamim, the father, came in with some bottles of drink. He asked me to come to the clubhouse, and I promised to do so. When I came back, the place was full. There were many members of the staff and only a few immigrants, who seemed to be there by chance. The Hebrew teacher, who had taught the couple in the past, came specially for the event. Azaria, one of the three maintenance men, made vulgar smart-aleck remarks, as he usually did when he spoke to the immigrants. He told Rachamim to make another baby next year. 123

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 124

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The joint circumcision ceremony and Rachamim and Alma’s fortyday party took place in that order in the clubhouse within four days of each other. In comparing the two ceremonies, a connection between social distance and the behavior of the people who organized the ceremonies became clear. Managing the ceremonies emerged as a means by which those responsible for the absorption center acquired control and other advantages. This official hegemony affected the dependence of those people who were obliged to become reliant on the services offered them. The comparison between the two events clarified the manner in which the officials influenced the social relationship among the immigrants. It became manifest when the situation changed and the officials lost some of their control over a situation. The joint circumcision ceremony in the clubhouse was a staff occasion. They planned, prepared, and administered the event according to their own ideas and needs, without any consideration of the needs of the babies’ parents. Indeed, their control ran counter to the interests of the immigrants. The center’s staff conducted the ceremony in a standardized way for some thirty minutes. Arie, the cultural coordinator, arranged the details. He made sure the traditional chair and cushion on which the baby was placed during the act of circumcision were provided. He ordered the refreshments, saw that everything was prepared and arranged on the table, and passed around after the ceremony. The refreshments were standard and served in the manner and amount customary at all circumcision ceremonies which took place in the clubhouse. The somchot were experienced in arranging the food. Jacqueline helped “warm up” the event by trying to encourage women to make the traditional celebratory noises. The creche’s staff, the somchot, and other workers sat close to the table where the refreshments were. Arie and Jacqueline walked among the guests cracking jokes and trying to create a festive atmosphere. They arranged the food and for a while even took charge of the baby. Arie and Avner were godfathers to the two babies. The organization and administration of the ceremony was essentially divided among three people. Arie was responsible for the technical aspects; the rabbi was responsible for the religious side; and the entertaining was Jacqueline’s task. The justification for the need of staff patronage was based on the argument that the immigrants were new in Israel, removed from their lifestyle, and poor. They were, therefore, thought to be unable to organize such events. The significance of the fact that the officials organized 124

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 125

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

everything was that the event became their occasion rather than the immigrants. The ceremony was fitted into the officials’ routine and was designed to reinforce the value of their work at the center. Arie determined the date of the circumcision ceremonies according to his needs rather than those of the parents. The ceremony took place for both children at the same time – in this way Arie was less put out, having to prepare one rather than two events. Sometimes the ceremonies were arranged for a number of babies together. Arie coordinated the date with the rabbi, and not with the parents. During my stay at the center all the circumcisions were presided over by Rabbi Zvi, so he was in a position to choose dates that suited him. The dates were thus dependent on the schedules of the rabbi and Arie. Either of them, for instance, might have been called up for army reserve duty. The rabbi too conducted himself like one of the officials. He coordinated everything with the staff of the center and had no direct contact with the parents until just before the ceremony. When he came to the center, he made straight for the office. The names or surnames of the children he was about to circumcise were unknown to him and he had to clarify these details by consulting Yehudit, the secretary. She too didn’t always have the necessary information. The rabbi had free access to the information about the immigrants from a file in the office. On the basis of this check of personal details he could make a variety of significant decisions. According to Yehudit, for instance, he could have prevented the burial of baby Avi and might even have had his body exhumed – if we were to interpret her words literally. He could set the date of the circumcision of the Chagos child and decide in fact whether it should take place at all – with all the consequences involved, such as denial of maintenance grants. By means of this free access to personal information, the rabbi could check matters pertaining to religious identity. His decisions in this area could affect government funding or the right to a religious marriage. The workers at the center saw events like the circumcisions as a nuisance. In the presence of Josh, the father, Yehudit said indifferently that she would attend the ceremony only if there was food. She claimed she was hungry. Her attitude reflected that of the staff in general toward the ceremony. Yehudit saw participation as a burden: she had to get off her chair, leave the office, and go to the clubhouse. I have already spoken of Jaqueline’s mockery of the women immigrants and her insensitivity in taking the child from its mother without so much as a word. The fixing of the date for the circumcision was very 125

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 126

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

flexible, reflecting the indifferent, uncaring attitude of the officials toward the immigrant parents and children. The organization of the circumcision also ignored the norms of religion and tradition which were strictly practiced by the Ethiopian Jews in Ethiopia. Circumcision on the eighth day after birth is a decisive religious obligation, unless something about the baby’s condition prevented it. This is the case in both Israel and among the Jewish community in Ethiopia and is anchored in the Bible (Leviticus 12, 2-3) and in Falasha tradition. Many sources deal with this subject, among them: Flad (1869), Faitlovitch (1959), Leslau (1957), Schoenberger (1975), and Waldman (1985). The double ceremony took place more than a month after the birth of the babies. It wasn’t unusual for these events to take place some weeks after the birth. The fact that the forty-day party for Rachamim’s child took place only four days after the ceremony organized by the staff bore witness to the lack of consideration shown for the needs of the family. If the circumcision, which in any case wasn’t held on time, had been planned after consultation with the family, it could have taken place together with the private party on the fortieth day and independently of other babies. It wasn’t just the cultural coordinator who failed to see that the ceremony was held on time but also the rabbi. He was very careful to check that there was no doubt about the Jewishness of those involved, but as regards the timing, did not ensure that the circumcision took place according to the dictates of Jewish law. It seemed too that the rabbi viewed the double ceremony as no more than a bureaucratic task. He went straight to the office, checked the files for information about the families, and hoped to have the whole thing over in twenty minutes. Anat’s reaction on seeing the gift in my hand reflected the officials’ impersonal attitude to the immigrants and the bureaucratic character of the ceremony. From the ensuing discussion between Jaqueline and Anat, we learned that it was unusual to bring a present on these occasions. Their decision to buy a present resulted from the awkwardness they felt on seeing my present. Jaqueline hadn’t thought of buying one with her own money, or together with other staff, but with money from the office budget. The mockery and disrespect shown by Azaria, the maintenance man, and Anat toward the immigrants thus put them in a position of weakness and inferiority. The distance emerged as officials exploited their hold over the resources of the center – the petty cash box in Anat’s 126

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 127

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

hands, and the clubhouse, for example. The staff were the “givers” and the immigrants the “takers.” In this bureaucratic situation the people concerned affiliated themselves with different groups. Where they sat and the verbal communication they employed were some of the manifestations of this. At the circumcision, the grouping together in one area was a manifestation of collective affiliation. Seating was also related to status within the framework of the center: Immigrants sat separately from staff. The participants were seated according to their function – for instance, the somchot were apart from the creche staff. Gender also played a role, as shown by the women gathering in a group separate from the men. Language was another important means by which people affiliated themselves to groups. The immigrants spoke to each other in Amharic; the staff spoke Hebrew. But when Jaqueline wanted to emphasize her closeness to her fellow staff members, she spoke to them in Arabic. By using a language known only to her and her fellow workers, Jaqueline underscored her closeness to them and her distance from the others. The degree of involvement and activity of the people in the clubhouse suggested the different degrees of control over the situation and the power relationships that prevailed. The immigrants and their families appeared peripheral to the occasion and their behavior was passive. This was manifested in various ways – for example, the immigrants stayed seated while the staff walked around, engaged in various activities. They followed what was happening but initiated nothing. This was especially true of the women, who sat together, a small distance away from the table laden with refreshments. The mothers sat and held their children until the circumcision took place. They too were inactive throughout the proceedings. In spite of the fact that he was a staff member, Josh found it necessary to whisper me an invitation to the ceremony. He thus revealed his weakness, as one of the immigrants, in situations controlled by the staff. He didn’t dare to invite me openly in the presence of Yehudit and Anat. He behaved as if he weren’t the host at all, merely a guest. He seemed not to see it as legitimate that he, as an immigrant, might invite a guest to a ceremony organized by the officials. This organization by the staff gave preference to the choice of men rather than women for the tasks to be carried out. The male immigrants received a measure of control from the staff and so were more active at the ceremony. Josh’s position was different from that of his wife, Liora. As I have noted, she sat in a distant corner of the clubhouse and her baby 127

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 128

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

was taken from her without permission. Jacqueline mocked the women when she ordered them to follow her in making the traditional sounds of celebration; when they did so, she laughed at them openly. Notice of the time and the date of the circumcision was given to the fathers only. It was the men who distributed the refreshments. The staff took the place of the parents in carrying out the various hosting functions. They related to the male immigrants as if they were their assistants. In this situation, controlled by the officials, the manner in which the women were seated was a function of their extreme passivity in comparison with the men, and especially as compared with the staff. The men were relatively more active, especially in the distribution of the food. In the ceremony described, the staff determined the function and status of the male and female immigrants and took upon themselves functions usually reserved for the parents and family. This was especially true of Arie, who behaved as if he were the host and responsible for all the details connected with the event. He even appointed the godfathers for the babies to be circumcised. As we have seen, the organization of the event did little to help the immigrants, and at times even hindered them. The control exercised by the staff marginalized the parents throughout the proceedings. Several benefits were accrued by the staff. Arie demonstrated his control over the somchot and was able to hand out favors. To the social worker he accorded the status of godfather to the child. Arie’s control was made possible because he was the one who invited the rabbi or Mohel (the person to carry out the circumcision), and he was responsible for the organization inside the clubhouse. In particular, Arie’s appropriation of the function of godfather as his award to whom he pleased symbolized his control over the event. He was seen as the patron of the child, of the parents, and, indeed, of the event as a whole. Jacqueline also profited from her active role in the proceedings: because of her connections with the mother, she felt free to take charge of the baby and of the immigrants in general. These associations were, in turn, useful in her relations with the other members of staff; she attempted to amuse and impress them with her closeness to the immigrants. Her position and the value attached to her work with the mother and the family were reinforced both in her own eyes and in those of her colleagues. The rabbi too had an interest in staff control of the circumcision ceremonies. His connections with the staff allowed him a monopoly over the circumcision work, which he acquired from Arie, whose three sons he circumcised. When Uri became director of 128

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 129

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

the absorption center, he had sought to replace the circumciser with another one from Or-Akiva, where he himself had served two terms as head of the municipal council. Arie’s hard fight against this suggested that this was much too significant a resource to give up lightly. The right to nominate the center’s mohel and the connections this right offered beyond the center were clearly not something those in control were prepared to forgo. Rachamim’s ability to organize the forty-day party suggests that he, like the other immigrants, could do this kind of thing without any problem. His behavior at the event showed he was in control of things: he organized the clubhouse by himself, purchased the refreshments, and arranged them on the tables. Relations and friends helped him invite the guests. Unlike Josh, Rachamim invited me to his party quite openly. At the first of the ceremonies, the guests came from the center only, but at the party that Rachamim organized, there were Hebrew teachers from outside who came especially. The staff participated in the event as guests of Rachamim and Alma. We thus see that the immigrants were capable of organizing their own events; it was the staff who needed to control matters. The question is why the immigrants co-operated with the staff when they could do these things by themselves, and did in fact do them. Why did they allow themselves to fall into a position of dependence? The families accepted the control of the officials at the circumcision because they didn’t believe they had any choice. From the parents’ point of view, the event in the clubhouse was something they had to attend to ensure that their sons were circumcised. The very existence of the ceremony was dependent on the agreement and cooperation of staff members. The parents couldn’t have a mohel of their own choice if they wanted the ceremony to take place in the clubhouse and the ritual to be recognized by the authorities. At the absorption center, it was the staff who invited the rabbi and allowed him to circumcise the babies here. The staff behaved as if they owned the clubhouse: they set up the place before the ceremony and cleared up after; they appointed themselves as godfathers and ordered the refreshments, paid for by the office budget. All this presented the immigrants with a view of a closed, limited reality in which they had no alternatives. They co-operated because this reality was one in which dependence on the officials was forced upon them. Judging by the behavior of immigrants and staff at the double circumcision, it seemed that indeed there was no alternative other than dependence on the staff for carrying out these ceremonies. 129

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 130

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

But not every event of this kind was characterized by this same degree of dependence. The circumcision of Mordechai, son of Shai and Ziva, brought a number of differences into focus.

Mordechai’s Circumcision Ceremony at the Clubhouse and His Birthday Party in His Parents’ Caravan Mordechai’s parents, Shai and Ziva, were involved in all the planning and preparation stages of their son’s circumcision ceremony, as well as the ritual itself. Compared with the parents in the double ceremony, Shai and Ziva were very much in control. However, the basic dependence on the officials was obvious in this case too. Shai and Ziva were a young couple from Ambover, Ethiopia who arrived in Israel in 1983. When I came to the absorption center they had already been there for six months. Mordechai was born on 24 February 1985, after his parents had been in Israel for almost two years. Eitan, their first-born, was then one year old. Twenty-four days after Mordechai was born I accompanied Ziva to the children’s clinic in order to weigh the baby. The nurse in the clinic was pleased with the baby’s weight and said he was ready for circumcision. I met Shai the next day and enquired about the date for the ceremony. He told me that he had tried to contact the rabbi to get the date of the ceremony changed. He said that the date, fixed for the next day, didn’t suit him: it wouldn’t allow him to invite certain guests, He mentioned that Arie had told him to contact the rabbi about changing the date. Later on when I visited Ziva I told her that I had heard the circumcision was to take place the next day. She was surprised and said: “Yes, tomorrow? I didn’t know.” The circumcision took place on 24 March 1985, a month after Mordechai’s birth. On the morning of the ceremony I met Shai riding his bicycle, from which a basket was hanging. He asked me if I knew that the circumcision was to take place that day, and I said yes. I added that I had passed on the details of the ceremony to his friends, some veteran Israelis from Jerusalem and Hadera, as he had wished, but they had said they wouldn’t be able to come. On hearing this, Shai was very disappointed. He continued on his way to town to buy the things on the list Arie had given him: a cake, and some bottles of wine and fruit juice. Later on I met Arie by Shai’s caravan. He had come to find out when the rabbi would be arriving. Arie complained that he had asked Shai to 130

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 131

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

leave him a note in his pigeonhole. Ziva told him that the circumcision was to take place that same day. I told Arie that I had met Shai that morning on his way to buy “all kinds of things” for the ceremony. Arie responded: “I don’t know what’s going on except that the rabbi’s on army reserve duty.6 I couldn’t get hold of his father so I gave Shai his phone number and told him to speak to him himself. I had fixed the circumcision for Wednesday, March 20, but Shai told me this date wasn’t suitable for him because he wouldn’t have enough time to invite people. I then fixed things for the Friday, but this wasn’t any good for him either. It was then I gave him the number of the rabbi’s father and said let Shai fix it himself.” Many guests came to the circumcision ceremony at the clubhouse: Benny, the absorption centers’ area inspector and Shai’s superior, an interpreter at the Michmoret absorption center, and the entire staff of that center; Ziva’s Hebrew teacher also came, and Shai’s parents came from their center in Givat Olga, together with his brother and his small sisters. Izak, Shai’s brother, came from the absorption center for young people. Amos, his elder brother came from the center in Safed, where he too worked as an instructor. He brought his white girlfriend, Odeda, who worked as a nurse there. We went into the clubhouse, where I sat some distance from the refreshment table and the circumcision chair. Shai asked me to sit nearer to the table on which the circumcision would take place, but I told him that I was too squeamish to watch. Odeda walked toward the end of the hall with Eitan in her arms. Shai’s colleagues sat in the center of the hall next to me. Ziva arrived wearing a new dress, and accompanied by her mother, her sister, and a relative. They sat in the front row, close to the table with the food. After the circumcision, the rabbi lifted the baby in the palm of his hand. He looked as if he was going to throw the child at the grandmother. He clowned about again, lifting the child toward Ziva. He joked a lot with Jacqueline, Alice, and Dafna, the somchot who stood nearby. Dafna told the rabbi that she wanted him to carry out the circumcision if she had a son. He answered by telling her that if she promised to invite him, she would have a son. Suddenly Arie said quietly: “Well, aren’t we going to warm things up a bit?” He touched his mouth to indicate ululating. Then, in a deep and dramatic voice began a speech in which he blessed the parents and the family. When he had finished, he encouraged the somchot, whom he called “girls,” to hurry up and hand out the food. Both Shai and his younger brother passed round the food and glasses of wine. 131

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 132

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Benny, the supervisor, and the staff of the Michmoret center (Shai’s place of work) now left the clubhouse and I went over to congratulate Ziva, who asked me to come to the caravan, and I joined the family as it made its way there. At the caravan I found Shai’s parents, his brother and girlfriend, his younger brother Eli, a friend of Shai and Ziva, and with Adam and Dorit, an immigrant couple. Others were there too. Izak, Shai’s brother, brought in a box of drinks from outside. Eitan wandered among the guests playing happily and taking a bottle out of the box. Ziva filled the glasses with beer and handed them round. When I said I didn’t drink light beer, she brought me dark beer. When the guests’ glasses began to empty our hosts were very quick to fill them again. Even when I refused, Ziva stubbornly insisted on filling my glass.

Manifestations of Independence and Dependence at Mordechai’s Circumcision Ceremony An analysis of the planning and coordination for Shai’s son’s circumcision showed the parents more involved than in other events of this kind, with a consequent reduction in the staff ’s ability to control the ceremony. However, the dominance of the staff didn’t disappear and the immigrants’ control was only partial. In comparison with Rachamim and Josh, Shai conducted himself with a greater degree of independence. Arie’s words reveal that he had tried to organize Mordechai’s circumcision ceremony, but that Shai didn’t co-operate. He ignored Arie’s decisions more than once and wasn’t put out when the arrangements for the rabbi and the food were shifted on to his shoulders. In this way, Shai was able to establish direct contact with the rabbi and determine a date he wanted for the ceremony. Unlike the arrangements for the double circumcision ceremony, Shai invited his own guests, among them family, friends, and acquaintances from outside the absorption center. It was especially important for Shai that not only his family, but also his veteran Israeli friends attend his celebration. The inability of the latter to get to it disappointed him. His behavior suggests that Shai believed in his ability to establish all the necessary communication, as he had done in the case of the rabbi, and without the mediation of center’s staff. His actions indicate a breaking of the image of closure and its limitations as they were perceived by the center’s inhabitants, and manifested at the double circumcision ceremony. 132

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 133

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

Shai’s display of independence might have been related to the connections he had established outside the center – among them the excellent connections he had with the supervisor, who had promised him preference in housing. It might also be possible that his departure from the center, which was imminent and generally known, also served to strengthen his position in relation to the office staff. Rachamim and Josh were not, in the near future at least, planning to leave. Josh’s position in this respect was especially sensitive because, in addition to living on the caravan site, he also worked with the office team. For all this, Shai’s freedom of action was revealed as limited. He was obliged to be very stubborn in his stand against Arie – at least twice Shai cancelled Arie’s arrangements with the rabbi. There was anger in Arie’s reaction to Shai. Arie saw Shai’s actions as superfluous and annoying. Arie probably gave Shai the rabbi’s phone number on the assumption that Shai wouldn’t be successful in organizing things by himself. This outcome is implied by Arie’s explanation that the rabbi was on army reserve duty and that contact with him couldn’t be made. Perhaps Arie was trying to punish Shai by showing him how difficult it was to make these kinds of arrangements. Or perhaps he gave Shai the rabbi’s number in order to relieve himself of responsibility for the ceremony. Perhaps the fact that a situation had emerged in which he, as cultural coordinator, could no longer do exactly what he wanted obliged him to accept Shai’s intervention. The fact that Shai went shopping by himself and bought what was needed with his own money added to the idea that Arie was punishing him for his intervention. When I met Shai bicycling to town, he was going to buy the things that Arie had told him to buy “cake, wine, and fruit juice.” At the many ceremonies in the clubhouse, the refreshments were always the same, as I have described. The food on these occasions didn’t include a cake, wine or fruit juice, and were bought by the staff out of the office budget. The officials’ holding of the resources is critical in understanding the interaction between Arie and the immigrants in everything connected with the circumcisions. The first link was the one with the rabbi: Arie had his phone number and it was he who had the right to contact the rabbi. The second was the food, its supply and arrangement. The clubhouse and the right to use it and its contents was the third “resource.” In the negotiations between Arie and Shai, control of the center’s resources remained in Arie’s hands – even if, for the moment, Arie showed a readiness for compromise. 133

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 134

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The existing arrangements at the center limited Shai. In spite of the relative independence he exhibited, Shai accepted the position of control enjoyed by Arie and the staff. The need to turn to those in control in order to obtain various needs for himself and his family were an integral part of the reality of life at the center. Shai couldn’t hold his son’s circumcision on the eighth day after the birth. As long as he lived at the center, he had to accept the limitations imposed on him by the staff. This meant matters being arranged according to their needs rather than his. He couldn’t, for example, have the ceremony in his home, or invite a rabbi of his choice. The “shopping list” symbolized just how far Arie was able to intervene in Shai’s affairs. The second event in the caravan was for family and friends only; it too underlined the limits of immigrants’ independence in relation to the officials. Shai proved this independence by rejecting the assistance given and managing to organize a private celebration outside the public domain. The circumcision celebrations were in fact divided into two locales and two groups of participants. Shai was obliged to hold the circumcision itself in the clubhouse, which belonged to the staff, and to comply with their patronage, even if only partially. The rabbi had to be acceptable to the staff, and the ceremony in the clubhouse was, as we have seen, the staff ’s affair rather than the parents’. Thus, clearly, there was an implicit necessity for Shai to retain his dependence on the officials. As a result of the negotiations over control of Mordechai’s circumcision ceremony, an ambivalent situation developed in which nobody accepted responsibility. Shai and Arie negotiated the date of the event – even though the baby was already a month old, and it wasn’t certain, up until the day of the circumcision itself, when the ceremony would take place, or who would finalize the date with the rabbi. Ziva knew nothing of what was going on, and first heard the details from me. The debate as to who was responsible for the event continued even after Arie handed over part of the responsibility to Shai. He gave him the rabbi’s phone number, yet came to check on the results of their conversation and expected to be notified. The more uncertain the date of the ceremony became, the more uncertain the parents became, and the less able to control matters connected with the event. Conversely, the flexibility of the dates and the uncertainty over who was responsible allowed many people both inside and outside the center to make decisions and intervene. The function of the rabbi and the nurse are examples of the many hands involved in the affair. The vagueness of responsibility and the uncertainty of the date of the circumcision, 134

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 135

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

dependent on the weight of the child, reduced the parents’ control of their son’s circumcision ceremony. The nurse at the clinic confirmed the weight of Mordechai and of other babies as being adequate for the purposes of circumcision. The point here wasn’t just the postponement of the circumcision date, but rather postponement as a norm. Postponement of a circumcision in Israel is something rare; in Ethiopia, according to various witnesses, it is impossible. Aescoly determines that “a child who is not circumcised on time is considered not circumcised at all and is not entered into the Congregation of Israel.” He bases his view on the diary of d’Abbadie and quotes him thus: “A child who dies uncircumcised after the eighth day of his birth does not go to heaven, unlike a baby who dies before the day of circumcision” (Aescoly 1943: 40). Waldman claims that according to the tradition of Ethiopian Jewry, the ceremony has to take place on the eighth day after the birth of the male. He says that the Jews of Ethiopia “are very careful about this tradition. They keep to the eighth day under all conditions and in every situation. Whoever is not circumcised, something most unusual, is thought of as impure and rejected, thought of as a Gentile” (1985: 45). At the Galuyot absorption center, where the officials, their fellow workers, the rabbi, and the nurse were responsible for the date of the ceremony or its postponement, the ceremony was never held at the appropriate time for any of the babies born there. Thus, the babies were treated as a collective rather than individually. The criterion of the baby’s weight as a reason for determining the circumcision date sounds more like a justification of the flexibility allowed in choice of dates by those in control than concern for the infant’s welfare. The degree of flexibility the rabbi allowed himself regarding the date of the ceremony may have reflected his skepticism about the essential Jewishness of the Ethiopian Jews in general. The skeptical attitude of the rabbi regarding the status of the Ethiopian Jews correlated in every respect with the doubts expressed by the Rabbinate in general. The issue of the Jewishness of Ethiopian Jews is a flash point of ongoing public conflict which had begun years before the immigrants arrived in Israel, and continues to this very day. The subject has been discussed at length in the media and in several academic papers. Corinaldi (1988), for example, dealt with the issue at length, claiming that even after the many debates in the rabbinical and civil courts and the immigrants’ struggle against the religious establishment, the problem of Ethiopian Jewry had not been resolved. The Chief Rab135

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 136

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

binate decided that the demand for “strict conversion” was incumbent upon all the Ethiopian Jews because of the considerable degree of intermarriage that had taken place among them through the ages; this made it “impossible to ascertain and prove the certainty of their Jewish identity.” This decision obliged those rabbis who had been less severe in their decisions to refrain from marrying Ethiopians who had not been converted. They were also obliged to direct couples who weren’t ready to undergo the process of conversion to the rabbinic courts (33). The pronouncement of the nurse that Mordechai’s weight of three and a half kilos made him ready for circumcision symbolized the decrease in relevance of the religious criterion as wholly definitive and decisive with respect to the date for this rite. Thus the issue became a secular one, in which the nurse, who worked for the Ministry of Health, also had a say in the matter of the circumcision date. Some things Shai told me in his house in Binyamina, years after he had left the absorption center, may add a personal dimension to clarify the state of dependence of the Ethiopians while at the center. I wanted to hear Shai’s explanation of why the immigrants had accepted a long postponement of the circumcision ceremony. Eitan, the eldest son of Shai and Ziva, was born a year before Mordechai and six months after his parents arrived in Israel and settled in the Galuyot absorption center. I asked Shai how old Eitan was when he was circumcised, and he answered: “Eitan’s circumcision took place when he was forty-days old. At the center they usually did the circumcision later because of the child’s weight. We could not, at the time, decide when the circumcision would take place and who would do it. The somchot and the office workers had a say in the matter; they went according to weight. They made the party and invited the mohel; they invited everybody. Arie took care of it all.” I asked him whether in Ethiopia it was possible to postpone the circumcision. Shai answered: “They did it on the eighth day; neither weight nor anything else could postpone it. They did it as soon as the child was born. We didn’t do it later than the eighth day after the child’s birth. When a child was born, he wasn’t weighed.” I pressed him further. “How is it,” I asked, “that you agreed that here in Israel the circumcision could take place after a month?” “We had no choice,” he answered. “We didn’t know who to invite. In Ethiopia there were special people who carried out the circumcision, but they weren’t with us. For everything we needed we had to go to the office. They told us about everything – how to clean house, how to 136

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 137

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

shop, how to get injections in the clinic. All the adults there who had children in Ethiopia found it very difficult. What is weight? What is this? What is that? They said that a [male] child mustn’t pass the eighth day [without being circumcised]. It says so in Orit [the Torah in the language of Gez].” I asked whether they had complained. “When the people first came there were no arguments,” he answered. “Everything that the office said or the somchot said, we would accept. They decided everything and the immigrants relied on them.” Shai’s words strengthen certain of the arguments which have been put forward relating to the immigrants’ great dependence on the services given and on official mediation. What emerged from his words was that the immigrants perceived the staff of the center as self-evidently responsible for organizing the circumcisions and, indeed, many other areas of life, such as housecleaning and shopping. The workers carried out personal, religious, and family tasks on behalf of the immigrants, who felt that they had no choice but to accept this patronage. Shai had several explanations for the helplessness of the immigrants and their readiness to relinquish control of the situation and events connected with the circumcision. He put it down to lack of knowledge about a new country and the lack of an authorized mohel among the Ethiopians who could do circumcisions. Shai’s description suggests that the postponement of the circumcision derived from the bureaucratic context, perceived as “closed” and as limiting the immigrants’ opportunities.

A Comparison of the Double Circumcision Ceremony and Mordechai’s Circumcision A comparison of these two events demonstrates the control the staff exhibited over the first versus the family’s partial control over the second. A marked difference in social distance was obvious in each occasion. The less the control exercised by the officials, the less the social distance appeared to be perceived by the participants. Under these conditions, the immigrants were more active and the officials behaved in a more sociable manner, with less demonstration of their superior status and organizational powers. The double circumcision ceremony was the officials’ affair; it was part of their routine work. This was made clear by what Miriam, the somechet, said to Uri (the new director of the absorption center begin137

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 138

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

ning in May 1995) when he asked what was happening at the circumcision. “There’s nothing special going on,” Miriam retorted. “Are the families invited?” Uri asked. “No, only the staff participates and there are some refreshments.” The double ceremony took place during the staff ’s working hours and they went wearing their working clothes and not anything that looked festive, unlike the guests who attended Mordechai’s circumcision, which was a family event where the participants dressed and behaved accordingly. When the officials controlled the ceremony, they behaved as if a social distance separated them from the immigrants celebrating the circumcision. Yehudit’s attitude toward the double ceremony demonstrated this in a marked way. Unlike the staff and Shai’s colleagues, Yehudit participated only because she had to. She accompanied the rabbi, who specifically asked her to come. She presented her agreement as a favor to him, and suggested that food was the real reason for her going. The seating arrangements too could be used to underline the differences between the ceremonies held in the clubhouse. At the double ceremony, the staff sat in front, but this didn’t happen at Mordechai’s ceremony. Here Ziva, her mother-in-law, and a relative sat up front. Shai’s request that I sit near the circumcision table also emphasized the significance of the front row and its proximity to the table. His invitation to me also bore witness to his control over the seating arrangements. The rabbi joked with the mother and the grandmother, a result of the physical closeness afforded by the situation. The character of the relationships changed according to the physical closeness or distance between people. In one event, they were more distant, physically and socially; in the other they were closer. As the control of the family grew stronger, the officials’ control weakened. The difference in Arie’s behavior at the respective gatherings demonstrated this. In the family situation, he became superfluous in terms of shouldering responsibility. Clearly his work could be carried out by others, by the immigrants themselves. But to Arie this represented a threat – a substitute had been found for those areas that he considered his responsibility. Arie nevertheless attempted to dominate Mordechai’s ceremony: with his speech and by his getting the somchot to distribute the food. His actions also indicated the importance he attached to controlling the situation in spite of the fact that the father was able to organize matters on his own. Notably, Arie’s speech was dramatic and of a kind unusual at similar ceremonies. Whether or not this was because 138

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 139

Social Closure and Power-Dependence Relationships at the Galuyot Absorption Center

Arie felt weak or defensive, it certainly showed his desire to intervene and regain some control of the event. This pattern of behavior also seemed characteristic of other staff members, especially the somchot, who co-operated with Arie by obeying his instructions to hand out the food. They gathered around the rabbi and walked around the clubhouse demonstrating a more active role in the events than the other women who remained seated throughout the ceremony. The somchot thus acted to demonstrate their usefulness at an event was associated with their area of their responsibility, i.e., the family, more specifically, the care of mothers and children. The distance between the women and the men and the inferior status of the former were a function of the control exercised by the officials at the circumcision. The male immigrants, as I have said, were somewhat active in helping to hand out food at the double ceremony and in the organization of the family event celebrating the fortieth day of the birth of Rachamim and Alma’s child. They also organized Mordechai’s ceremony. In contrast, the women participated only passively in these events. They arrived with the baby and remained seated throughout the ceremony and after it. They didn’t stand, walk around, or help serve food. In spite of the women’s inferior position at these ceremonies, certain differences may be perceived in the respective events. At the double ceremony, the mothers of the children about to be circumcised and the women sat further away from the table than did Ziva and the other women at Mordechai’s circumcision. The most significant difference was evident at the family party in Ziva’s and Shai’s caravan. Here both of them were equally active. They chatted with the guests and walked around while offering food and drink. Adults and children mingled without distinction of sex, age, or function. There was no distance between women and men, and no difference in how each sex interacted with the other. In summing up, one can say that circumcision ceremonies held at the Galuyot absorption center were essentially bureaucratic in character. They were conducted by the staff according to their own considerations and needs. The immigrant seemed to have no choice other than to accept official control over each family event of this kind. A comparison between the different events has revealed how the extent of the immigrant’s dependence or independence could change. It illustrates the limitations of the immigrants’ possibilities. As a result of the control exercised by the officials, a traditional ceremony such as circumcision lost its character and its religious value as well 139

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:42 PM

Page 140

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

as its function in nurturing new and existing social relationships. The officials replaced the parents because the immigrants were dependent on the staff in order to obtain the resources necessary for the ceremony. The influence of the bureaucratic and categorized treatment of women on the social and family organization of the immigrants at the center is the focus of the next chapter.

Notes 1. The immigrants were taken directly from the airport to absorption centers. Forty-five centers were made available to accommodate the Ethiopian immigrants who arrived during operation Moshe towards the end of 1984. Another thirteen centers were filled up by March 1985 and about eleven hotels were rented and used as temporary accommodation for the immigrants. As this arrangement was very costly, the immigrants were transferred to absorption centers after about a year. Only immediate families were sent to the same place by the Jewish Agency officials. Extended families were sent to different sites, according to available space. Young immigrants were sent to special absorption centers. Children under seventeen who arrived without their parents were referred to Youth Aliah boarding schools. Soon after arrival at the center (or the hotel) the immigrants underwent medical examinations and treatment. A few days later they started their language studies in the "Ulpan." The Ethiopian immigrants were offered ten months of Ulpan studies, four months more than immigrants from other countries. Immigrants are meant to stay in the absorption center for only one year, but in most cases most of them stayed there for two or more years. 2. The idea of “shamgila” is explained by Schoenberger as a word suggesting that the status of the Ethiopian man is strengthened as he grows older (1975: 101). The term connotes honor, but doesn’t imply that the old are still capable of study. 3. The "renewal of the covenant" refers to the blood-letting ritual, carried out on all Ethiopian male immigrants. 4. The "law of return" promises that every Jewish newcomer to Israel is recognized as a full citizen on arrival and is entitled to state assistance to help his integration in the country. The aid offered to the immigrants is subject to change. It basically includes assistance for either purchasing or renting a house, language studies, a maintenance grant, temporary health insurance free-of-charge, vocational training, exemption from taxes on purchasing a car and electrical items, etc. 5. The Rabbinate ordered to take the corpse of the Yankelovitz woman, an immigrant from Russia, out of her grave in the Jewish cemetery, because they found out that she was not Jewish. 6. Army service in Israel is compulsory for Jewish adult citizens at the age of eighteen. Males must serve in the army for three years and females for twenty months. Males are also forced to serve in the reserve for another thirty-five years. They may be called into the reserve for up to twenty-six days a year.

140

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:43 PM

The Absorption Center at Safed Photo by Israel Talby

Page a

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page b

Ethiopian kids in front of the Absorption Center of Or-Akiva Photo by Israel Talby

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page c

Cleaning the caravan Photo by Israel Talby

A woman immigrant at her caravan’s door Photo by Israel Talby

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page d

Mothers, babies and teacher at the entrance of the kindergarten Photo by Israel Talby

A somechet showing an Ethiopian woman how to put a nappy on her baby Photo by Israel Talby

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page e

In the kindergarten Photo by Israel Talby

Children playing at the “playground” – the parking area in front of the center. Photo by Israel Talby

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page f

Young Ethiopian women studying Hebrew in the Ulpan Photo by Israel Talby

Learning to sing Israeli songs in the Ulpan Photo by Israel Talby

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page g

Ethiopian immigrants in a lecture at the cultural centre. The Ethiopian lecturer standing at the center. Photo by Israel Talby

Studying Hebrew in the Ulpan Photo by Israel Talby

04-Ch4 + photos (8 pgs)

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page h

Ethiopian children on both sides of the center’s fence Photo by Israel Talby

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

5.

Page 141

C ATEGORIZING W OMEN

An Example of Bureaucratic Influence on Family Organization



T

he influence of bureaucracy on family organization and role division between the sexes is the main concern of this chapter. Several researchers have considered the significant influence of the environment on social relations in general and the family in particular. Already in 1963 Malinowski spoke of the need to examine family life and aspects of the family unit as dependent on social phenomena and the general structure of the society being researched (6). Freedman (1958, 1970) has more than once described the influence of stratification on family structure in Chinese society, and found that extended families are located mainly among the nobility while the peasantry is characterized by the nuclear family. Freedman also argued that the political and economic power of the individual outside the family influences his position within it. Pasternak (1976) and others have pointed to the need for working hands as the most potent factor in the creation of the extended family. Gluckman (1980) showed how relations between the couples among the Luzi and the Zulu of Africa are linked to political and economic environment. Marx (1976) demonstrates how the power structure, role division, and the distance between the sexes in the Bedouin family are linked to economic and political factors rather than biological makeup or tradition. In her work on women in Israel, Swirski (1984) claims that various social institutions, such as the educational system, the labor market, the army, religious bodies, and civil law, all work to reinforce the inferior status of women and the superior status of men. This is implemented by 141

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 142

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

unequal role division within the family, and by the manner in which children are educated within it. To preserve control and superiority, a central place is given to the male’s monopoly over “social thinking and creativity” (55-56). Swirski also notes that the claim of power by the male is not based on dichotomous differences of any kind between the sexes, but on a certain image established for the purpose of asserting dominance and guarding interests. As there is nothing natural behind the differences in men’s and women’s status, men are obliged to work non-stop to guarantee that the monopoly ensuring their interests is preserved. The family, according to Meillassoux (1975), is a source of cheap labor for the socially powerful. Yanagisaco (1979) claims that the significance of the family is not limited to birth and socialization. She stipulates that the units that we label “families” are no less about production, barter, power, inequality and status. “The family is as much an integral part of the political and social structure as it is a unit of reproduction” (199). She suggests that the “relations of inequality within and among domestic groups need to be included in the analysis of political and social processes” (196). The thrust of this research indicates that the family unit is an inextricable part of social structure. Therefore, there can be no claim of dichotomy between the domestic economy and socio-economic and general political processes. Furthermore, the family unit itself and the power relationships within it are not natural, permanent, or self-evident, but phenomena influenced and determined by the power relationships found in society, generally through the deliberate actions of social institutions. My analysis on the influence of the social environment on family organization in the absorption center at Galuyot follows a similar direction of the research in this field. The center’s bureaucratic environment influenced the organization of the family and the growth and establishment of its internal divisions and functions. The impact the officials had on the women and their intervention in their lives were the principal means of influence on the immigrant’s social and family organization. The officials perceived the “family” as a given, without awareness of how their own activity influenced its character as a closed and separate system made up of individuals who functioned on the basis of a categorized entity. The expression “the rubric of the women,” referred to in Chapter Four, attests to the officials’ perception of women as a collective requiring categorized treatment. I have said that categorizing the women apart from the immigrants served the officials’ needs, and their battle for 142

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 143

Categorizing Women

resources. Through the use of ethnography, these claims will be substantiated. The categorized treatment of women and their socialization by the officials will serve as an example of social environmental influence on social and family organization.

The Intervention of the Somchot The environment’s influence on the position of women at the absorption center took place chiefly through intervention of the somchot as “experts” in women’s spheres. Women and men were encouraged to comply with their respective roles as is common in society at large, the roles having been dictated by the bureaucratic framework which surrounded them. At the center, it was the men, as family heads, who received state resources from the officials; the women received care and resources as housewives and mothers. In their work with the women immigrants, the somchot functioned as representatives of the social order of which they were an integral part. At the center these women were perceived and clearly behaved as if they were responsible for looking after the children and doing the housework. In this, there was no difference between the immigrant women and other women. The task of the somchot in the center’s social context was to act as living role models, reflecting the similarity between their role at work and as women outside the center. What emerged from the following meeting in Arie’s office revealed the obvious way all women – immigrants, workers, and myself – related to the woman’s role. During the discussion, an immigrant woman came in at Arie’s invitation. Present in the room, apart from myself, were Josh, the Ethiopian instructor, and Nina and Jacqueline, two somchot. Jacqueline suddenly turned on the woman, who was waiting for Arie to finish his meeting with us and addressed her vulgarly: “You’ve drunk enough coffee. You’ve been sitting with your neighbors for two hours, and afterwards they’ll sit with you for two hours.” She then turned to us and added: “Instead of her drinking coffee all day, she’d do better to go and wash her daughter’s hair. What do I do in my own house? Every day I check my daughter’s hair for lice. Even my own daughter says to me, “Mummy, have a look at my hair to see if I have lice.” I asked Jacqueline: “What’s so wrong with drinking coffee? I also drink coffee with my neighbors: first here, and later somewhere else.” She said: “Fine, we also have the same problem – but I’m not like that. First of all, my house is clean and orderly.” 143

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 144

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

“Good for you,” I answered her. “My house is rarely all clean and tidy.” “Well,” She said, “my house isn’t like that.” She then turned to the woman again and, in a rough, dictatorial tone, said again, as she pushed her lightly out of the office: “You’ve had enough coffee.” Jacqueline had put the woman in her place by citing her own domestic behavior, proudly referring to her functions as mother and housewife, which, in her eyes, justified her authoritative attitude. Defending the woman, I didn’t claim she was not the one who had to be responsible for housework and childcare. In “confessing” to my own coffee drinking with friends, I was mainly giving vent to my resentment toward Jacqueline’s total negation of the woman. My reaction could also be interpreted as an attempt to minimize the demands for maintaining cleanliness and order that were expected of me, as a woman. Whatever the case, I revealed that I saw housecleaning as my responsibility. Jacqueline’s intervention in this woman’s business wasn’t limited to citing a personal example; she was actually trying to change the woman’s behavior by criticizing her harshly and being cutting about her socializing with the other women. The expression “drinking coffee,” as Jacqueline used it, was made to appear negative and problematic, something that had to be rejected in favor of more important things like order and cleanliness in the home. Jacqueline expressed her criticism physically, by pushing the women. The means employed to get women to accept responsibility for the children and the housework also included encouragement and flattery. The following meeting serves as an example. Efraim, who was director of the center for six months, asked if someone would like to go with him to visit the cooking class. Yehudit and I accepted his invitation. At the entrance to the classroom, we found Arie tasting biscuits that had been baked by the class. Some twenty women were sitting around a table, and Arie praised the women for their work. At the head of the table, Jacqueline was rolling out some dough and cutting pieces from it to make biscuits. She addressed the women loudly, almost shouting at them. Efraim, who stood next to her, told the women that they had to learn to bake so they could invite him home to taste their biscuits. At this point, he patted Jacqueline on the back. These expressions of praise served to strengthen the women’s conception of themselves as responsible for domestic activities. The director indicated his approval of the immigrants’ baking lesson by visiting the class; in this he was also making a statement of appreciation to the somchot who taught the class. His visit also enabled him to show off in front 144

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 145

Categorizing Women

of Yehudit and myself, emphasizing the importance of the work done in the center. The excellence expected by Efraim from the women lay in the preparation of biscuits. His praise for their baking emphasized their future expertise as hostesses and bakers. The praise was, in fact, the flip side of the previously cited expressions of reservation and castigation; both expressed patronization. The fact that the women were the bakers and the men the praisers may be seen as symbolic. The women, Yehudit, the immigrants, the somchot, and myself, it should be noted, were the audience. The pat on the back was a physical expression of Efraim’s authoritarian behavior toward Jacqueline. The fact that only women took part in the baking class shows yet again that domestic jobs were designed, categorically and exclusively, for female and not male immigrants. The training of the women was, of course, carried out by women, women who baked in their own homes sharing their personal experience. As far as the officials were concerned, there was no doubt in their minds that it was the women who would do the cooking. This was also made clear in my talk with Ziva and Shai about the cooking class. When Ziva told me about her participation in the class, I asked her whether there were any men there. Shai said it was for women only. I asked him if the men didn’t want to participate, and he answered: “They say that it is for women.” The categorized treatment of women at the center thus determined their domestic role and limited the possibilities for the men to play a role in the areas that were allotted exclusively to women. The criticism and the praise were used, perhaps, to influence those who might try to escape the categories destined for them by the bureaucrats. Through their relations with the immigrant women, the somchot influenced the acceptance of traditionally female roles. The work of these somchot was almost exclusively with women; their job was inextricably linked with the fact that they themselves were successful mothers and housewives. Introducing somchot into the absorption centers was a new service adopted by the Jewish Agency when the immigrants arrived from Ethiopia in 1983. These welfare paraprofessionals had already functioned for some twenty years in Israel, as part of the general welfare services. The job was established as wholly feminine in character, operating in those areas where women traditionally function: housework and child care (Etgar 1977). The somchot’s purpose at the agency was “to train Ethiopian families” to manage their homes. A Jewish Agency “Working Paper” (1984) describes the qualities required of the somchot: “A basic knowledge of family and home management in Israel, a minimum of ten 145

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 146

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

years of schooling, a tidy appearance, an ability to express themselves, and having a family.” Thus we see that the role of the somchot was based on the identity between, “a role in the family” and “the role at work.” Role definition was expressed in the “Working Paper” as follows: “Guide, mentor, and educator for the Ethiopian family … a learning family in the process of integration.” Yehudit’s explanations of how she recruited the somchot to work at the center shows the practical dimension of the concept: “Do you know,” she asked, “how I received the somchot? I had no idea of what their work was supposed to be, or what was expected from them. Then I asked them if they had any children of their own.” The instruction given by the somchot fades into insignificance compared with their role in “putting the women in their place,” through their daily interaction with the immigrants. This aspect was made clear from the discussion with Ziva, after Anat informed me I would have to vacate my caravan for four days. Some women soldiers were coming to do some dental check-ups of the immigrants, and accommodation had to be made available. I told Ziva about Anat’s sudden demand, and my anger over the matter. I explained that I would have to clean the caravan – otherwise they would say I was not a clean woman. Ziva tried to cheer me up by telling me about the insensitivity of her own somechet. She said: “Ada isn’t kind. She keeps asking me why I don’t clean my house.” Ziva told me that in the beginning, she had been careful about matters of cleanliness, but now no longer cared that much: “I told the somchot that I was pregnant, my back hurts, and I couldn’t stand up.” Of the other somchot, she said: “They’ll come to a woman who has lots and lots of guests, and afterwards it’s messy, and the somchot will demand to know why its messy and why she doesn’t clean up. The woman will say: ‘I’m tired now, I’ll clean it up this evening.’” I asked Ziva what it was like in Ethiopia and whether they talked so much about cleanliness there. She said: “Yes, we did speak about such things. One woman curses another, saying that she is dirty. This is not clean. She doesn’t clean, and the food is no good. Afterwards, the woman who has been accused says: ‘Why are you cursing me? You come to me and eat. Why are you cursing me?’ Then the woman stops cursing.” I told her that I thought that it was probably the same everywhere. “In my village, too,” I said, “at one time I was afraid of any woman neighbor who might come in, look around and say my house wasn’t clean. Later on I decided that I didn’t care, and that was that.” 146

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 147

Categorizing Women

“I don’t care either,” said Ziva, “but Shai does. He is afraid of what people will say. I told him that if he wants the place clean, he can clean it himself. I’m not cleaning it.” The presence of the somchot and clearly made every one around them see the women immigrants as responsible for cleaning the home. Ziva’s criticism of Ada, the somechet, and her orders, wasn’t made because Ada had interfered in her life or because she had reproached her, and not her husband. Ziva was annoyed at Ada’s domineering attitude and at the fact that she did not consider taking into account circumstances like her pregnancy and her many visitors. The incident points to daily intervention in immigrant women’s lives, one that was perceived by officials as wholly legitimate. The subject of cleaning served as a trigger for such intervention. In this situation, the somchot possessed the authority to examine everything the immigrants did; the women, for their part, had to comply with the authorities and were expected to obey instructions. The accusation of being messy or dirty conveys a more profound stigma than other accusations. In his 1985 work on a development town in Israel, Shachak identifies the connection between a negative labelling of people – of which “dirt” is one of the main expressions – and a bureaucratic context. According to Shachak, this stigma is the result of the social distance between those who give the services and those who receive them (3). The somchot’s criticism of the messiness of the women immigrants is an example of the bureaucratic use of negative labelling in structuring social distance. It strengthened the authoritarian position of the somchot and weakened the position of the women immigrants. This point also underscores the difference, in terms of social distance, between neighborly relations and the authoritarian relations prevailing between the somchot and the immigrants. In the neighborly relations, both in Ethiopia and in my own village in Israel, which are described by Ziva and myself, respectively, the social environment exerts pressure for standardized behavior. Shai’s anxiety about what the neighbors would say was the key indicator of this kind of influence. In the relationship between neighbors one could defend oneself in a number of ways that promised a degree of independence. Ziva was able to vent her anger on the neighbor who cursed her. She could retaliate by refusing to let the neighbor visit her house again, or could demand of her husband that he do the cleaning. The woman could ignore critical comments as Ziva and myself learned to do. The absorption center, however, established an inequality between the women and the somchot, affording a position of authority to the lat147

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 148

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

ter in everything connected with the women immigrants’ housework. This forced the women to accept an intrusion into their privacy, as well as ongoing criticism of themselves as housewives and mothers. This situation made any defense against the intervention of the bureaucratic environment difficult. It established the women as solely responsible for housework and care. The entrance of the somchot into immigrants’ caravans was based on legitimate authority and a one-sided relationship: the somchot could enter the homes of the immigrants and criticize; the converse was not possible. It thus emerged that the women accepted the dictates of their bureaucratic environment concerning their domestic role, as either instructors or instructed. The importance of the somchot and their close connections with the immigrants therefore lies essentially in the context of social control. Instruction in domestic tasks was peripheral, and sometimes didn’t take place at all. Liora was a new immigrant with a one-year-old baby. She described her somechet, Dafna, thus: “She doesn’t do a thing. She just comes once a week, sits for a while, and then goes.” However, the relationship between the immigrant and her somechet defined, symbolized, and established, in the view of those directly and indirectly involved, the roles of women and their areas of responsibility. The somechet functioned as a kind of “social supervisor,” intervening only in the lives of women, and establishing her position and the reality of this one-sided intervention that extended beyond matters of cleanliness. A description of the actions of Jacqueline, Dorit’s somechet, after the death of her one-year-old-son, demonstrates the extent of intervention the somchot allowed themselves. I was on my way to Ziva’s caravan one day, when Jacqueline joined me, and said, “I am arranging for Dorit to have her IUD removed. I’ve set up an appointment for her to see the doctor tomorrow.” This intrusion into the women’s intimate life was made possible because of the power gaps between the somchot and the women immigrants. Ziva was outside her caravan with her baby in my arms, and Jacqueline asked me why Ziva didn’t put her child into the pre-kindergarten group. I said I didn’t know. She replied: “If I was her somechet, I would have shouted at her and told her to put him in the kindergarten. I’m not afraid.” She then entered Dorit’s caravan without knocking. Jacqueline wanted to tell Dorit to have her IUD taken out so that she might overcome the sadness of her loss by having another child. She didn’t think that she also needed to speak to Adam, Dorit’s husband, about it. Nor did Jacqueline think she had to speak to Shai, Ziva’s hus148

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 149

Categorizing Women

band, about sending his child to pre-kindergarten. The connection between the somchot and the immigrant woman focused only on “female matters” – pregnancy, children, and education. These issues were perceived as being of interest to women only. Jacqueline’s words expressed very blatantly the imbalance of these relations. Dita’s experience while trying to breastfeed her baby further demonstrated the degree of intervention the somchot allowed themselves. Dita was Ziva’s friend and neighbor. The general discussion about her that took place in the office points to the fact that the behavioral pattern of the somchot described here was not limited to one or two individuals, but was rather part of everyday life. Avi, Dita’s and Eli’s son, was born prematurely. When he came home some weeks after his birth, his mother had problems breastfeeding him. One morning, Ada, Dita’s somechet, came into the office to pick up some powdered milk for Dita. Bracha, a somechet who enjoyed a status somewhat higher than her colleagues, prevented her from taking the milk substitute. Ada should persuade Dita to breastfeed, she said. “But I’ve already spoken to her about it,” Ada said. “She refuses to listen.” Bracha then said: “Tell her that she must feed him herself. She’s such a lazy person. She always was lazy. Sort of apathetic. She must try; give her the powdered milk if there is no alternative. Tell her that if she doesn’t breastfeed the baby he will die.” Ada accepted this and did not argue further. Nina, who was listening, looked at me and commented: “This is too much.” Later on I was at Ziva’s place. She told me that Ada had told Dita she must feed the baby herself, even though she didn’t have any milk. I asked Ziva whether Dita wanted to feed the baby. She answered: “She wants to, but she has no milk. The baby was in the hospital, and now Dita has no milk.” I said that she could give him a bottle, to which Ziva replied: “She was told that if she gave the baby a bottle, they would take him back to the hospital.” This organized interference in the women immigrants’ lives stemmed from the bureaucratic context. Their control of various resources such as powdered milk enabled the somchot to pressure the immigrants into accepting the staff demands. The staff seemingly preferred to withhold these resources and use them for additional pressure in future. This dependence pertained as long as the immigrants could not obtain the resources by themselves. The dependence of the immigrant women on the somchot had yet further ramifications. This pervasive intervention in the women’s private affairs emphasized their weakness and inability to oppose the interfer149

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 150

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

ence. The somchot had no qualms about discussing the women’s intimate problems openly in a group, and they clearly felt themselves at liberty to denigrate the women. Thus Bracha determined that Dita was “lazy” and “apathetic” and belittled her personality and motherhood. The threats used to persuade Dita to breastfeed her baby amounted to a total dismissal of Dita herself. Ada perceived her as foolish and primitive to the point of absurdity, assuming it was possible to persuade her that the baby would die if she herself didn’t feed him. Conversely, the somchot were also dependent on the immigrants. Jacqueline’s visit to “one of her women” in the caravan was evidence that the somchot needed the connection with the immigrants in order to justify their work. One afternoon Yehu, the instructor, and I met Jacqueline. She asked me where I had been and what I had been doing. I explained that the supervisor had asked me to speak to some parents about changing the name of their daughter Levana. The name means “white” in Hebrew, and it was feared that this would cause other children to mock her, because she was black. Jacqueline asked me to come with her, saying she wanted to show me something. She entered a nearby caravan without knocking, and I went in after her. Inside a woman was busy washing the floor. The place was flooded with water. The radio was playing loudly. Without hesitation, Jacqueline marched into the bedroom and came out with an infant in her arms. Her voice full of pride and excitement, she said, “I’m crazy about this baby!” Hesitatingly, I asked whether the baby had been asleep. “I don’t care about that,” she answered. She came close, wanting to show me how cute the child was, and added that she would be able to squeeze money out of American visitors for the privilege of photographing the child. “This is the most beautiful baby at the center,” she gushed. All the while, the mother continued washing the floor. The radio blared, and Jacqueline expressed great delight at even a hint of a smile on the baby’s face. After a few moments he fell asleep. Jacqueline now called out to the woman in a loud voice: “You wouldn’t want Azaria (the maintenance man) to see you washing the floor in this way. He’d strangle you.” I asked why. “The floor is made of PVC,” she replied. “Water ruins it. It should be wiped cleaned with a rag.” I then asked Jacqueline what she was doing there and whether she was the woman’s somechet. “Of course not,” came the reply. “She doesn’t 150

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 151

Categorizing Women

need any more instruction. She knows everything. I just pass by now and then to see what’s going on … if everything is all right.” This interlude points up the weakness of the immigrant women in their relationships with the somchot. Jacqueline entered the caravan without knocking, and walked around as she pleased – even though the place was being cleaned. She went into another room and picked up the baby without any consideration of the fact that he was asleep. The mother reacted as if she had no alternative but to accept such behavior. She considered neither opposing nor objecting to this invasion of her privacy, this treatment of her baby like an object. She chose to ignore all of it and continue with what she had been doing as if she didn’t belong there. But it is Jacqueline’s dependence on “her” women that is of interest here – something that emerges indirectly from the situation. Jacqueline admitted that her function as a somechet was now over, yet she still visited the caravan and presented herself as an authority (on floor washing, for example) and as having an interest in the woman when it was obvious – even to herself – that she was not needed. In order to preserve their positions the somchot have to guarantee maintenance of their control over the women’s affairs and over the women themselves. Jacqueline’s declaration about how the floor should be cleaned and her explanation of it to me was a demonstration of her expertise, or part of it, in her role as a somechet. Her pride in the baby was another aspect of this expertise. In spite of all this, however, Jacqueline revealed a weakness: I represented a threat to her. Finding me, as she did, walking among the caravans and visiting the immigrants, she became very active in demonstrating her control over the immigrant women, the caravan living space, the whole situation. What she was doing was declaring her control over “her” territory and everything in it. Jacqueline’s reference to the idea of selling “photography rights” suggests that she viewed the baby and her relationships with the immigrant women as potential resources. That “something” she wanted to show me was her control over her territory, the woman, the baby, and the caravans. It thus emerged that the staff of the center needed the families, especially the women, in order to justify the necessity of their being there. The family group formed the basis for their presence and their employment. The categorized care of the immigrants as members of the family unit – particularly the women as mothers and housewives – provided the staff with various resources ranging from employment to social advantages. We also saw how the bureaucratic environment worked via the 151

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 152

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

somchot to influence the immigrant women to accept a categorized labelling of their sex.

The Intervention of Various Functionaries The influence of the bureaucratic environment on women’s acceptance of gender roles was not only effected through the somchot. Many functionaries at the center and beyond it were also involved in the social control exerted over the female immigrants, creating a situation in which they became weak and dependent. Those involved included the nurses in the baby clinic, the somechet, the social worker and others. All saw it as quite natural that the women should be responsible for planning the family, nurturing the children, and cleaning. For Betty, in charge of the pre-kindergarten, the childcare responsibility clearly rested on the woman alone. Betty’s criticism of Ziva and the way she looked after her child reinforces the perceived, exclusive link between the child and its mother’s responsibility for it. Betty knew about my friendship with Ziva, but that didn’t prevent her voicing her criticism of Ziva in my presence. Betty said: “We need a psychologist here on a permanent basis. You think there are no problems here! There are many problems – and with the adults too. Take Eitan, Ziva’s child. Ziva doesn’t seem well; she doesn’t look all right. She doesn’t talk to her son. I asked her if she gives him food in the morning and she said she did, but I see the child arriving at kindergarten hungry. When I asked her about it again, she said the boy didn’t want to eat. I don’t think she puts much effort into making sure he eats.” I asked Betty how the boy behaved at kindergarten. “He’s all right,” she answered. “He’s a good boy, but he cries.” In Betty’s mind there was no doubt that Ziva alone was responsible for the health and development of the child. She didn’t even consider talking to the father; from her point of view, he simply wasn’t in the picture. He wasn’t around during the day, and even when he was in the center in the morning, he didn’t come to the kindergarten. Betty’s criticism hinted that Ziva might be mentally unstable. Her talk of the need for a psychologist wasn’t just a criticism of Ziva’s functioning as a mother and a woman, but hinted too at Betty’s own problems. Perhaps she wanted to relinquish responsibility for the boy’s crying, or some other problem. The mother was an easy target to blame, and the psychologist a suitable partner for sharing in the responsibility. Betty had no qualms about 152

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 153

Categorizing Women

voicing quite severe and authoritative criticism concerning Ziva’s conduct as a “responsible” mother. Ziva too saw herself as wholly responsible for the care of her son. She decided to take him out of the pre-kindergarten because “Eitan cries there. At home, he is good and happy.” When Ziva took her son out, Betty asked if I would speak to her and explain how important it was for the child to be in the framework of kindergarten and tell her that she must send him back. The nurses at the baby clinic, who also worked only with women, formed another part of this environmental influence on the immigrants and on channeling them into gender roles. The nurses instructed the mothers in how to care for their babies and how to plan for their families. They had no connection at all with the husbands. Michal, the baby clinic nurse, had this to say about her work with the immigrant women: “We are pleased with them and their progress … they’re getting on very nicely … they really want to learn … they’re also interested in family planning and understand what we say to them …. At first Ziva would translate for me. She was the first to have an IUD. When she told the others about it, they wanted one as well.” I asked Michal where Ziva had found out about the IUD – Michal said she had told her about it, and added: “We don’t give them the pill because if they forget to take it every day there may be damage done to the foetus if they get pregnant. We don’t charge them for the IUD – even though one costs £400.” Michal also told me that they had taught the immigrants that they didn’t need to hold the babies in their arms all the time if they had a pram. The nurse’s intervention here involved very intimate issues: marital relationship, childbirth, and the physical and emotional relationship between mother and child. The relationship between nurse and woman again suggested that the role division between the sexes was reinforced by the professional establishment. They reinforced the message that the women were responsible for family planning, for the couple’s intimate life, and the care of the children. This authoritarian control of the most intimate areas of family life allowed the professionals to intervene and interfere with the family as a whole. This interference in the immigrants’ lives was made possible by the absence of resources. Both their lack of Hebrew and acceptance of free services created dependence on those who offered them. The advice about the use of a pram sounded, ostensibly, like a wish to help the women by introducing them to know-how that would help 153

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 154

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

them in their new environment. But Michal’s words suggest too that these methods of childcare were taught to the women not as an answer to their wishes or needs, but by way of instruction and criticism. Michal’s patronizing phrasing hinted at a perceived “culture gap” between the women immigrants and the Israeli women. Talk about using prams, instead of carrying the baby in the mother’s arms or on her back, implied both ethnocentricity and social distance between women:”modern” and “traditional” Ethiopians. Anat also had a share in imposing gender roles on the women. She had directed women interested in IUDs to the baby clinic: “I tell somchot to send along anyone who asks about contraception, and I direct them to the clinic. As I cannot encourage them too much, I do it quietly.” I asked Anat who or what she was afraid of. She told me that Liat, a religious social worker who at one time had worked at the center, had spoken to her, asking that she direct all women interested in contraception to her so she could warn them of all the dangers involved in abortion. Anat added: “I do it quietly as there are too many religious people around the center.” Anat adopted the role of intermediary between the immigrants and various officials outside the center. In this way she controlled those women who wished to make use of outside services. Liat also sought control over the women, attempting to influence family patterns of behavior according to her own religious beliefs. The story of the abortion that didn’t happen is another example of staff intervention in family life via the women. Here too the woman’s dependence on resources that were controlled by the staff limited her control of her environment. Some time later, Ziva told me that the Committee for the Termination of Pregnancy had rejected her request for an abortion. I asked what role Avner, the social worker, had played during the meeting of the committee. Ziva said she didn’t know. I asked her whether she had been present at the meeting. “Yes, I was,” she said. “They spoke so quickly that I didn’t understand.” I asked her if she wanted the baby. “I can’t do it,” she said “Can nothing be done?” I asked, but she only repeated my sentence. “So what do you say?” I asked. “I don’t say,” she replied. Here again, the women were the only ones addressed on family care issues. Concerning the abortion, Avner only spoke with Ziva, fixed an 154

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 155

Categorizing Women

appointment for her with the committee, and accompanied her to the meeting. He didn’t exchange a word with Shai, Ziva’s husband. Ziva’s presence at the meeting was essentially passive. Avner discussed her problem with the committee, but nobody related to her. Avner took control of Ziva’s affairs, making her marginal and unable to wield any influence. Avner wasn’t Ziva’s only representative at this meeting of the hospital committee. Anat, the somechet, was also involved. As she explained to me, she very much wanted Ziva to have an abortion because she felt responsible for her pregnancy. She told me Ziva had been the first of the women she had directed to the baby clinic to use a contraceptive device. But in spite of her IUD, she had gotten pregnant. Anat told me of the need she felt for family planning information to be spread. “I don’t want a repeat of Ben-Gurion’s ideas,” she said, “when he said Oriental Jews should have families of ten children.” I remarked that it was interesting that Ziva had gotten pregnant even though she had used an IUD. Anat replied: “It happens to them a lot.” I expressed surprise and she repeated the assertion. “Ziva’s IUD fell out,” she explained, and mentioned the doctor’s suggestion that perhaps Ziva’s husband had taken it out. I said that that was impossible because Shai didn’t want Ziva to be pregnant at all. Anat also told me that, as yet, no answer had come from the committee regarding Ziva’s request for an abortion. The committee was waiting for the results of the ultrasound tests indicating the state of the pregnancy. If the foetus wasn’t hurt by the X-ray that had been done at the onset of Ziva’s pregnancy, the abortion would probably not be carried out. Anat’s involvement in Ziva’s pregnancy was so deep that she even saw herself as indirectly responsible. According to Anat, Shai had interfered with and sabotaged her work on behalf of the family. She saw his involvement as destructive, primitive, and superfluous. Anat justified her involvement in planning Ziva’s family as caring. She saw herself as a missionary who had to prevent what was considered by her as a failure in absorbing the Oriental immigrants in the fifties by controlling the Ethiopian immigrants’ family planning. Ziva’s words also bore witness to Anat’s intense interference in her private life. I knew she was about to go for some tests at the hospital, so I asked her whether she had done them yet. She told me they had been fixed for two months ahead. I didn’t understand the delay, since abortions are usually done before the third month of pregnancy. I asked who was responsible for the postponing of the test. Ziva explained that after 155

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 156

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

enquiring at the hospital, Anat had been informed that the test wasn’t urgent. The IUD had moved, causing a wound. Ziva didn’t understand what was going on, and neither did I. Again, Ziva’s role in these events was marginalized. Anat represented her, conducting the negotiations with the baby clinic and the hospital. An open discussion between Anat and myself about the most intimate aspects of Ziva’s life and her relations with her husband took place in the office. Moreover, Anat was seen to know more about Ziva’s pregnancy and desired abortion than Ziva. Anat’s intervention resulted in Ziva’s loss of control over her abortion; she neither knew what would happen nor what she had to do. The center’s staff obviously saw it as their business, and didn’t feel they owed Ziva an explanation for the arrangements they made for her. Anat’s links with organizations outside the center such as the hospital and the baby clinic allowed her a monopoly over the information and services the women immigrants needed. As go-between she obliged all seeking these services to go through her. These connections, in the eyes of both immigrants and staff, were considered “hers.” She also achieved superiority over the staff by virtue of these connections – superiority over the social worker, for example. In this way, Anat built up an independent power base from which she could conduct matters as she saw fit. She presented these women’s affairs, pregnancies, abortions, births, etc., as her sole monopoly. This was made clear by her directive to the somchot. She might, after all, have suggested that the women apply directly to the baby clinic. I also played a role in the complex of intervention surrounding the terminating of Ziva’s pregnancy. My involvement was indirect: discussions with Ziva and gossip with Anat. I engaged in some direct intervention too, arranging Ziva’s hospital tests. One day, I went to visit Ziva with my son Dan. During our talk, she asked me if abortion was painful. I told her that I thought not, as it was carried out under anesthesia and sometimes you stayed in the hospital for a day after. Ziva said: “People say that there are problems afterwards if you want to have a baby.” “Yes,” I said, “there can be problems, but almost all the Israeli women who have had abortions have been able to have other children. If the operation is done in a hospital there’s nothing to worry about.” I asked Ziva whether she wanted to have the abortion. She appeared hesitant about answering. I asked her what her husband had to say about it, and she answered, “Like me.” I asked: “A bit yes and a bit no?” 156

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 157

Categorizing Women

“They say that the X-ray I had isn’t good for my baby.” I confirmed this: “It’s up to God then. If the committee says yes, it’s good, and if they say no, then it’s no.” “That’s what they all say,” Ziva replied. I remarked that the worse a woman looked the better the chance of the committee agreeing to an abortion. I suggested that she persuade the committee that she was going through a difficult period; that she had no money, and that there was no place for another baby in the caravan. A few days later Ziva told me that the committee had decided that “all was well,” so there wasn’t going to be any abortion. My role in influencing Ziva was similar to that of other staff members. The beliefs according to which I attempted to influence Ziva’s actions were those of the environment to which I belonged, beliefs that said that it wasn’t good to bring a child into the world when the family had no money, when there were other little children, and there wasn’t enough living space. My supposition was that the words I wished to put in Ziva’s mouth were likely to persuade the committee in favor of allowing the abortion. I believed my world view to be similar to those of the committee. I also put it to Ziva that abortion was part and parcel of everyday life in Israel, declaring that it was a simple, safe procedure carried out in a hospital. Officials interfered in Ziva’s life directly and indirectly. My (direct) intervention took the form of representing Ziva – in making appointments for her hospital tests. One morning Ziva mentioned that she needed to go to the hospital for an ultrasound but hadn’t gone because her medical insurance fees hadn’t been paid. Her family had no income because their maintenance grant had stopped once Shai had left his vocational studies course. He had, as yet, no job. I suggested that I accompany her to the baby clinic and ask the nurse whether the ultrasound was necessary. At the clinic I spoke to Michal, the nurse. Ziva sat in a nearby chair and didn’t say a word. When I asked Michal if she had sent Ziva for the ultrasound, she said she knew nothing about it. I explained about the medical insurance fees and asked if the test was critical. Michal replied that it was vital because of the X-ray Ziva had had at the onset of her pregnancy. She advised me to consult Simon, the secretary of the health center, to see if he could help. As I left the clinic, I met with two other nurses from the medical center and told them about the problem. One expressed surprise. She told us that she had given Ziva a blood test that very day: “I wouldn’t have given her the 157

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 158

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

test if the fees hadn’t been paid up. You know what it’s like at the medical center. You can’t not pay. Everybody has to pay.” All this time Ziva waited for me in the car. In the building that housed the health center, I met Simon and explained the problem to him all over again. He was understanding and said that even if the fees hadn’t been paid for two months, the matter could be overlooked. I explained Ziva’s and Shai’s difficulties. He said that the medical insurance payments should be resumed as soon as possible and added that only in extreme cases could medical treatment be given in the absence of payment. I said I would try to clear the matter up with the absorption center office and asked him for the relevant form. He asked me to find out first whether Ziva could have her examination right away and requested that I also bring him the family’s identification papers. We returned to the center and went into the office. Yehudit was having a phone conversation with Anat. Mention was made of a check Fanny had left with Josh, the instructor, for Shai. At that moment, Josh came into the office and Yehudit asked him about the check. Josh took it out and explained that Shai had refused it. Shai claimed that having to repay the loan with his next month’s salary would leave him penniless. I asked Bracha, the senior somechet, to contact the hospital and find out whether Ziva could still come for her examination. Bracha reported back that the hospital had said the test couldn’t be done that day, and that she should come to the office the next day and make an appointment for the following month. I asked Bracha whether any harm would result from the delay. She said no, and I told Ziva that she had nothing to worry about. Outside the office I found Loba, who was on the center’s staff, standing around doing nothing in particular. I asked him too about what might be done to help Ziva. He said he had arranged early payment of a maintenance grant to Shai from the Ministry of Absorption. Shai would thus be able to catch up with his medical insurance fees. My intervention in “women’s affairs” on Ziva’s behalf did nothing to enhance her ability to act independently in establishing contact with the medical services. I too fulfilled the role of negotiator and representative, while Ziva remained passive, dependent on me for such things as the appropriate medical insurance form or an appointment at the hospital. What she said on her own behalf was hesitating and unclear; she either stayed in the car or sat quietly by while I negotiated. My intervention served only to marginalize Ziva’s position in the eyes of those around her. It did, however, serve my own interests at the cen158

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 159

Categorizing Women

ter. Through it I gained access to the ongoing activity, and expanded my social network. I was demonstrably involved in areas that would later benefit my work. I also strengthened my ties with Ziva and other immigrants by emerging as able to represent their interests. My involvement with women’s matters allowed me to establish a relationship with Anat; this manifested itself in the way we exchanged “liberal” ideas on subjects like abortion, religious freedom, and family planning among Israel’s Oriental Jews. Solidarity between Anat and myself thus grew in the face of religious people and social workers. This kind of contact allowed me to move about the office freely and play an active role at the center. The way Ziva conducted herself in the situation described suggests vulnerability and insecurity to the point where she hid her feelings completely. If she wanted an abortion, she didn’t say so; if she didn’t, her behavior revealed impotence and passivity. It seemed as if she didn’t know what she wanted and therefore allowed others to interfere in her business. In principle it didn’t matter whether Ziva wanted the abortion and accepted a decision forced on her by circumstance; or, conversely didn’t want the abortion but refrained from saying so in assertive terms. Her own wishes concerning a matter central and intimate to her life were marginalized. Following my intervention, many others, themselves quite removed from the matter, could intervene through word and action, and over a long period of time. Ziva’s dependence on the officials allowed them to intervene, thus increasing her weakness. The list of those who intervened in her private business was long; it numbered over a dozen, including myself, all related in one way or another to issues concerning the women immigrants. They intervened directly by offering “assistance,” by directing the women to other people, by counselling, by making appointments on the immigrants’ behalf or accompanying them from one place or another. Indirect intervention could take the form of a discussion about the women, or gossip. Obtaining services was perceived by the women as possible only through the assistance of mediators who possessed the skills needed to access these services. These mediators presented themselves as knowledgeable, understanding experts with the relevant contacts. The structured mediation between the women immigrants “inside” and the services “outside” made autonomous decision-making appear impossible to the immigrants. Again, the staff ’s mediation distanced the receiver of the services from the giver. The more different officials got involved in Ziva’s business, the greater was her distance from the source and consequently, the less influ159

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 160

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

ence she had. A woman dependent on these services – or one who thought she was – seemed to consider the mediator indispensable for the achievement of her needs. In the event, nothing very much was achieved by all this intervention: Ziva’s pregnancy wasn’t terminated, nor were the ultrasound tests done. There was a flurry of activity with no benefits for the woman herself. In the process the general attitude that women were those responsible for domestic life was strengthened with the women themselves accepting the “women’s role” as self-evident. Managing the families by using the women as a channel was convenient for the officials. Women’s independence was limited by their ties to their children. This enabled constant surveillance by center staff. The women had no money – all of it was given to the men. Ziva appeared dependent on Shai’s decisions and actions. She and her baby were dependent on him financially; it was he who paid for the family’s medical insurance and for all the services she required as a woman. He decided whether to accept the check from Fanny. Ziva wasn’t consulted about the matter at all. Shai was given control over all financial resources delivered to his family. He could go out to work and earn a living, or begin a vocational course and leave it when he saw fit. Ziva was offered no such choices. We have seen how the payments and other resources offered by the state were channeled to the families through the men. In this way the state created a situation where immigrant women were dependent on the officials and on their men. Vocational training policy was another example of male preference. Fanny, the director of the absorption center, wielded some influence over the absorption policy affecting the Ethiopian immigrants; she was a member of the Jewish Agency team that drafted policy documents. Thus, her views on vocational training were of interest beyond the scope of one center. Fanny insisted on a categorical distinction between men and women as recipients of this training. The men at the Galuyot absorption center were sent for vocational training at the rehabilitation center even before completing their Hebrew studies. They studied arithmetic, Hebrew, electrical work, ironwork, and mechanics. When the course was stopped in the middle, the men were sent on to yet another course. In one of our conversations, Fanny told me that an interministerial commission had deliberated about “matters concerned with preparing the immigrants for life outside the absorption center ….” The men were 160

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 161

Categorizing Women

to be prepared by vocational training courses. I interrupted her at this point, asking “Haven’t they taken courses in Hadera?” “Yes,” she answered, “but those were a total failure.” When I asked why, she explained: “The courses weren’t suitable; they were designed for disabled people …. There will be other courses near Hadera offering general vocational training. We also thought about organizing some enrichment courses for the women. But we reached the conclusion that if the women left their homes, their children would be neglected. So we decided to send to these courses only those women who had to work to support themselves. The rest of the women would have courses in general knowledge that would allow them to understand what their children were writing so they wouldn’t feel ashamed or shown up as ignorant.” In practice, the women weren’t sent out for any vocational training. The men were given gender preference, but were also perceived as a weak category. This is suggested by the fact that they were sent for training to a rehabilitation center for the physically and mentally disabled. The training, which was aimed at preparing the men for the labor market, was for “male trades” only. The training was designed to ensure some kind of income for the family. The officials saw only the men as responsible for this. Fanny told us that they had, reluctantly, intended to include in the training women who didn’t have a man to support them. But this never happened. Thus we can see how the absorption center officials influenced the integration of the immigrants into the country’s social order. They sought to enrich the means by which the men could integrate into the economy-employment network, but in so doing set up the basis for the women’s and children’s dependence on resources obtained by the man, or those the state allowed to women who had children but no men to support them. The women were offered sewing and cooking classes designed solely for them. Shai remarked of these groups that “they are not for men.” The sewing classes were organized by the somchot, who taught the women how to sew covers for the Sabbath loaves and make dolls. Influence on the women to gravitate toward domestic work was also evident in the relationships between the immigrants and the director and teachers at the ulpan. Ziva told me her teachers had told the women that it was good to learn how to sew, so that she “could sew for her children and make pretty clothes for herself …. It was also good for work.” Ziva also told me that Tova, the director, had said, “If you can sew profes161

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 162

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

sionally, you will have money.” The somchot told the women that “sewing is good and you could organize a sewing workshop.” Thus it may be seen that the bureaucratic treatment of immigrants was differentiated by gender and determined separate spheres of activity for men and women. The immigrants’ economic and social position in the family and chances in life were, to a great extent, affected by the officials’ gender-influenced categorized orientation of them. This distinction between the sexes in everything connected with work was linked to the physical borders of the center. Women stayed “inside” its confines and within their homes; men went “outside,” beyond its perimeters. The women, therefore, stayed close to the center’s officials, while the men were removed from bureaucratic control. State investment in the immigrants related to what the women did inside the house, and what men did in the workplace outside the house and the center. This division of labor and roles, insisted on by the officials, influenced the balance of power within the family. These patterns of bureaucratic behavior were so socially and economically entrenched that it seemed no explanation was required for the officials’ prejudice. Yet their need to justify the gender discrimination led the officials to attribute to the immigrants characteristics and problems that explained the difference in attitude. Some remarks of Fanny’s make this point clear: Dudu, a member of Kibbutz Maagan Michael, worked as a coordinator of kibbutz volunteers. Fanny explained that she “wanted to give the boys [the immigrants] a new push by offering them private lessons.” These lessons would be given by volunteers, and would prepare the immigrants for matriculation. When Dudu asked Fanny why the women weren’t involved in the project, she didn’t seem to understand. When Dudu asked again, she answered without referring to the women. She explained: “The Ethiopian immigrants were going through a severe crisis in which their social patterns and customs were being broken. It was therefore necessary to preserve at least one link with their reality. They were going through a cultural crisis that was so strong that somebody had to pay for it.” [Here she waved a clenched fist toward the ceiling.] “These women,” she continued, “must be strengthened as mothers and wives. They know nothing about cleaning, or what it is to cook or look after their children. Nor do they know what a family is. All they know about is the extended family.” Dudu’s question to Fanny, which pointed to prejudice and discrimination against women regarding education opportunities, surprised her. 162

05-Ch5

1/21/09

2:43 PM

Page 163

Categorizing Women

She was puzzled by it, seeing, as she did, her approach as the one best designed to help the immigrants. Fanny seemed to expect Dudu’s approval and admiration for her innovative plans concerning the immigrants. To her, the fact that women were solely mothers and housewives was self-evident. This explained why she asked Dudu what he meant. In her reply Fanny didn’t deny Dudu’s hinted allegations. Her explanation associated the bureaucratic practices with the immigrants’ problems. Fanny used the Ethiopian immigrants’ “culture shock” and the women’s lack of domestic and child-rearing skills to justify her categorized treatment of the sexes. She spoke about the immigrants’ transition to Israel, and the resultant loss of social and cultural patterns. She wanted to integrate the men into modern Israeli life – so different in her eyes to that of Ethiopia – by giving them a leg up. As for the women, who needed to serve as a connecting link for the family, they had to be prevented from changing or adjusting to the new environment. Fanny was saying that in order to allow the cultural transition and the immigrants’ vital social integration, the women had to continue being responsible for domestic affairs and childrearing. The “cultural crisis” that the immigrants were going through justified for her the collective advancement of the men alone. Fanny viewed the women as failures even in domestic tasks, as housewives and mothers. This failure called for guidance and justified the officials’ discrimination. In conclusion, it has been shown how many officials from different organizations intervened in the lives of immigrant women and their families at the center. This intervention, into areas of life perceived as specifically pertaining to women, occurred against a background of weakness among the women, and their expectation that the resources needed could be received only via the officials. The service most offered to them was mediation, in which the official assumed responsibility for their private needs. At the absorption center, the “family” basically appeared as an administrative unit in the running of the place. It was part of the bureaucratic setup in which people were treated as members of collectives, according to patterns and perceptions adjusted to bureaucratic needs and derived from the prevailing social order outside the center. The immigrant women’s dependence on the officials and on their husbands thus grew out of the bureaucratic context and the gendered power structure that prevails in Israeli society at large.

163

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 164

T HE R OLE OF C ULTURAL E XPL ANATIONS IN G ENDER -B ASED R EL ATIONS 6.



T

his chapter discusses images and concepts of “family” and how they can change, depending on the power relationships in the environment. Here it is suggested that the bureaucratic perspective adopted at the center cannot be justified with cultural explanations for an understanding of the power relationships that developed.

The Bureaucratic Use of “Tradition” in Maintaining a Gender-Based Division of Roles at the Absorption Center The gender-based distinctions upheld at the center were often connected to past influences – especially the culture and patterns of life of Ethiopia. Officials and immigrants alike frequently referred to the dichotomous distinctions between men’s and women’s roles. The division between the sexes was “justified” in terms of the immigrants’ cultural past. Officials often referred to the inferiority of the women immigrants as based on the socio-cultural system of their country of origin. Although this dichotomous division of labor existed in people’s perception at the center, this is no proof that it actually existed in real Ethiopian life. Nor can the women’s complete inferiority in Ethiopia be inferred decisively; the reality of the past that emerged from immigrants’ descriptions was complex. The immigrants did make it clear many times, however, that the woman’s place of work was “inside,” while that 164

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 165

The Role of Cultural Explanations in Gender-Based Relations

of the man was outside. The men worked in agriculture, and the women did housework. Liora was an immigrant of about nineteen-years old; she was married, the mother of a one-year old child, living in a caravan near mine. She often visited me – in the morning, when her daughter Michal was in kindergarten, and in the afternoon together with her daughter. My son Dan and I would also visit Liora and her daughter. Naftali, Liora’s husband, worked as an instructor at the Pardes Chana absorption center, where he would sometimes stay overnight. Liora was fascinating to talk to; she spoke fluently in spite of a limited vocabulary in Hebrew, and had much to say about her life in Ethiopia. From one of our discussions I learnt that the women in the family, the mothers and daughters, made cream and cheese. Liora told me with delight and longing of how her father would make honey of a kind she had never tasted in Israel. Her brothers worked in the meadows with her father, who had fourteen cows. Ora lived with her husband and five children in a caravan next to the one I lived in when I began my field work. Ora too, in speaking of her life in Ethiopia, revealed a clear distinction regarding women’s roles and labor. She spoke of man’s work as “outside” the home and a woman’s work as basically “at home.” The men worked in agriculture and the women brought up the children. Ora told me: “In Ethiopia, many children; in Israel not so many. In Ethiopia there was cattle. Man works outside; woman at home, many children.” Her reference to the number of children was the distinguishing feature between Ethiopia and Israel. A clear distinction between women and men in Ethiopia was also described by Tzahiyah and Adiso. They had three children: Aviva, the eldest, was married at sixteen to Shalom, a young immigrant of twentyfour. They lived in one of the caravans at the center. I talked to them while doing one of the tasks given to me by Arie, the cultural coordinator. I was asked to speak to the couple about their child, Yfat, and her studies at school. Adiso, the father, said that he had worked with an iron plough, adding proudly that it was “a plough only Jews could make.” He added that in Ethiopia he also engaged in sewing clothes, and pointed to his wife’s embroidered cloak as an example of his work. Adiso said that it was only the agricultural work that was done outside; other kinds of work, such as sewing, were done inside. I asked if it was only the men who worked in agriculture and sewing: he said yes and added that the girls worked in the house, cleaning, cooking, and washing. 165

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 166

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

I asked Tzahiyah, Adiso’s wife, where women found life more difficult, in Israel or Ethiopia. She said it was easier for women in Israel. In Ambover, a village in the Gondar area where the couple had once lived, there was water only outside the house, and the women had to use a bucket to carry it in. Cooking was done by burning wood – there was no gas or electricity. It was difficult to wash clothes, as Tsahiyah said: “it had to be done in the river; in Israel there are washing machines.” The couple seemed to perceive life in Ethiopia as divided between men’s and women’s spheres of activity. Agriculture and sewing were men’s work; housework, cleaning, cooking, and washing were the sole responsibility of women. In Israel it was easy though compared to life in Ethiopia. This dichotomous perception of the reality of the past also manifested itself in relation to the differences between Jew and Gentile. The plough, according to Adiso, could only have been made by a Jew. Thus the past was described in terms of categories. These sharp distinctions lost something of their decisiveness and general application when the discussion was widened to include details of lifestyles in Ethiopia. Some issues that arose during meetings with Shai and Ziva seemed to indicate that the realities of life back in Ethiopia were perceived differently by different people. The apparently factual descriptions of life that were given sounded rather ambiguous, and this was perhaps more important than any clear-cut description of the past. Rather than necessarily reflecting any historical reality, the manner in which the Ethiopian reality was presented seemed to depend on who was describing it and on a specific interaction. Ziva once told me that her friends pitied me because I had no daughter. I said in my defense that my sons sometimes helped me. At this, Ziva declared: “Sons are not like daughters; sons help their fathers and not you.” Shai, who was listening to this (humorous) exchange, said: “If the mother loves her son he will want to help her and work in the house. He will not want to help his father, he will want to help his mother.” Ziva did not agree entirely: “The son does not cook,” she said. But Shai insisted: “A girl who loves her father also may work with her father.” At this point I intervened: “But Ziva said that a son does not cook.” Shai disagreed and gave an example to strengthen his argument: “When the mother gives birth, we do the cooking.” Ziva teased him, “and it’s not very good cooking.” Shai persisted: “It is good.” 166

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 167

The Role of Cultural Explanations in Gender-Based Relations

I asked if the men perhaps didn’t like to cook and Shai answered: “In Ethiopia, the men cook when there is a celebration of some kind – a wedding for instance. Then women do not cook.” He explained that cooking in Israel was easy because there was a stove and electricity, whereas in Ethiopia they cooked over coal. Again Ziva had her own ideas: “Here we have to work hard. A woman goes to work and comes home, makes food, and cleans. A woman works all the time.” I asked what it was like in Ethiopia: “It is not the same. If a woman doesn’t want to work, she rests and does not work.” On another occasion, Ziva told me that the rabbi in her village had taught her Hebrew. This was possible, she explained, because her father was rich and so she didn’t have to work at home. There were Christian servants in her house. Shai knew how to cook, and even enjoyed it. When he visited me with his family, he wanted to know how the cake offered to him was made, so I gave him the recipe and asked: “Can you make a cake?” He said he could and added that he was also able to cook. He said he loved fish and knew how to prepare it. Shai was not only familiar with culinary matters: he cleaned the caravan, looked after his son Eitan, took him for walks, and changed diapers. He also got up in the night when his son cried. I once asked Ziva if Eitan slept through the night. “Eitan sleeps one hour and that’s it. He wants to play and does this.” She demonstrated the way her son shook his bed. I asked her how she managed to sleep in these circumstances: “Me? What do I care? Shai looks after Eitan and plays with him. I can’t do anything in the night. I have a headache at night and I sleep. Shai tells Eitan: ‘Eitan, go to sleep.’ But Eitan only wants to play.” Thus, we see, there is no reason to assume a specific dichotomy of gender-based roles among the immigrants, either in Ethiopia or in Israel. There is no definitive division between woman’s work “inside” and man’s work “outside.” The Ethiopian immigrants seemed to perceive the reality of the past, regarding these issues, in different ways. Ziva’s feeling sorry for me because I had only sons reflected the way she perceived the past in Ethiopia, as one of separated areas of gender-based responsibility: girls helped their mothers at home while boys helped their fathers in the field. Ziva might also have perceived the reality of Israeli life as determining distinct roles for the respective genders. However, the way the couple led their lives in Israel didn’t accord with such perceptions. Conceptions of the relative difficulty of women’s lives in Ethiopia and in Israel also varied. Ziva, unlike Tzahiya and Liora, believed that 167

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 168

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Israeli women were obliged to work harder because of the “double role” of working “outside” and “inside” their homes. Her contradictory views may be explained by the fact that she was only fifteen and still unmarried when she left Ethiopia for Israel. Another explanation might be that her mother didn’t have to work: the family was well-to-do and there were servants. Whatever the case, the conception of inclusive categorical gender-based roles does not accord with the complex reality the above examples suggest. What Liora, Ora, Adiso, Tzhayah, and Ziva had to say showed their perception of distinct gender-based roles and distinct spheres and places of activity. While this distinction seemed to exist in people’s consciousness, in reality the demarcation lines were blurred and ambiguous. In Ethiopia there were no decisive gender-based differences between “inside” home and “outside” home activities. Aviva’s father, for example, did various crafts at home, in particular sewing. Gender-based role differences could change from place to place. Adiso’s father sewed for a living and this was, perhaps, a common occupation among Ethiopian men. In Israel it would be chiefly regarded as a woman’s job. Thus if participation in the activities of the absorption center had been based on traditional Ethiopian role division, the sewing class would have been offered to men rather than to women alone, as was the case. The actual division made surely had more to do with the realities of Israeli life than with the way things had been in Ethiopia. From my discussion with Ziva and Shai, I concluded that the men did housework too – at least in certain circumstances. Shai claimed that the men cooked when the women were obliged to leave the house during their monthly periods, when a baby was born, or when there were weddings and other celebrations. Ziva commented mockingly about the value of the work men did in the house, but she didn’t deny that they did do this kind of work. The fact that Shai cooked, cleaned, and looked after his child in Israel suggested that at least in this case there were no fundamental divisions of gender-based duties among the Ethiopian immigrants. Officials often evoked images of the “traditional Ethiopian family” and tried to attribute them to the immigrants’ patterns of social organization in Ethiopia. According to these perceptions, the women were considered inferior to men. But such generalized and collective assumptions about the status of women in Ethiopia could often be seen as without foundation. The following discussion with Ziva contradicted the perceived uniformity of options open to women as housewives and mothers. 168

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 169

The Role of Cultural Explanations in Gender-Based Relations

I once told Ziva I would have to go home to see what was going on there. She said: “It doesn’t matter. You don’t have to worry. Better not to worry. They are big children. They do things alone. If you worry, they want you at home … I do not worry. My mother says this was so.” I was surprised that her mother had said anything of the kind and asked Ziva about it. She answered: “My mother never goes out. Whoever looks for her, she says that she is in the house. A long time she does not see her mother and father. She says that she wants to see them. She goes to them and they say: ‘You are a bad daughter. We could die and you wouldn’t come to see us.’ They would not let her go and she sleeps there. She goes to her brother, her sister and another sister, to many brothers and an uncle. It is night, and they tell her that she cannot go in the night and she stays. Her body was there and her heart was with us.” I asked her whether her father had agreed to such a long stay away from them. “Of course he agreed. He agreed to everything she said. My father was also with her parents: he did not have a mother and father. My mother’s parents brought him up and then gave him their daughter as a wife. He loves them very much.” I then asked her how long her mother had stayed away. “For a long time, maybe half a year, maybe a year.” “And didn’t your father care? Did he agree?” “Yes, he agreed.” “And who cooked?” “There was a girl. There was a lot of cattle. There was a lot of money.” Ziva’s account suggests a dynamic pattern of family relations. Her mother was able to absolve herself of family obligations, especially to the children. When she demonstrated this independent spirit, she revealed the belief that her place in the family was assured even if she acted on her own initiative and in conflict with her obligations as “a woman.” Ziva seemed to believe that the status of women in the family was influenced by a given situation within it. According to this perception, the woman did have a responsibility to house and home, but it could change from case to case. In Ziva’s mother’s case, she possessed valuable resources such as her family’s property. It was Ziva’s family that raised her husband. There is no doubt that as far as Ziva was concerned, these resources significantly widened the options open to a woman, offering her greater independence in relation to her husband and her family. Thus it seems that if there is a substitute for the woman’s work in the house and the means to obtain it existed, the woman’s relative independence grew. Moreover, the possibility of leaving the house and releasing 169

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 170

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

herself from obligation was regarded as legitimate by the social environment, both immediate and extended. The wife’s family seemingly could offer her an outlet or protection. This support mechanism for women seemed to allow for a measure of nonconformist behavior within the social order that preferred the man. If this was indeed so, the woman had a solid, convenient alternative to life with husband and children which lessened her dependence on her husband as provider and strengthened her position in daily interaction. Conversely, the dependence of the husband on the wife grew when such economic backing existed. In the literature on Ethiopian Jews past and present, similar perceptions emerge in everything relating to the family and interrelations among its members. These writings are often concerned with aspects of the traditional family, the male and female role division and the religious character of Ethiopian Jewry. Here too we find contradictions among researchers and contradictory descriptions of the reality of life in Ethiopia. Things are far from obvious, as “cultural explanations” often emerge as generalizations. Evidence suggests that a variety of situations and social relationships have coexisted among Jews in Ethiopia, whereas many researchers still cling to the notion of gender dichotomy. The connotation of “primitive,” made implicitly and explicitly, emerges in numerous writings on social and family patterns among Ethiopian Jews. The approach here presupposes a dichotomy of roles and labor between Ethiopian men and women, and explains the nature of relationships within the family framework as characterized by the domination of the male and the inferiority of the female. The “family” is described as a closed social structure, static, conservative, and hierarchical. The “traditional Ethiopian family” is initially treated as basically different from the “modern” family, which is seen as open, egalitarian, and dynamic. Ethiopia’s past is sharply contrasted with the present in Israel. Israeli culture is identified with “modern culture” and described as basically different from “traditional Ethiopian culture.” These expressions emphasize the considerable stigma attached to the past of Ethiopian Jews and its influence on their present life in Israel. The differences are often underlined, using such terms as “culture gap” or “culture shock.” Kahana (1977) for instance, says: “The Falasha tribe is without a doubt a poor example of a primordial ancient Jewish society, closed in on itself and never coming into contact with developed cultures: for this reason it has remained stunted in its development” (9). Rapaport speaks of these Jews as “a tribe” and of the “cultural shock” experienced on arrival in Israel. Thus pejorative associations of primitive 170

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 171

The Role of Cultural Explanations in Gender-Based Relations

and backwardness are revealed in claiming the existence of a cultural gap between the Ethiopian past and the Israeli present of these people: Their cultural shock is very great because many of them have never moved from the villages in the hills of Ethiopia and could not have imagined what kind of magic awaited them in Israel: exotic cooking devices which in some mysterious way pipe gas; hot and cold water from a tap in the house; floors to walk on, and windows in the walls – all these were exceptional things for peasants who lived in mud huts with only a single door to let in light and air. To tear these people away from their roots is a very complicated business; these were peasants cut off from a feudal society in Ethiopia and brought to a modern, industrial society (1983: 227-28).

Similar ideas are expressed in the many Israeli works by scholars and others that have proliferated since Operation Moshe. Donio, for example, writes: “We tend to talk of the Falashas as a group, possessed of the characteristics of a traditional society which migrates to a modern one” (1983: 5). Schneller sees an extreme vital difference between “an ancient, steady and quite isolated culture” of the kind from which the Ethiopian Jews came, and the Israeli society” (1985: 35). He speaks of the need for intercultural communication. Rosen discusses the Ethiopian “cultural world,” and “cultural identity” and recovery from “culture shock” (1985: 55, 60). Weil (1985) sees a distinct difference between the “tradition of the country of origin (Ethiopia)” and “its conservative lifestyles” on the one hand, and the “Israeli way of life” on the other. The term “culture in transition” is used by these scholars to describe the distance that divides and distinguishes between the Ethiopian Jews as a category and people in Israel. Dolev-Gendelman, for example, associates this term with the distinctions concerning the “economic alignment,” “the birth rate,” “the perception of the individual,” “the significance of the atomic family,” and “the cultural models and social norms” (1989: 113, 121). Many writings on the subject of the “Eastern immigration” in the fifties similarly reflect this conception of a cultural-social-category gap between “absorbers” and “absorbed.” Among these are the works of Frankenstein, Eisenstadt, Shuval, Bar Yosef, Patai, Shokeid, and Deshen. Some of these commentators, implicitly or explicitly, associate primitiveness with the Jewish immigrants from Eastern countries. Halper (1985) has already pointed to the similarity between these perceptions about the Ethiopians in the 1980s and those of the immigrants from Islamic countries in the 1950s; both are described in terms of a cultural and social gap. 171

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 172

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The connection between cultural gap, family structure, and power relationships finds expression in the 1980 work of Shokeid on the Jewish immigrants from Morocco, which assumes the inferior position of the Moroccan women. Shokeid thus delineates the differences between the traditional society in the country of origin and the modern society in Israel: “One of the significant signs of the traditional society is the separation of the sexes, from an early age, and in most areas of life. Concomitantly with this is, usually, the relative superior status of the male. The immigrants to Israel from traditional communities in the Mediterranean found themselves in conflict: the new social, economic and cultural conditions eroded the traditional segregation, and with it the superior status of the male” (141). Similar traits are ascribed to the Ethiopian family by Ben-Ezer, for example who characterizes it as “a traditional patriarchal family … a big family … with a clear role division between the sexes … the husband and father is responsible for economic matters, employment, education, and religious issues. He represents the atomic family in its negotiations with the extended family or the community at large. Much honor is also given to the wife and the mother, who is responsible for the care of the children, their education in the home and for the various home crafts. It is clear that the obligations and privileges of the children are determined by their gender but principally by their chronological place in the family” (1985: 21). Elsewhere, Ben-Ezer describes the inferiority of the women in Ethiopian society in contrast to that of Israel, where women often hold positions of power over men. Weil writes of the extreme critical gap between the status of women in the Ethiopian family and the independence of the woman in the Israeli family. Schoenberger and Kahana refer to a clear gender division in roles and labor. They emphasize the status of women in the Falasha family as inferior to that of men, who dominate it. Schoenberger (1975) notes that: “The status of the sexes in Falashan society is of the male as superior, and the female, inferior … all she is required to do is to fulfill her obligations either to her father, or to her husband … Women are possessions like donkeys, they are there to serve their masters, and they are considered to be stupid, and are the ‘carriers’ for the men” (86). Kahana also takes a similarly extreme position in relation to the inferior status of the woman in the family and her exploitation at the hands of the male. Kahana has determined that: 172

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 173

The Role of Cultural Explanations in Gender-Based Relations

The manifestations of male preference find expression in terms that are sharp and simple. This patriarchal society focuses on the male, is ordered for his convenience and prepares him for the throne of power. Therefore, when he marries a virgin, that no man has touched, he wants to be her only master in all that is concerned with her. The test of her virginity, which takes place quite publicly, is no more than an act of conquest of the woman by the man. With this act, he announces that she has submitted to his power, is his property and is dependent on his grace … furthermore, the male demands complete loyalty and obedience, something like the relationship of master and slave … in this way he turns her into a baby-producing machine and a means for satisfying his passions …. (128)

In all this the central point is that the Ethiopian family is seen as an autonomous and closed unit. The structure of the family is said to ensure the superiority and independence of the male in all matters outside the home, and the inferiority and subjection of his wife and her restriction to the area of the house. However, this “traditional” image of the Ethiopian family is colored by different shades of meaning and significance. Kahana, for example, gives a different description of the Falasha family, at one point admitting that “In very exceptional circumstances, the man may demonstrate concern for the happiness of his wife. In one of the villages of Samyen, I stayed overnight in the tukol of a couple … they had a baby and it was clear that the woman was again pregnant. I was surprised to see the young husband carry the pitcher of water on his shoulders from a river that was a kilometer away from their hut. Afterwards, he sat near the fire and pummeled buna, an Ethiopian drink, while chatting to his wife with a warm smile” (129). Kahana prefers to see examples, such as this, which contradict her dichotomous-categoric-hierarchical approach, as exceptions to the rule or as constituents of a separate category. She admits that “In spite of the inferiority of the Falasha woman, which is to be found everywhere, there are certain exceptions …” Kahana is aware that it is impossible to speak about a “master-servant” dichotomous relationship and admits that “alongside this inferiority of status of the woman, there are also advantages to be found.” The man, for instance, does not marry two wives and an added economic surety for the woman lies in equal division of the father’s inheritance between his son and the daughter (129). The description of the family by Aescoly again demonstrates that the overall inferiority of the woman in Ethiopian society is not the rule. He too writes that “all the children are equal in terms of the father’s inheritance: both female and male, the son of the married wife, as well as the 173

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 174

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

mistress ….” Furthermore, “the man and the woman are equal before the law, in all connected with their life together” (1943: 19-20). The perception of a traditional gender-based division of labor between male and female is eroded in the description Kahana offers of the woman engaged in the making of terra cotta dolls and their sale to tourists (35-40). We see that the women work outside their house and have contacts with people beyond the framework of the family and the village. These facts are substantiated by other studies as well. Faitlovitch writes of the Falasha women who work as potters (1954: 61). Weil also describes women’s work in pottery and basket-weaving (1985: 13). Waldman claims that basket-weaving is done by men and speaks of the cooperation within the family system, noting that “All the members of the household help both in the work of the house and the work of the field” (1985: 22). Thus we see that since the 1950s, many researchers of “immigrant absorption” use an approach that is categoric and dichotomous in explaining the integration processes of immigrants in Israel. Assessing the immigrants’ present in terms of their perceived past raises questions of reliability as to the conclusions reached about historical material. Douglas has claimed that: “We can never know ‘how it really was’ in another historical period, because we can never know what the precise context of everyday life was like” (1971: 10). Conclusions on the dichotomous significance embedded in the “cultural explanation” stumble when they encounter complex situations. This generalizing kind of analysis simply ignores the complexity, or presents such events as the exceptions to the rule. In conclusion, there is no place for talk of inclusive separation in gender roles, or of any dichotomous gender power relations among the Ethiopian immigrants. On the contrary, the stereotyped conception of the “traditional family” in Ethiopia does not jibe with the wide range of opinions and witnesses available on the subject. Moreover, it ignores the role of state agencies and bureaucratic control in the emergence of gender-based power relations.

The Influence of Popular Conceptions on the Status of Women in the Family The prevailing conceptions regarding the status of woman at the center and outside it were that she was responsible for the children while the 174

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 175

The Role of Cultural Explanations in Gender-Based Relations

man was responsible for supporting the family. Such ideas entail a dichotomous distinction between the functions of the male and the female, and view the woman as dependent on the man. In practice this perception influences the development of dependence relationships. My talks with Ziva made the dynamic processes described above very real. On one of her visits to my caravan, Ziva told me she was looking for Avner, the social worker, because she wanted to join a group of women who were studying at the local high school. Avner had sent Dorit to study there and she went there each day with four other women. Ziva explained her intention of asking Avner to get the kindergarten to extend the hours it was open. She could then leave her son Eitan there while she went off to study. Ziva told me jokingly about an argument between Dorit and her husband Adam. She explained in broken Hebrew that there was a “rubup” between them. Adam said to Dorit: “You are not going to study. I also leave for work at seven in the morning, and you go out at seven forty-five. I come back at four, and you return at three. Who will look after the baby? I don’t agree.” Ziva summed up the subject with a playful laugh. “I laugh because they have a ‘rub-up.’” I suggested that she was laughing because Dorit’s problem wasn’t hers. Ziva claimed that she had no explanation for her laugh. She told me that on the previous day a young relation of Dorit’s had babysat for Dorit’s son: “But she is a child and doesn’t know enough. She only knows how to do this [Ziva demonstrated the way she shook the pram] and the child cries all the time and afterwards his bottom is not well. Today there was nobody to fetch the child from the kindergarten. Orit came at three o’clock.” I asked Ziva why she didn’t look after Dorit’s baby herself and get some money for the job. Ziva answered that she herself wanted to study during the remaining three-and-a-half months of her pregnancy. I suggested that she speak to the mother of Yael, who was a friend of Dorit and Ziva. This woman looked after her grandchildren while Yael worked in the factory. I asked why Yael’s mother couldn’t be asked to look after a few babies and earn some money doing it. Ziva told me that Yael’s mother was very busy: she had to cook for her whole household (she also had three children of her own) as well as look after Yael’s baby. Yael’s mother couldn’t accept any more responsibility. Ziva added: “Whoever has no children works, and whoever has a mother here gives her the child and also works. We can’t work. We sit at home all day. It’s hard.” Ziva would have liked her mother-in-law, who lived at the Givat Olga absorption center with her husband and six children, to look after her son, 175

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 176

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Eitan. But she explained that her mother-in-law had only just arrived in Israel and so she couldn’t ask her to take the child. Sadly, she added that her mother had always taken all the children. In the middle of this conversation Arie, the cultural coordinator, appeared at the caravan. Ziva asked him if Avner had arrived, and Arie told her that he had seen him in the office. Ziva complained about Avner: “He always says ‘perhaps’ to everything.” She then turned to Arie: “I want to speak to you. I want to go to school too.” Arie answered: “Why don’t you come to the workshop in the afternoons? Instead of coming at four, you arrive at five-thirty. And why aren’t you doing anything with yourself?” Ziva replied: “I can’t come. I have to give Eitan his food. He cries and Shai gets angry because I don’t feed Eitan, then you are angry because I don’t come [to the workshop]. Everybody is angry with me.” Ziva laughed as she spoke. Several times she repeated her request that the kindergarten opening hours be extended. Arie turned to me and said: “I need to talk to Fanny about this; it can be arranged with her.” It was clear that having children was perceived by everyone – especially the mothers – as determining labor and responsibility distinctions between men and women. The man went out to work and the woman stayed at home. But the women wanted to change this situation. They searched for a substitute to look after the children – the kindergarten or a babysitter. They also wanted to study and attain independence, choice and freedom of action – even if partial. At the same time, these women didn’t deny the notion that they were basically responsible for the children. Thus we see that the social environment as a whole took it for granted that the women were expected to be responsible for the children and that it was therefore their duty to stay home to look after them. The men were responsible for supporting the family by going outside to work. Adam criticized Dorit for neglecting their baby and going out to work and study. He didn’t, even for a moment, consider that he might share the responsibility for looking after his child. He had no doubt that he was responsible for supporting his family. To do so he had to leave the house early and work outside until late in the afternoon. He was, however, adamant about Dorit’s responsibility to care for their child. Ziva too criticized Dorit as a mother who didn’t look after her baby properly, leaving him in the care of an irresponsible child, and in general doing whatever she liked. Her criticism of Dorit was quite sharp. Ziva too tried to change her situation and overcome the limitations imposed upon her by the need to look after her child. But the fact that 176

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 177

The Role of Cultural Explanations in Gender-Based Relations

she couldn’t go out and study until she found a substitute care for her child was a given to her. She didn’t even consider the idea that Shai might take on all or part of the responsibility for his son. She did see Shai’s mother as a possible solution. But a hint of criticism about her mother-in-law was evident, when she recalled her own mother’s readiness to babysit. When Ziva complained that women sit at home all day and that this is very hard for them, her criticism wasn’t directed against the men who could go out to work and didn’t have to look after their children. It was directed at the situation in general and to other women in particular who could help but weren’t there to do so, or toward her mother-in-law who was busy bringing up her own children and herself adjusting to a new reality. Arie chided Ziva for not attending the workshop he had organized for the women. She apologized by using a persuasive argument – the need to look after her son Eitan. Both the chiding and the apology underlined the connection between the immigrants’ dependence on the officials’ actions and the women’s responsibility – seen as self-evident – for the children. Arie had a personal interest in ensuring that the courses he organized at the center were well-attended. He didn’t want the women to go out to work or to study since this would reduce the number of participants in his courses. In my words to Ziva, I also associated responsibility for child care with the women. In my questions and suggestions, I mentioned Yael and Ziva’s mother as women who could substitute for Dorit. I thus fitted well into the social environment of the center, where it was taken for granted that child care was a female responsibility – girl, mother, grandmother, nursery teacher or woman friend. In one of our conversations, Ziva joked that she could “estrange” herself from her one-and-a-half-year-old Eitan, but couldn’t do that to Mordechai, her six-month-old. She said that Eitan could already manage on his own: he already did what he wanted, went to the neighbors alone, took food and whatever he needed. She spoke lightheartedly, laughing as she described her “apathy” in these matters: “I don’t care, he can go to whoever will take him, I’ll give him to whoever wants him. But you can’t give a baby away.” Ziva then talked about her problems with Eitan and about how much of her time he took up: “He goes here and he goes there, and I have to go after him to see what he’s up to.” The ambiguity evident in this account showed up the degree of responsibility the women felt and the limitations 177

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 178

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

that were imposed on their lives. What Ziva was expressing was an urgent need for freedom from this responsibility and its limitations. This same conversation revealed a conflict between these limitations, which Ziva’s sense of responsibility imposed on her life, and her ambitions for significant personal advancement, which ignored these constraints. “Don’t the Ethiopians here want to reject you for talking like you do?” She answered with self-satisfaction that they didn’t. I told her that she ought to become a somechet herself, to which she replied: “I don’t want to do dirty work. I want to be in government.” I asked her if she would like to be like Golda Meir, the prime minister, and she answered that she would. I then said “But if you go on having children all the time, you won’t be able to be the prime minister. You’ll be busy all the time with washing and cleaning house.” I was expressing my clear and explicit perception of women’s function as responsible for nurturing children, and the concomitant limitation of their activities to the home. I was also giving expression to the difference I perceived between the Ethiopian immigrants’ norms and those of veteran Israelis. In her responses, however, Ziva dismissed the position I adopted, and rejected my generalization, leading me to conclude that what she said and did lay outside the norms of behavior among the Ethiopian immigrants. I insisted on the contradiction between “outside work” and the work the women did in the house with their children and the restrictions such work necessarily imposed. Ziva, however, saw this social pattern as a dynamic one. She didn’t see these restrictions as absolute: the possibilities open to women were in fact many. I connected her limitations with the women’s responsibility for the children; Ziva saw no reason why she shouldn’t be prime minister. I proposed she “upgrade” her career by becoming a somechet, a typical female role; she saw her future advancement as having no limitation whatsoever. She would be a latter-day Golda Meir. Yet in spite of this we both basically agreed on the issue of role division and the woman’s responsibility that derived from this. Ziva talked about her attempt to shake off responsibility for Eitan, but not for the baby. Her expression of longing for freedom and release from the limiting responsibility of caring for Eitan concluded with an announcement that this wouldn’t work in reality: she was bound to run after her child constantly. Whether she wished to or not, she found that she was tied to her child and to the responsibility for his safety. Thus we see that the gender-based role and labor distinctions people made projected a consensus of the familiar and widespread norm acceptable in Israel. 178

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 179

The Role of Cultural Explanations in Gender-Based Relations

This perceived tie of exclusive responsibility of the woman for her children serves to influence the position of the woman in Israel and probably in Ethiopia as well. The self-evident perceived link between the woman and the child influences her chances to provide for her livelihood. She becomes dependent on her partner, who is obliged – and free – to work. She can only release herself by finding alternative child-care services. This perception of life in which the woman is inextricably linked to the child was reinforced in Israel, where officials see the woman as dependent on her partner for financial support. The axiomatic association between the Ethiopian immigrant woman and her child provided the officials with an explanation for her limitations, as well as a justification for the way they treated her. She wasn’t regarded as a person in her own right, but as someone who accompanied her husband and was inextricably tied to her children. This perceived tie then served to strengthen her dependency both on her male partner as breadwinner, and on the services offered by officialdom. The women wished to study and work to achieve more independence and sought to reduce their responsibility for childcare through assistance from other women or longer kindergarten hours. The officials who dominated the resources earmarked for the benefit of the immigrants offered vocational training to the males only; and sewing and cooking to the women. The officials controlled the kindergarten too, and were thus able – if they wanted – to adjust to the women’s needs. In short, the officials were in a position to influence gender roles and labor distinctions.

How Officials Alter and Adapt Conceptions According to Their Needs The officials’ preconceived ideas could change according to their subjective needs or to changes in the social environment. The categorized concepts employed by the officials were suited to the different pressures but more especially to the aim of obtaining resources. Their attitudes to women’s work and studying emerged as part of the power-dependence dynamic at the center and its surroundings. Following are some examples that strengthen this conclusion. The care of children in the pre-kindergarten age group is an example of a service the center’s staff offered the immigrants. This service was designed to free the women so they could participate in the Hebrew 179

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 180

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

lessons that were arranged for them during certain hours of the day. The hours of the classes and those during which the kindergarten was open were similar. Both finished at eleven A.M. (instead of the usual noon) on Fridays. On Tuesdays, the children were sent home from the kindergarten at eleven because Hebrew classes finished then to give the teachers time to hold a staff meeting. It appears, therefore, that kindergarten hours were arranged to ensure adequate attendance at the Hebrew classes. These kindergarten arrangements pointed out the contradiction the Jewish Agency officials found themselves facing. On the one hand they offered Hebrew studies to both the women and the men, and, as such, recognized the women as individuals with their own rights. Yet on the other hand they kept the kindergarten open during morning hours only, dismissing the women’s request for longer hours so they could go out to work. The classes and the kindergarten were supposedly aids to enrich the lives of the women and their children, but it was clear that the time frames of both were arranged to benefit the staff rather than the immigrants. The women’s need to go out to work was ignored; the reason given was their obligation toward their children. At a staff meeting which debated these issues, Avner said: “The question of the women going out to work isn’t a simple one; there is the problem of the children.” When Ziva approached Avner and Efraim, the director, for help in finding work, they told her that she couldn’t go out to work because she had a baby and was pregnant again. The different way women were treated was thus supported by the concept of their unquestioned responsibility for their children. Thus the officials were able to influence women’s opportunities to go out to work or to study by dint of offering or withholding the resources at their command. Occasionally gender-based distinctions could be waived when it suited the officials’ own needs. The request by a factory producing surgical gloves in Herzliya to employ extra women from the center will serve as an example. This request was made a short while before Efraim, the director, left Galuyot to serve as director of the center in Pardes Chana. He was very interested in the factory’s offer and put forward a strongly worded proposal that the kindergarten hours be extended. It read: “The manager of Tagum [factory] is very pleased with our people and has asked for extra workers – especially women. He says that if a decision is not made immediately he will look elsewhere.” Efraim spoke to Avner about sending women to the factory and added: “There is a problem with the children, who need looking after while their mothers are at work. It will have to be solved by my succes180

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 181

The Role of Cultural Explanations in Gender-Based Relations

sor. There shouldn’t be any problem in using some of our buildings – if the caravans aren’t big enough – and women immigrants can look after the children. But it has to be done quickly, otherwise Tagum will go elsewhere.” Efraim asked Avner to raise the matter with Fanny, who was to be the new director. Efraim had an interest in the women going out to work; he repeated his idea several times, and suggested ways things could be arranged. He seemed to have changed his earlier, less positive, views about women working as a result of the compliment the center’s workers received from the manager of Tagum and his threat to look elsewhere for workers. Efraim’s attitude may also have been influenced by the fact that he was about to leave Galuyot. In this respect, his views on the subject of women working might well have been more of a general declaration of intent rather than any practical plan of action. In the end the kindergarten’s hours weren’t extended – even though the women in charge of the kindergarten were also interested in the extra pay longer working hours could bring them. Those who ran the center seemed basically uninterested in having women work outside. That would weaken the power they exercised over the immigrants, interfere with work schedules, and generally disrupt the existing situation. More significant too than any other factor were the resources given to the kindergarten – sufficient to keep it open only during the mornings. This suggests that the allocation of resources were planned in such a way as to allow Hebrew studies for the women – but not to allow them both to study and go out to work. However, lack of funds wasn’t a sufficient reason to limit the kindergarten hours. During the hours the cooking and sewing classes were in progress the officials ensured that the children were cared for; the staff of the center and Jewish Agency officials were interested in women’s participation in those activities organized by the staff rather than in activities the women themselves wanted. We have seen how gender-based conceptions could be set aside according to changing conditions. The extent of changing attitudes seemed even clearer in case of the young women. Here, the link between competition for resources and state services and categorization on the basis of age and sex became apparent. We saw just how flexible these attitudes to categorization could be. As a result of my own initiative, four young women went to study at the religious high school in Or-Akiva. Their curriculum was comprised of Hebrew, arithmetic, and sewing. Tova, the center’s head of Hebrew 181

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 182

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Studies and Nina, the Hebrew teacher, asked me which girls were studying. When they learned what was going on their reaction was hostile. Nina referred to Simcha, one of the women studying, as someone quite incapable of learning anything. She said that when Simcha was in her Hebrew class she would wander around and leave for the market to do her shopping. Tova mentioned Hila, another of the women, who was getting divorced and needed to go out to work to support herself and her mother. “And who will pay for all this?” she asked. Both uttered these responses repeatedly: “It’s not right. We should have been asked. We know about all of them.” I confessed my guilt for having taken the women to the school without consulting one of them. But Tova didn’t soften. She attacked me once again: “It’s wrong: they are already nineteen, so who will pay for them?” I said in my defense that I had understood they were not more than seventeen. Tova, very sure of herself, countered with: “You shouldn’t believe them; they keep changing their age.” I suggested that at the next staff meeting we ask Fanny to deal with the issue in principle. A short while later, I met Tova in Fanny’s office. Tova repeated the gist of our conversation, emphasizing the girls’ age and the question of payment. She stressed too that she had recommended only Zivit and Aviva as being suitable candidates for study. I asked Fanny to call Arie, as it was with him that I had arranged my taking the young women to school. I explained that Josh had brought Simcha and Hila to me, and that they had claimed they were, respectively, only fifteen and seventeen. Thus I hadn’t seen anything special in the case. Fanny said: “Their age must always be checked. This is a big problem because they do not always tell the truth.” Arie arrived and confirmed what I had said. Fanny decided that Josh would have to tell Simcha and Hila that they couldn’t go to school the next day; they would have to go out to work. Josh agreed without any argument. I asked him if he wanted me to speak to the girls but he said it would be all right. The next day I met Avner near the office. He was on his way to the staff room at the Hebrew teaching center and asked me to join him. There, Nina talked about the two young women who had been taken out of school. About Simcha she said: “She isn’t calm enough; she wouldn’t be able to sit and study for long.” About Hila, the other student who had been taken out of school, Nina said: “She is too big now. She has to go and be with her husband.” It was said that her mother was pushing her not to divorce and follow her husband. 182

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 183

The Role of Cultural Explanations in Gender-Based Relations

The discussion about Simha and Hila and their studies continued. Nina claimed there was a group of girls who wanted to study. My immediate reaction was that I didn’t want to be involved in the discussion because there had been no decision about who should deal with the subject, and how. Then Nina asked Avner why there was no vocational training for the immigrant women. He explained that there was no budget for such a thing. Nina pressed him, asking why. Avner had no explanation, only commenting: “But there are no girls to speak of – only two or three.” I objected: “This makes no sense. There should be an equal spread of men and women and many of the immigrant men had received vocational training.” I also asked Avner if any directives had been determined for the training of women and he said there hadn’t. He explained that this was just the way things had developed: the men had been directed to vocational training in Hadera, and later in Haifa, after completing their Hebrew studies. The women remained at the center after their Hebrew studies were over. Eventually Nina was asked to prepare a list of women with which we would approach the principal of the high school requesting that he set up a class of women immigrants. Later I met Josh and told him that I had heard that the women had gone back to school. Josh smiled and said: “Avner told me that as the girls had received no vocational training, they should at least be allowed these studies at the school. He said he would pay for it [out of his budget].” The staff wanted control of the services they offered, as well as of the immigrants who received these services. Tova and Nina were in fact talking about their management rights over an area into which I had trespassed. They and they alone, they considered, were responsible for the older immigrants’ studies. They saw my intervention as an assault on their territory. They said: “We must be consulted.” They desired general recognition that it was their decision who should and shouldn’t study. They determined the criteria of suitability, on the basis not only of academic evaluation, but also psychological suitability. On Simcha, the verdict was: “She isn’t calm enough.” The officials also made use of administrative difficulties like age and family status to underline their monopoly in determining suitability for study. Tova and Nina seemed to feel their authority had been questioned. This cast doubt on their position and strengthened my position as active in areas they perceived as solely theirs. They reacted vigorously to what they saw as a threat, even appealing to the director of the center. 183

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 184

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The entire situation turned me into an “intruder.” Tova appealed to Fanny as to a judge asked to intervene in a conflict and punish the guilty. Fanny did in fact listen to both sides, but accepted Tova’s version of the situation and determined that I had acted out of order. She chided me for believing the girls about their age. I for my part took on the role of accused: I gave an account of my actions, explained them, and apologized for what I had done by shifting responsibility onto Josh, who had introduced me to the young women, and onto the women who had perhaps lied about their age. I also appealed to Arie for help and to produce a witness who would testify that the matter had been coordinated with him. Fanny asked Josh to announce the verdict to the women: he was told to inform the two that they must not go back to school, but had to start working. The teachers’ control was rooted in their generalization about the women immigrants. They knew everything about “them” and decided what was good for all of them. The teachers’ control permeated into the women’s private lives, and went as far as reproaching them, as in Hila’s case. The officials’ attitude to the women’s studies could change depending on the situation and the officials own needs. They used and changed self-evident concepts, such as age distinctions and care for the immigrants, to hide their changing interests. In the above case the officials assumed that age carried a gender distinction. Eighteen was the age that differentiated between men and women. Up to that age the state had a similar responsibility toward both young men and women who were alike perceived as minors. What is implied here is that up to age eighteen the state paid for the immigrants’ studies, without regard to sex. From the question “Who will pay?” stemmed the officials’ supposition that after eighteen nobody would fund the girls’ studies – despite the fact that the young men received vocational training at state expense. If this was so, the state’s absorption policy and the resources allocated for the immigrants created a clear distinction, in the officials’ eyes, between men and women in everything connected with the right to study. It was age that provided a rationale for Tova and Nina in rejecting the idea of the women studying. They had simply passed the conventional age. This was the explanation offered when they tried to persuade Fanny that I had acted out of order. I too did not deny the age criterion in considering the eligibility of the girls for study. But in order to justify my argument, I claimed that the girls were of a suitable age for studying at 184

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 185

The Role of Cultural Explanations in Gender-Based Relations

school – at least according to their own statements about their age. The age criterion was so persuasive and unquestioned that Tova and Nina persisted in clinging to it even if it meant collectively accusing the immigrants of being dishonest. When Tova insisted on defending her control over matters of study and insisted that the two women in question be removed from school, the issue was, from her point of view, quite obvious: age determined eligibility. But when it became clear that there was no intention of eroding her control in this area, the age criterion lost its importance. Nina could then change her mind on the issue and even criticize the discrimination against women in obtaining vocational training. As soon as Tova and Nina felt in control again, the age criterion was replaced by an attitude of caring about the immigrants. To the age distinction between men and women, between those eligible for study at the state expense and those not eligible, was added the complexity of yet another distinguishing criterion. The family status of the immigrant women, as wives and mothers, seemed another criterion separating them from those eligible to study at state expense even before the age of eighteen. Avner, for example, didn’t think there were more than three or four young women in the center under eighteen. This was probably because he assumed that all the other women belonged to the category of married women and mothers. This meant that a married woman, with or without children and even if she was under eighteen, wasn’t entitled to study at state expense in the way other immigrants of this age could. Thus we saw that the staff used the criterion of age selectively and subjectively to categorize the sexes according to their own needs. The accusation of lying made against the immigrants by Tova and Fanny has been mentioned. By using this accusation the officials could adhere to their criterion of eligibility on the basis of age and thus justify the distinction made between young women who could study and older women who couldn’t. Finally, Avner discovered a method by which he could cover the costs of study for the women, in spite of the age problem. This was again an example of the manipulative use of age as a criterion. In addition, we found that Tova and Nina had included on their list some mothers who are eligible for study. Thus clearly it wasn’t only their criterion of age that had shifted and changed. The concept of the woman’s sole responsibility for the children and home had also changed according to the given situation. In place of such earlier suppositions, Tova and Nina suddenly expressed anxiety over discrimination against women in matters of education. 185

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 186

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

What emerged from the claims made by Fanny, Nina, and Tova was that as opposed to my “irresponsible” action in taking the women to the high school, they related to state directives and claimed their concern about the immigrants’ well-being. They presented my behavior as irresponsible because I committed myself to something that was not covered by the budget. It was suggested that my actions might prevent Hila from returning to her husband; her economic circumstances and those of her mother might be endangered since Hila couldn’t go out to work if she studied. Rather than worry about the immigrants, Tova and Nina stood up against a perceived threat to their control. Their asking me, during the conversation that took place in the classroom, to add married women to their classes, testifies to this. When their decisions made me reluctant to continue my involvement, their attitudes changed dramatically: they now realized that I no longer represented a threat to their “territory.” A field official could influence directives and policy rules from above. The center’s staff could, for instance, offer or hold back resources earmarked for the immigrants by either obeying or ignoring instructions. In so doing they could acquire relative power. Avner, the social worker, behaved in this way in relating to the issue of the studies sought by the women immigrants. In the events described above, Avner flaunted his status as above that of Fanny, Tova, the teachers, the immigrants, and myself. He did this first by refusing to pay for the women’s studies, then by expressing willingness to find the necessary funds. Avner’s willingness to find a budget to cover the studies showed that he was responsive to the criticism of his colleagues, but also demonstrated his superior power base. Avner also adjusted his attitudes to the changing situation. He revealed flexibility when necessary and adjusted the discriminating gender-based distinction regarding vocational training when there was a demand for change. He said: “If young women don’t receive vocational training, let them at least have this.” This new position contradicted what Avner said at the meeting when women’s work was discussed. The question from one of the teachers about not allowing women vocational training came as a surprise to him because the discriminating attitude of the state institutions toward women were so widely accepted and seen as self-evident. He suggests that this prejudice wasn’t intended by those in power: “Things just happened,” he said. Ahuva was director of the Hadera area at the Ministry of Absorption. In word and in deed, she expressed views similar to Avner’s on these 186

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 187

The Role of Cultural Explanations in Gender-Based Relations

issues. Her words, which I now quote, reflect the officials’ gender-based and age-based distinctions in relation to vocational training, studies, and work. Ahuva’s words made clear how conceptions were employed to serve the officials’ goals and how they changed according to situation and subjective need. Ahuva came to visit the local high school to meet the women immigrants and decide how the absorption ministry could assist financially. Avner and Emanuel, a worker at the absorption ministry, and myself accompanied her on her visit. In a conversation with Yigal, the school principal, Ahuva asked him how many girls under eighteen studied at his school. As Yigal began to answer, Ahuva interrupted him and said, “No – exactly the opposite; I need them over eighteen so I can present their studies as vocational training. You have to understand that you are in a kind of fuzzy situation: up to eighteen, a student studies within the framework of the Ministry of Education; vocational training is given to those over this age.” Avner continued: “The women have been neglected so now we must do something, like the vocational training in Hadera and Haifa the men get.” Ahuva reacted: “I have to admit that I am at least partly responsible because I was the one who stopped the vocational training. We had some bad experiences at Pardes Chana, where the women began going out to work and neglecting all their responsibilities. They would leave the children alone in the house all day or running about outside. I said this couldn’t be allowed, that we had to think about what harm could be done to the future citizens of Israel. After all, the changes the immigrant underwent on arrival here were drastic, and in Ethiopia the men did almost nothing. They worked three months of the year in agriculture, then did nothing. The women had to do all the work, drawing of water and grinding flour. The men sat by the fire but usually didn’t even keep it going. Now they want the men to participate and help in the house, while the women go out to work. I am all for progress, but things must be done gradually. First let them find their feet in Israel and then afterwards, if the women can cope, they can think about studying.” Ahuva said that the initiative for woman’s studies should come from the district office. However, since nothing had happened there, she would join the local Galuyot initiative. Ahuva implied that age was a mere technical barrier and that ways could be found to overcome it. The problem of the critical age of eighteen could be solved: until then, the Ministry of Education would finance the immigrant women’s studies; after that the absorption min187

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 188

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

istry could take over. Ahuva needed as many girls as possible over eighteen. Eventually, the education ministry financed the young women’s studies in high school. The number of girls under eighteen in the group allowed the ministry to budget teaching expenses for the entire group, including the few above the “right” age. The headmaster talked about the subjects that he was interested in for his school. When he mentioned computers, Ahuva interrupted, saying that when high expectations were generated among the immigrants problems resulted. Avner strengthened her claim by reference to the preacademic year he had tried to organize at the University of Haifa. He explained: “It was going to be a preparatory year for young people who ‘fell between two cracks’ – those who requested to study, but were disappointed when they couldn’t make the grade.” Ahuva added: “Yes, they tell me: ‘Here we are too young, and there we are too old.’” Avner explained: “It is problematic for [the immigrants]. They don’t understand this age business.” Ahuva added: “They don’t understand the meaning of criteria.” Ahuva then told us how she put an immigrant woman called Leah into the local hospital as an auxiliary nurse: “I brought her because there was a problem in the hospital with names. They would call out ‘Tzahiyah’ but nobody would move because they just didn’t know how to pronounce the names. Then I brought Leah into the hospital as an interpreter and later the Ministry of Health accepted her as a nurse. Now she says she wants to study computers. I asked her: ‘How can you ask to study computers? It costs a lot of money, you have four children and you’re already forty.’” I asked Ahuva what Leah did with the children, and she answered cynically: “The state.” I asked: “What do you mean, ‘the state’?” She answered: “Leah says she will put the children into a creche.” I cut her off by saying: “Well, I also work, and my son is in a creche.” “But how will she pay?” Ahuva asked. “Out of her salary,” I answered.” Ahuva’s replied: “She says the state will pay.” Ahuva’s views were all very decisive. She presented herself as a patron of the immigrants and described the immigrants, men, women, and children. She claimed that “the women had cast off all responsibility” and sounded as if she was talking about naughty children. According to her, the men were spoilt and lazy; she expressed concern and responsibility for all the children who had been neglected; for the men who were obliged to help at home; for the women who worked very hard in 188

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 189

The Role of Cultural Explanations in Gender-Based Relations

Ethiopia; for all the Ethiopians who had undergone drastic change on their arrival in Israel, and for the people of Israel who would suffer in the future. Ahuva saw herself as qualified to deal with the situation in an understanding way. She supported the advancement of Ethiopian women but on the condition that it was brought about gradually. In the first stage they had to get organized; only afterwards could they continue studying, so she was like a concerned mother who considers it her right to intervene in her children’s lives. It appears, therefore, that the officials’ concepts were open to change. Ahuva’s attitudes could be seen to change, and change again. When criticized, she defended herself by using contradictory arguments. When Avner was critical of the “neglect” of the women, Ahuva admitted her sense of guilt and used various popular and ideological explanations to justify her actions. She rationalized those actions, using an anthropological approach to the potential role of culture and tradition as integration processes; a sociological approach to explain immigration as a crisis and a shock which should be softened and relieved; and again a psychological approach calling for maternal closeness to children in their first years.1 Ahuva justified her reservations about Leah’s computer studies by the fact that Leah had four children. She was not however, disturbed by that same fact when she “took Leah away” from her children to work in a hospital. Ahuva followed her preconceptions. She delayed or prevented vocational training for the women and their going out to work. She opposed the idea of computer studies for women when they were mothers. She also, probably, prevented Leah from receiving the support offered by the Ministry of Absorption to men doing vocational training. Officials could influence various areas that offered resources to the immigrants – including areas not within their immediate control. This was done through connections with other officials. Ahuva, for instance, described how she could influence the Ethiopian immigrants’ housing needs. When the issue arose of the immigrants not being wanted in OrAkiva, Ahuva said: “The Mayor of the municipal council is right; that is why I haven’t pressured him. In other circumstances I could do something; I would come back afterwards and tell him that I was sorry, but the matter didn’t depend on me, it was imposed on me.” In order to substantiate her claims, Ahuva revealed that she had acted in such a way before, when the immigrants from the Caucasus arrived in Israel. In light of Ahuva’s mindset, one might ask why she was so keen to get the young immigrant women into high school. The answer lies in the rivalry among officials for resources. They were dependent on their supe189

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 190

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

riors for these resources, and were obliged to act if they wished to receive them in accordance with the allocation criteria decided upon by those superiors. Thus when the officials who allocated resources changed their distribution criteria, those officials who were dependent on them fell into line. The expectation of resources from the Joint, earmarked for women’s vocational training, motivated Ahuva, Avner, and Pearl, director of the Haifa district in the Ministry of Absorption, to change their attitude to such vocational training and take action to ensure that some of the resources allocated for this group came into their hands. The change in Ahuva’s position on women’s studies and work became apparent in what Avner said at the end of the visit to the high school. After Ahuva had left he said to me: “There is great competition between Pearl and Ahuva. Each wants to show that she hands out more resources than the other. When I spoke to Pearl at a meeting, I mentioned something about the high school business. Immediately after that Ahuva asked to come here.” Thus officials could be seen competing with each other over spheres of activity and resources. This competition motivated their activity in areas in which they hoped to get their hands on some resources. Expressions of concern for the immigrants reflected, in essence, this desire for control of resources. Ahuva’s interest in the women who wished to study grew out of the competition with her superior, out of her desire to control the issue of women’s studies, and out of her interest in avoiding competition. She adjusted her views to policy changes and other personal needs rather than to the needs of the immigrants. The sudden involvement of the district director in the issue could be explained in similar terms. The extra budgets that the Joint intended to invest in women’s studies may have aroused the director’s interest and involvement. Avner’s interest in the project merited a similar explanation. Following his “gossip” about Pearl and Ahuva, Avner suggested that we co-operate. He asked me to participate in a discussion with the immigrant women about their absences from school. I said that the teacher or the headmaster should talk to them, and Avner replied: “Yes, you’re right, but I think that both – the school and the absorption center should support and encourage the students.” He also hinted that it would be a good idea to talk to the head of the Jewish Agency’s cultural department about the women’s studies at the high school. Avner repeated this, adding, “Everything comes down to politics.” He said that the supervisor of the centers in the Hadera area had spoken about the intention to organize vocational training for the women in Hadera. 190

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 191

The Role of Cultural Explanations in Gender-Based Relations

We learned that “ideology” and attitudes associated with the prevention of vocational training, studies, and work for women and mothers were changeable and flexible. In a situation of competition between the organizations and officials over control and resources, the attitudes of both tended to change. In the incident described here, three different sections within the Jewish Agency fought for involvement, influence, and control over this new area of women’s vocational training: the administrative section to which Pearl, Beni, and Ahuva belonged; the education section to which Arie and his superior belonged; and the welfare section to which Avner belonged. The competition between Pearl and Ahuva was between different Jewish Agency offices in the area. Each lobbied for greater involvement, and each tried to push the other out in order to obtain control of the area. In the end, the immigrant women were not offered vocational training. This suggests that the budgets thought of as forthcoming by the officials didn’t materialize. Ahuva’s words at the meeting in the high school revealed the sharp competition over budgets between organizations and officials. Ahuva told us about the tension and fights between the absorption ministry and the Jewish Agency. She explained that David Levy, the previous minister of absorption, had succeeded in draining the ministry of its powers. In contrast, Ya’acov Tzur, the current minister, was trying to strengthen the office. To prove her claim, she said: “How, for example, can I know where people live if the payments made to the immigrants for their rent have been pulled out of our hands?” I asked: “How is the money transferred now?” She replied, “Straight through the banks.” She then added: “The immigrants’ treatment is the responsibility of the state, but the state has no money. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The Jewish Agency says, ‘Please take care of the matter. But if you want the money then we will have to look after the immigrants.’” Ahuva’s words revealed her ambition to be in absolute control over immigrant absorption, over the institutions and the officials seeking control over people, and over the resources meant for them collectively. Ahuva was concerned about the new system whereby the immigrants received their rental grants straight into their bank accounts. She was clearly not interested in this service, which was efficient and benefited the client. She wanted the addresses of the immigrants so she could control the resources designated for them. Even when the “ideological objection” became irrelevant, nothing happened. Emmanuel, the absorption ministry official, explained that in order to pay the high school for the “vocational training” it offered the women, 191

06-Ch6

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 192

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

the Ministry of Labor’s recognition of the high school’s certification for vocational training was needed. Such authorization was never obtained. About a month after Ahuva’s visit, I asked Emmanuel what was happening at the high school. He explained that the authorization procedure was “stuck” in Jerusalem, adding that Pearl didn’t want anybody to turn to the people in Jerusalem because he was dealing with the matter. He told me that Pearl had said that he shouldn’t even deal with the immigrants’ allowances, but “should leave it for his people to do. Or else his twenty employees might … just sit around.” Emmanuel spoke bitterly about the fact that his hands were tied by the impotence of the officials at the local and national level: “I contend that they don’t understand how workers in the field feel when the immigrants come to them and there are no checks for them. I thought that Tzur, the minister of absorption, would do something, but his presence isn’t felt in the field.” When I spoke to Emmanuel a few days later he said: “Pearl has promised that by Sunday he would have an answer from the Joint.” I asked him about the authorization for the high school and he explained: “It will be arranged as soon as the money is given.” As has been said, the education ministry funded the studies; the Joint sent a small amount of money to cover the cloth needed for the sewing classes. The high school wasn’t given the authorization it sought, probably because of the political difficulties Avner mentioned. When it became apparent that no budgets were forthcoming, the officials and agencies involved in the issue of the immigrant women’s studies lost all interest. From this discussion it emerges that the women’s position at the absorption center and their work opportunities outside it were greatly influenced by the bureaucratic context. Furthermore, attitudes held by the officials and used in their struggle to obtain resources changed according to their own needs, rather than those of the immigrants.

Notes 1. See, for instance, M. Thompson, R. Ellis, and A. Weldkowsky, eds. Cultural Theory. Boulder, San Francisco, and Oxford: Westview Press, 1990.

192

07-Conclusion

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 193

C ONCLUSION



The central concern of this book unveils the influence of social closure

on the emergence of the power-dependence relationships that arise within a given bureaucratic situation – an absorption center for Ethiopian immigrants in Israel. For the purposes of the discussion, the everyday life of the immigrants is described. What becomes clear is the extent to which the perceived demarcation lines between the various groups of people formed part of the power relations and the socio-bureaucratic interaction. The physical and other forms of closure and their ramifications made clear how certain social processes were being set in motion. The “closed world” was perceived as self-evident both to those inside the absorption center and those outside it. Resources and power were obtained through representation of and mediation between the immigrants inside and those offering services from outside; monopolies of responsibility were established over different areas of activity. Control became entrenched and the controllers’ reputation solidified. Possible alternatives became limited and situations of dependence were established by those who required representation and mediation services. The social distance between people, based on a categorized grouping, developed. However, closure, and social distance were rationalized by cultural explanations. The approach of this book emphasizes the central role played by power struggles in social relationships. The importance of closure is stressed as a basis for obtaining resources and positions of power. Social categories were seen to emerge as an outcome of bureaucratic needs rather than as natural entities. The use of ideology and cultural explanations became apparent in justifying the closure and the establishment of social categories for the purposes of control. 193

07-Conclusion

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 194

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

The issue of “immigrant absorption” is another focus of this book. Bureaucratic treatment of immigrants in Israel is suggested as the most characteristic aspect of immigration policies since Israel has been established. The “chain of absorption” from the daily life of people in a local absorption framework to the policy-making level is described and analyzed. The analysis points to the significant influence of the bureaucratic environment on the immigrants’ situation. It has been revealed that absorption agents and organizations are creating the long-term dependency of immigrants by concentrating them in absorption centers and by treating them as a needy category. The bureaucrats justify this in terms of a “special problem” that necessitates their intervention in order to advance the social integration and the independence of the immigrants. In fact, this situation serves bureaucratic interests and control. It enables control over resources and creates mediation and monopolistic positions. This implicates the immigrants’ dependency on the bureaucrats for the resources they control, and propagates the bureaucrats’ social control and interference in the immigrants’ life. The connection between the “family” and the categorized treatment of people by bureaucrats at the absorption center is another important aspect of this book. It became evident that power-dependence relationships at the “closed” absorption center also influenced the development of such relationships within the family. The Galuyot absorption center is a bureaucratic framework in which people are treated as family members: accommodation units and various kinds of aid are dispensed by the bureaucrats in charge, mainly on a family basis. It was suggested, therefore, that the bureaucratic environment of the absorption center influences the way the family system gets organized and the role division patterns that emerge within it. The bureaucrats’ interference in the women’s lives influences the social and familial organization. Finally, this book also draws out the gender-based perspective at the absorption center. In discussing the bureaucratic structuring of gender roles, various aspects of this issue became concrete: the manner in which women were pushed, as a group, into secondary positions in the economic and social systems; the use of self-evident concepts for encouraging behaviors adjusted to gender-based role division. It was found that intensive bureaucratic care of the Ethiopian women is a powerful way of influencing the division of roles and the power relationships between men and women in the Ethiopian family. 194

07-Conclusion

1/21/09

2:44 PM

Page 195

Conclusion

The few studies that deal with absorption centers discuss the degree of success in attaining declared objectives and possible methods of improving their functioning. These studies are based on the assumption that there is a real need for their existence. This book endeavors to question this apparently self-evident assumption. It emphasizes the difference between declared ideology and everyday practice at the center. The ethnographic material provides a basis for the conclusion that, rather than being the reason for having absorption centers, ideology serves to justify their existence. It seems, therefore, that absorption centers in Israel create segregation, power dependencies, and bureaucratic control rather than integration.

195

08-Bib

1/21/09

2:45 PM

Page 196

S ELECT B IBLIOGRAPHY



Abbink, G.J. 1984. The Falashas in Ethiopia and Israel: The Problem of Ethnic Assimilation. Institute for Cultural and Social Anthropology, University of Nijmegen. Aescoly, A.Z. 1943. The Book of the Falashas. Reuben Mass and Kook Institute (Hebrew). Amishav and The Employment Services. 1989. Vocational Absorption of Ethiopian Immigrants, 1984-1987. Jerusalem, Israel, Joint (Hebrew). Banai, N. 1988. Ethiopian Absorption – The Hidden Challenge. United Israel Appeal Inx. Bar-Yosef, R. 1959. “The Moroccans: Background to the Problem.” In Integration and Development in Israel, ed. S.N. Eisenstadt et al. Universities Press. Ben-Ezer, G. 1985. “Cross-Cultural Misunderstandings: The Case of Ethiopian Immigrant Jews in Israeli Society.” Israel Social Science Research 3, nos. 1-2. Bernstein, D. 1981. “Immigrant Transit Camps – The Formation of Dependence Relations in Israeli Society.” ERS Ethnic and Social Studies 4, no. 1. Cohen, C. 1986. An Organizational Change, Coping with Ethiopian Single-Parent Families. Master’s thesis, The Hebrew University (Hebrew). Corinaldi, M. 1988. Ethiopian Jewry: Identity and Tradition. Rubin, Mass. (Hebrew). Dolev-Gendelman, Z. 1989. Ethiopian Jews in Israel – Family Pictures: A Multiracial Situation. NCJW Research Institute for Innovation in Education (Hebrew). 196

08-Bib

1/21/09

2:45 PM

Page 197

Select Bibliography

Donio, O. 1983. Policy Considerations in the Absorption of Ethiopian Immigrants. Alim. (Hebrew). Douglas, J.D., ed. 1971. Understanding Everyday Life, Toward the Reconstruction of Sociological Knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Eisenstadt, S.N. 1950. “The Oriental Jews in Israel, A Report on a Preliminary Study in Culture-Contacts.” Jewish Social Studies. Vol. 12. ______, 1954. The Absorption of Immigrants. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Etgar, T. 1977. Chonchim – Somchot, An Assisting Service for Treating and Advancing Families. The Ministry of Welfare (Hebrew). Faitlovitch, J. 1959. A Journey to the Falashas. Dvir (Hebrew). Flad, J.M. 1869. The Falashas of Abyssinia. William Macintosh. Frankenstein, C. 1953. Between Past and Future. Henrietta Szold Foundation. Freedman, M. 1958. Lineage Organization in Southeastern China. Lon Athlone. ______, ed. 1970. “Introduction.” In Family and Kinship in Chinese Society. Stanford University Press. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall. Gluckman, M. 1967. “Introduction.” In The Craft of Social Anthropology, ed. A.L. Epstein. Tavistock Publications. ______, 1980. “Marriage Payments and Social Structure among the Lozi and Zulu.” In Readings in Social Anthropology, ed. M. Shokeid, E. Marx, and S. Deshen. Schocken (Hebrew). Gusfield, S.R. 1981. The Culture of Public Problems. University of Chicago Press. Halper, J. 1985. “The Absorption of Ethiopian Immigrants: A Return to the Fifties.” Israel Social Science Research 3, nos. 1-2. Handelman, D., and E. Leyton. 1978. Bureaucracy and World Views, Studies in the Logic of Official Interpretation, Newfoundland: Memorial University. Horowitz, T., and C. Frenkel. 1975. Immigrants in Absorption Centers: Organizational and Sociological Aspects. Jewish Agency (Hebrew). Jewish Agency. 1981. “A Project of Absorption of Falashas in Permanent Housing” (Hebrew). ______. 1983. “Lists of Ethiopian Immigrants in the Or Akiva Absorption Center” (Hebrew). ______. 1984a. “A Model for the Absorption of the Immigrants from Ethiopia,” Working Paper (Hebrew). 197

08-Bib

1/21/09

2:45 PM

Page 198

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

______. 1984b. “A Budget for 21,000 Ethiopian Immigrants, November 1984 - March 1985” (Hebrew). ______. 1985a. “A Page of Directives for Think Tanks.” (Hebrew). ______. 1985b. “ Lists of Ethiopian Immigrants in the Kayit V’Shayit Absorption Center” (Hebrew). Kahana, Y. 1977. Black Brothers: Life among the Falashas. Am Oved (Hebrew). Kashani, R. 1976. The Falashas: Historic Traditions and Customs. Mt. Zion (Hebrew). Knizinsky, A. 1985. A Report on the Situation of Ethiopian Single-Parent Families. Jewish Agency (Hebrew). Leslau, W. 1957. Coutumes et Croyances des Falaches (Juifs d’Abyssinie). Institut D’Ethnologie. Malinowski, B. 1963. The Family among the Australian Aborigines: A Sociological Study. Schocken. Marx, E. 1976. The Social Context of Violent Behavior: A Social Anthropological Study in an Israeli Immigrant Town. Routledge and Kegan Paul. ______. 1985. “Social Anthropological Research and Getting Acquainted with Arabic Society.” In To Get Acquainted with Neighboring Nations, ed. A. Hareven. Van Leer Foundation (Hebrew). ______. 1986. “Relationships between Couples among the Negev Bedouins.” Haaretz Museum (Hebrew). Messing, S. 1956. “Journey to the Falashas, Ethiopia’s Black Jews.” Commentary xxii. Meillassoux C. 1975. Maidens, Meal and Money: Capitalism and the Domestic Community. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Ministry of Absorption of Immigration. 1982. “The Role of the Ministry of Absorption in the Permanent Absorption of Ethiopian Immigrants” (Hebrew). ______. 1984. “Absorption of Ethiopian Jews – The Elements for Policy” (Hebrew). ______. 1985a. “The Absorption of Ethiopian Immigrants: A Basic Project” (Hebrew). ______. 1985b. “The Rules of Aid for Ethiopian Immigrants” (Hebrew). ______. 1986. “Immigrant Absorption, 1985-86, Jerusalem” (Hebrew). 198

08-Bib

1/21/09

2:45 PM

Page 199

Select Bibliography

Ministry of Labor and Welfare. 1986. “A Program for Welfare Treatment for Ethiopian Immigrants” (Hebrew). Pasternak, B., C.R. Ember, and M. Ember. “On the Conditions Favoring Extended-Family Households.” Journal of Anthropological Reviews 32. Patai, R. 1970. Israel between East and West: A Study in Human Relations. Greenwood Publishing. Rapoport, L. 1983. The Lost Jews: The Last of the Ethiopian Falashas. Balshon. Rathjens, C. 1921. Die Juden in Abessinien. W. Gente, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Rosen, C. 1985. “Core Symbols of Ethiopian Identity and Their Role in Understanding the Beta Israel Today.” Israel Social Science Research 3, nos. 1-2. Schneller, R. 1985. “Heritage and Changes in the Nonverbal Language of Ethiopian Newcomers.” Israel Social Science Research 3, nos. 1-2. Schoenberger, M. 1975. “The Falashas of Ethiopia, an Ethnographic Study.” Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University. Siegel, D. 1989. “Violent husbands – The Causes of the Problem and Its Treatment.” Master’s thesis, Tel-Aviv University, the Institute for National Insurance (Hebrew). Shachak, O. 1985. “Absence of Power and Negative Stigmatization as Central Components of Project Renewal in Yerucham.” Unpublished research report, Ben Gurion University of the Negev (Hebrew). Shamgar-Handelman, L. 1986. Israeli War Widows: Beyond the Glory of Heroism. Begin and Garvey. Shelemay, K.K. 1986. Music Ritual and Falasha History. Michigan State University. Shokeid, M. 1980. “Social Networks and Innovation in the Division of Labor between Men and Women in the Family and in the Community: A Study of Moroccan Immigrants in Israel.” In Readings in Social Anthropology, ed. M. Shokeid et al. Schocken (Hebrew). Shokeid, M., and S. Deshen. 1977. The Generation of Transition. Yad Ben-Zvi (Hebrew). Shuval, J.T. 1956. “Patterns of Intergroup Tension and Affinity.” International Science Bulletin 8, no. 1. UNESCO. ______. 1963. Immigrants on the Threshold. Atherton Press. 199

08-Bib

1/21/09

2:45 PM

Page 200

Immigrants and Bureaucrats

Swirsky, B. 1984. The Daughters of Chava, the Daughters of Lilith. The Second Sex (Hebrew). Vatzlavick, C., G. Walkland, and R. Fish. 1979. Change: Principles of the Creation and Solution of Problems. Poalim Library (Hebrew). Waldman, M. 1985. The Ethiopian Jews. Joint Israel (Hebrew). Weil, S. 1985. “The Occupational Perceptions of Ethiopian Jews.” Final Report submitted to the J.D.C Israel. ______. 1990. “Planning for the Forthcoming Arrival in Israel of Jewish Immigrants from Ethiopia.” Ctav Emda, NCJW Research Institute for Innovation in Education (Hebrew). Yanagisaco, S.J. 1979. “Family and Household: The Analysis of Domestic Groups.” Annual Reviews Anthropology, no. 8.

200

09-Index

1/21/09

2:46 PM

Page 201

I NDEX



Control, xviii, 99, 162, 174, 195 Elements, xxi Environment, 87, 148, 152, 194 Influence, xxi Intervention, xxi Operations, xx Patronage, 37 Requirements, xxi Situation, 119, 127, 193 System, 78, 87 Treatment, xix

A Abbink, G.J, xvii, 82 Absorption Agencies, xviii, 77, 194 Center, xviii, xx, 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16-20, 27, 29, 35, 36, 52, 53, 68, 76, 83, 113 Classes, xiii, 61, 67, 120, 143, 145, 147, 163, 194, 195 Direct, 80 Of Immigrants, xviii, xx, 174, 194 Aescoly, A.Z, 123, 135, 173 Aliyat Hanoar, 53, 57 Amishav, 94, 95, 98 Authority, Authorization, 11-14, 16-19, 30-34, 37, 50, 56, 66, 79, 85

B Banai, N, 90, 98 Bar-Yosef, R, xvii, 171 Ben-Ezer, G, xvii, 172 Ben-Gurion, D, 121 Bernstein, D, xviii Blood Letting, 9 Bureaucratic Approach, xviii, 194 Conditions, xxi

C Categorization, xx, 19, 23, 50, 51, 68, 69, 71, 78, 87, 91, 100, 101, 109, 116, 119, 142, 145, 179, 181, 185, 193 Closure, xviii, 3, 4, 10, 12, 14-28, 2934, 36, 37, 42, 45, 66, 67, 78, 82, 102, 193 Cohen, C, 92 Control (over the immigrants), 12, 14-16, 18, 26, 30, 31, 34, 38, 45, 50, 51, 53, 63, 66-68, 72-74, 77, 78, 85, 86, 93, 99, 105-107, 109, 119, 124, 128, 134, 135, 138, 139, 142, 148, 151, 153, 179, 184, 191, 193, 194

09-Index

1/21/09

2:46 PM

Page 202

Index

Corinaldi, M, 135 Cultural Gap, xvii Shock, 170, 171

H Halper, J, xvii, 171 Hamula, 92 Handelman, D, 69 Holocaust, 79, 82 Horowitz, T, Frenkel, C, 70

D Dependence Situations, xxi Deshen, S, xvii, 82, 171 Dolev-Gendelman, Z, 171 Donio, O, xvii, 13, 77, 171 Douglas, J.D, 174

I Identity Groups, 115 Immigrants as Social Resource, 45 Immigration Shock, 70

E Eisenstadt, S.N, xvii, 171 Ellis, R, 192 Emunah, 42, 53-56 Etgar, T, 145

J Jewish Agency, xx, xxi, 2-6, 10-14, 22, 23, 34-36, 38, 41, 44, 46, 48-50, 53, 57, 64, 70-78, 87, 88, 91, 92, 96, 100, 103, 104, 107, 108, 115, 119, 145, 160, 180, 181, 190, 191 Joint, xxiii, 10, 13, 34, 38, 57, 75, 76, 190, 192

F Falashas, 91, 170-173 Faitlovitch, J, 126, 174 Family, Extended, 92, 141, 172 Nuclear, 141 Patriarchal, 172, 173 Flad, J.M, 126 Frankenstein, C, xvii, 82, 171 Freedman, M, 141

K Kahana , Y, 170, 172-174 Kashani, R, 123 Knizinsky, A, 92

L

G

Law of Return, 121 Leslau, W, 126 Levy, David, 191 Leyton, E, 69

Garfinkel, H, 88 Gender, 84, 86, 93, 98, 101, 126, 152, 154, 162, 164, 167, 168, 172, 174, 178, 180, 181, 184, 186, 187, 194 Generalization (of immigrants), 19, 20, 50 Gluckman, M, xxiv, 14 Gusfield, S.R, 68

202

09-Index

1/21/09

2:46 PM

Page 203

Index

M

R

Maladjusted Groups, 73 Malinowski, B, 141 Management Control (over access to immigrants), 42-45, 53, 54, 65 Responsibility, 41, 42 Power, 36, 42 Marx, E, xviii, xxiv, 141 Meillassoux, C, 142 Meir, Golda, 178 Messing, S. xvii Miftan, 57, 58, 60 Ministry of Absorption, xx, 57, 70-74, 77, 90-100, 120, 158, 186, 189, 190 Ministry of Labor and Welfare, xx, 7072, 77, 91, 94, 192 Mohel, 128, 129, 137, 188

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, 9, 38, 47, 51 Rapoport, L, 82, 170 Rathjens, C, 98 Rosen, C, xvii, 171

S Schneller, R, xvii, 82, 171 Schoenberger, M, 126, 140, 141, 172 Shachak, O, 69, 83, 147 Shamgar-Handelman, L, 68 Shelemay, K.K, 123 Shokeid, M, xvii, 82, 171, 172 Shuval, J.T, xvii, 171 Siegel, D, 69 Social, Absorption, 70 Agents, xxii Category, xx, xxi, 19, 20, 66-69, 71-73, 78, 81, 82, 99, 102, 119, 193, Climate, xxii Environment, xviii Exchange, 50 Intercourse, 44 Problem, xix, 68-70, 73, 78, 85 Relations, 4, 29 Segregation, 19 Services, 5, 72 Socialization Process, 74, 77 Spiritual Adaptation, 54 Swirsky, B, 141, 142

O Operation Moshe, xxii, 43, 94, 171 Operation Shlomo, xiii, xxv

P Pasternak, B, et al., 141 Patai, R, xvii, 82, 171 Patronage, 37-40, 66, 78, 83, 85, 96, 117, 118, 124, 128, 145, 154, Power Dependence Relations, xvii-xix, xxi-xxiii, 29, 34-36, 68, 78, 102, 119, 129, 179, 193195 Relations, xix, xx, xxi, 93, 164, 172, 193, 194 Resources, xviii Structure, xxii Struggles, 193 Protection (of the immigrants), 20-25, 37, 38

T Thompson, B, 141, 142 Tzur, Ya’acov, 191, 192

V Value judgement, 20 Vatzlavick, C, et al., 69

203

09-Index

1/21/09

2:46 PM

Page 204

Index

W Waldman, M, 123, 126, 135, 174 Weil, S, xvii, 171, 172, 174 Weldkowsky, A, 192 Welfare Patronage, 78 State, 110

Y Yanagisaco, S.J, 142

204