CHAPTER 4 Disciples: Nation Building Modified (1967–1996) Abstract In time there emerged certain modalities of modernization theory, including revised functionalism, which, in the 1960s and 1970s, complemented the macrolevel approach with microlevels and mezzolevels of analysis. Another modality, revisited functionalism, has coped, since the late 1970s, with the fall of the house of Labor, and with the parallel fall of functionalist theory. The “late Eisenstadt” progressively distanced himself from his early Parsonian functionalism and elaborated a Weberian cultural-civilizational orientation. Keywords Anthropology · Center and periphery · Dan Horowitz Ethnography · Moshe Lissak · Multiple modernities · Revised functionalism · Revisited Functionalism 4.1 EARLY REVISIONS OF MODERNIZATION THEORY From the mid-1960s on, the adequacy of the functionalist perspective in sociology at large was questioned. Eisenstadt himself started to call for a more nuanced analysis, graded scaling of different components of tradition and modernity, and more refined analysis of the relations between them (Eisenstadt 1973a). He now suggested that various institutional complexes might develop independently of each other rather than in a simultaneous manner, and that transitional societies might display wider variability than allowed by the simple traditional/modern dichotomy. He alluded in this © The Author(s) 2018 U. Ram, Israeli Sociology, Sociology Transformed, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59327-2_4 45 46 U. RAM vein to the possibilities of “partial modernization,” “system variability,” and “neopatrimonialism.” An instance of Eisenstadt’s own application of the new insights is his analysis of “modernization breakdowns” (Eisenstadt 1973b). Some qualms about the modernization agenda as applied to Israel were expressed in a symposium of sociologists that had been summoned by Eisenstadt at HUJI in 1966. In the spirit of “system variability” Eisenstadt now drew a distinction between the objective situation and its subjective perception, arguing that if there was a “modernization failure” in Israel, it had not resulted from the manner in which immigrants were absorbed—which, in the “objective” terms of social mobility, he still deemed successful—but had happened in the “subjective” sense of relative downward mobility. The socioethnic problem was thus regarded as a matter of cultural misconception on the part of the downtrodden (Eisenstadt 1969a, 1l–12; 1969b). Be that as it may, by the end of the 1960s the melting-pot modernization agenda started to lose credibility. This was well expressed by Moshe Lissak when commenting that “the ‘melting pot’ approach lost its attraction. In any event its glitter has been dimmed and the expectation for its fulfillment was extended to quite a few generations” (Lissak 1969, 56). Despite its conspicuous deficiencies, the functionalist agenda did not completely dissipate. The view of sociologist Yohanan Peres (Tel Aviv University [TAU], HUJI; 1931–2017) was a case in point: “All in all, there is no doubt that the ethnic gap is contracting. There is a situation of a minimal gap today. There have never been more equal conditions” (interview, in Michael 1984, 79). His assessment was that only a partial overlap between ethnic origins and social class remained; most of the poor were Mizrahim, but not all the Mizrahim were poor; in the upper classes the Ashkenazim were in the majority, but they held a smaller majority than before; and the middle class was almost completely ethnically balanced. Adjudicating between the melting-pot and the pluralist scenarios for the future of ethnic relations in Israel, Peres proposed a “moderate” melting pot variant. The crux of his agenda was composed of Western practical norms (efficiency) and political norms (liberalism), combined with greater inclusion of items from the repertoire of the Mizrahi “cultural legacy” (Peres 1976, 183–195). Sociologists Eliezer Ben-Rafael (TAU; b. 1938) and Stephen Sharot (Ben Gurion University [BGU]; b. 1944), who were also graduates of HUJI, rebuffed the existence of “Mizrahi ethnicity” as a unifying category for the immigrants from Africa and Asia; they did recognize edot 4 DISCIPLES: NATION BUILDING MODIFIED (1967–1996) 47 (ethnic communities) by countries of origin, which are bearers of “a particular type of consciousness […]: a primordial orientation that attributes sacredness to the group’s cultural legacy” (Ben-Rafael and Sharot 1992, 52). This explains, from their point of view, why was there no Mizrahi-Ashkenazi frontal encounter in Israel. The Ashkenazim had originated in several different European cultures, and in any event, they were thoroughly secularized. Besides, despite the class and status differences that were created in Israel, a state of ethnic diversity had no ideological legitimacy in (Jewish) Israel and the ideology of national integration proved stronger than the emotions of ethnic diversification. Hence There is no development from ethnic groups “in themselves” to ethnic groups “for themselves,” because this would contradict their support of the ideology of [Jewish] fusion. They do not support ethnic politics because this would institutionalize what is the major object of their criticism—the non-implementation of fusion. (Ben-Rafael and Sharot 1992, 46) The upwards mobility of individuals from the oriental edot to the ranks of the Israeli middle class demonstrates the openness of Israeli society (Ben-Rafael 1982). In later works Ben-Rafael address the shift in the kibbutz movement in recent decades, and these studies provide a vignette of the sociology of the transformation of the Israeli ethos in general. Mainstream sociology (from Martin Buber to Yonina Talmon-Garber to later kibbutz sociologists) echoes the socialist-Zionist view of the kibbutz as a utopian socialist commune. Critical sociologists, on the other hand, regard the kibbutz as a collectivist-militarist outpost of the Jewish colonial project (Shafir 1996). Ben-Rafael (who in the 1990s monitored a kibbutz movement research group on the topic) endorsed a midway approach and focused on the kibbutz changes from the 1980s onward. He noticed the intensifying tension between the original socialist principles of the kibbutz and the emerging capitalist orientation. These tensions were manifested in the collective sphere, between communalism and individualism; in the economic sphere, between solidarity and efficiency; and in the national sphere, between serving elite and interest group. In the “new kibbutz” the second option takes precedence in all the three spheres, yet to different degrees. Ben-Rafael categorizes three types of kibbutz—communal (the old model), renewing, and urban—ordered by the growing degrees 48 U. RAM of privatization of property, services, and income. He concludes optimistically that a plurality of kibbutz types has emerged and the feasibility of kibbutz endurance exists in modified forms. It seems that the level of privatization of kibbutz ethics and practice since the 1990s attests to the sweeping tide of neo-liberalism in Israel and challenges the expectations of Ben-Rafael.1 The modification of the kibbutz and of its sociology is, of course, one more prism in the modification of nation-building practices and previous aspirations. 4.2 THE ETHNOGRAPHIC TAKE ON MODERNIZATION An attempt at a nuanced version of the nation-building process was carried out from the 1960s onward by anthropologists affiliated with the TAU Department of Sociology and supported by a research project of the Manchester school of anthropology (named after its British sponsors, the Bernstein Israel Research Project). The project was overseen by the esteemed British anthropologist Max Gluckman (1911–1975), who guided the group, promoted its members, and spread its reputation in international forums. Anthropologist Emanuel Marx (b. 1927; TAU) directed the implementation of the project in Israel.2 This was the point of entry of anthropology as a discipline in Israeli academia. Eisenstadt had little appreciation of anthropology and blocked any attempt to promote its status at HUJI. The first department of sociology to change its name to that of Sociology and Anthropology was at TAU, in 1965. The leading figures were Emanual Marx, Shlomo Deshen (b. 1935; TAU) and Moshe Shokeid (b. 1936; TAU). HUJI was the last university to include anthropology, in 1971, soon after the termination of Eisenstadt’s chairmanship. It has become a standard of Israeli universities since then to have joint sociology and anthropology departments, with differing shades of cooperation and strains (for a rich history of anthropology in Israel, see Abuhav 2015).3 The anthropologists endorsed the modernization perspective on a macrolevel, yet complemented it with a modification on the microlevel. Gluckman himself endorsed the modernization paradigm with regard to the “general lines of development,” while at the same time, he lamented its obliviousness to “the intricacies of the process by which individuals and small groups are involved in a constant series of shifts and adjustments, of achievements and failures” (cited in Shokeid 1971, xviii). In 4 DISCIPLES: NATION BUILDING MODIFIED (1967–1996) 49 this vein, Shokeid and Deshen expressed their uneasiness with “blank concepts” such as modernization, while simultaneously proclaimed commitment to “a structuralist-functionalist position in the broadest sense” (Deshen and Shokeid 1974, 39). Thus flexibility is brought in but is confined to levels lower than the overall national level. Variability is attributed to circumscribed “pockets,” such as distinct locales, organizations, small groups, specific sets of relations, and so forth. Thus the anthropological research included topics such as the assembly room of a television factory; Bedouins settled on the outskirts of an Israeli city; a moshav whose members specialized in raising turkeys; women prisoners; and so forth (see also Handelman and Deshen 1975; Marx 1980). The cumulative effect was a somewhat fragmented representation of Israeli society, an effect welcomed by the anthropologists. Illustrative of this trend is a study by Moshe Shokeid (former sociology student of Eisenstadt, who converted to anthropology after studying with Gluckman). Shokeid’s study is based on field work done in 1965–1967 in a small village of about thirty households in the Negev area, which he names Romema. The inhabitants of Romema had emigrated from Morocco to Israel in 1956. In Morocco they were mostly craftsmen, servicemen, and peddlers. In Israel they became farm laborers and, eventually, small farmers. They grouped around three extended family lineages and engaged in fierce competition over resources and prestige in the new community. Shokeid considered his perspective a complementary or additional approach to modernization theory, not an alternative to it (Shokeid 1971, 8). He refines the dichotomy tradition/modernity into a continuum and he rejects the manner in which problems of the integration of immigrants were explained by the backward stage of the social evolution of their societies of origin. This approach suffered in Shokeid’s view from “a failure to demonstrate the relation between the assumed predispositions, past social traditions, past social changes and past aspirations which refer to a society as a whole, or its constituent groups and categories, and the present actual behavior of some particular members of that society” (Shokeid 1971, 6). Shokeid’s “past” is a “subjective” past, or memory thereof, that affects present attitudes. Consequently, the study deals with “the past of the particular group studied, and [shows] in detail how that heritage influences present-day adaptation” (Shokeid 1971, 8). From a strictly modernizationist point of view, the behavior of the Mizrahi immigrants in various spheres was characterized as confused and irrational, or at best nonrational. Shokeid strives to unravel the interests and 50 U. RAM motives behind the seemingly “mysterious,” “bizarre,” and “ridiculous” forms of behavior of his subjects. Furthermore, from a strictly modernizationist point of view, the immigrants were perceived as a passive and acquiescent mass that may be desocialized and resocialized by the host society. Shokeid, on the other hand, explored the interactive aspect of the encounter, wherein the immigrants do exert some degree of control over their situation, which to some extent they can interpret within their own frame of reference and manipulate according to their self-perceived interests. Shokeid concludes on a mixed note, typical of the combination of moderate critique and reserved endorsement of the nation-building credo: [Romema] … showed traditional and modern principles and modes of behavior, on the whole, coming together […] to form an articulate and adaptive way of life. Apart from a few extreme cases of maladjustment […], the striking phenomenon is rather the relatively smooth combination of tradition and innovation in Romema. (Shokeid 1971, 230–231)4 By and large, later generations of anthropologists adopted this balanced approach. A noteworthy exemplar of this is the work of Yoram Bilu (b. 1942; HUJI); Laureate of Israel Prize for Sociology and Anthropology (2013). Bilu shows how the rituals of holy places and of pious persons in the settlements of Moroccan-born Jews do not represent merely traditionalism but, rather, modern strategies of acculturation of the new places to the symbolic needs of the new communities, by which they proclaim their hold not on the old country but, rather, on the new one (Ben Ari and Bilu 1997; Bilu 2009). 4.3 THE LATER EISENSTADT AND HIS DISCIPLES Synthetic, comprehensive, and esteemed accounts of Israeli society, written both from the revised and the revisited functionalist perspectives, were coauthored by Dan Horowitz (1928–1991; HUJI) and Moshe Lissak (b. 1928; HUJI). Both are native Israelis of Ashkenazi descent, who were born and grew up in the Yishuv and represent a first generation of sociologists of this social milieu.5 The leading theme of their Origins of the Israeli Polity (1978) is the development of a quasistate Jewish political system in Palestine, in the 4 DISCIPLES: NATION BUILDING MODIFIED (1967–1996) 51 absence of state sovereignty. The quandary is “what conditions made integrative processes stronger than disintegrative processes” (Horowitz and Lissak 1978, 15). The question of the conditions of social order is furnished likewise in functionalist terms of “the networks of exchange and resource flow within the system and between the system and its environment” (ibid., 157). Altogether, the authors asses that the Yishuv polity had been a uniquely egalitarian and consensual democracy. The center was a common creation of the subcenters, and a gray field of autonomy was left to them. To conventional accounts of center-periphery they add two auxiliary concepts: subcenters and field of autonomy. The subcenters functioned as agencies of the center for the performance of certain tasks, chiefly political mobilization, socialization, and interest articulation, while the national center became the institutional framework for the coordination of the common activity of sectors of the organized Yishuv in areas where such activity was considered both necessary and possible (ibid., 219). This conceptualization allows the authors to retain Eisenstadt’s major formula, while opening it to more complex forms of negotiations and exchanges. Horowitz and Lissak suggest that the development of a separate Jewish national center, as well as its pluralist and quasiparliamentary dimensions, were facilitated by several peculiarities of Israel: the fact that it was a new society, relieved of the obstacles usually imposed by the incumbents of the old social order; the fact that it was institutionalized under the umbrella provided the British Mandate; the fact that there was a wide cultural and ideological common denominator shared by the Jewish population; and the fact that the resources were mobilized from the outside, to be allocated inside. With that, the center possessed enough legitimacy and authority (coercive-based power), material resources (utilitarian-based power), and symbols of collective solidarity (normative-based power) to establish an effective and binding decisionmaking locus (ibid., 64–68). The most significant move that led to the strengthening of the center was the shift of direction of the Labor movement from representing particular class interests to representing the universal national interests, or as Ben Gurion famously put it in the 1930s, the shift “from class to nation” (ibid., 96–104). The Yishuv period was decisive in the molding of the subsequent political regime of the state of Israel. Though the transition to sovereignty in 1948 broadened the scope and deepened the authority of the center, on account of the subcenters, the heritage of a political culture 52 U. RAM “based on consensus and cooperation among political groups” was basically retained (ibid., 229). In 1989 Horowitz and Lissak published a sequel to their 1978 book, titled Trouble in Utopia: The Overburdened Polity of Israel. In their revised functionalist study of 1978 they had portrayed a social system based on social solidarity, broad political consensus, and give-andtake among subcenters. In their revisiting of 1989 they realized that the system had been decomposed: social conflicts and the frustrations of marginal groups impeded the functioning of the polity to the point of exposing it to the danger of nongovernability, making it difficult for the system to mobilize material resources and collective normative commitments (Horowitz and Lissak 1989, 16). The authors still deployed the same center-periphery model but shifted the focus of attention away from the center of the system to its margins. While in their 1978 work they modified the center-periphery model moderately, in 1989 they modified the model more strongly. Yet they continued to heed the basic dichotomy of center-equals-universalism versus peripheries-equal-particularism. Thus they did not recognize the particularist dimensions of the center and the universalist dimensions of the peripheries. They portrayed a system with vague boundaries, a differential involvement of the peripheries, centrifugal and centripetal forces in motion in the sphere of authority of the center, changeable positions of various secondary centers relative to the center and to each other, and so forth. Concomitantly, they stretched the functionalist logic to its limits. The major thesis they proposed was that Israel was, as the subtitle of their book reads, “an overburdened polity.” The “overburdened” situation stemmed from a number of pressures: demographic changes, protracted external conflict, and deep social and political cleavages. They identified five major cleavages that generated internal conflicts: national, ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, and ideological. While their previous work had considered Israel an exceptionally consensual democracy, in the later work Israel was considered an exceptionally diversified and overstressed polity. It turned out that present-day Israeli society is characterized by a “functional incompatibility,” which has resulted from “a marked imbalance between the level of resources at the system’s disposal and the large number of specific goals imposed on it” (Horowitz and Lissak 1989, 238–239). In any event, Horowitz and Lissak sealed their 1989 book with a highly positive assessment of the achievements of Israeli society: 4 DISCIPLES: NATION BUILDING MODIFIED (1967–1996) 53 Forty years after its establishment, Israel stands out as a success story where the overall performance of the national center is concerned, but it also appears as a case of failure and frustration when one examines the gap between aspirations and actual achievements. At any rate, looking at both the encouraging and the discouraging aspects of Israel’s experience, it is clear that the latter have stood out more prominently the further Israel has travelled from what was initially perceived as the crowning point of its success story—the Six Day War. (Horowitz and Lissak 1989, 250) The ideological subtext is clear: the center was the Labor movement and its achievements are glorified as a success story that led to the crowning point of the Six Day War. It is with good reason that political scientist Ehud Sprinzak characterized their work as the “Labor interpretation” of Israeli history, invoking the famous “Whig interpretation” of English history (Sprinzak 1983). * In 1985 Eisenstadt released a revised issue of his seminal book Israeli Society, originally published in 1967. Unlike the former version, which focused exclusively on Israeli society, the new issue situated this society within a wider framework called Jewish Civilization (Eisenstadt 1985). The book is distinguished from the previous version in two major senses. First, it starts not with an analysis of the Zionist movement but, rather, with an interpretation of Jewish history; and, second, it contains a chapter on Jewish communities in the diaspora. These “Jewish” concepts of Eisenstadt fit with his new preoccupation, at the time, with “world-historical civilizations,” and also with the recent “Judaization” of the Israeli political sphere (Eisenstadt 1986). The civilizational approach, inspired by Max Weber’s comparative sociology of religious ethics—which, with time, became more and more central to Eisenstadt’s thought—exhibits four distinct features: an emphasis on structures of consciousness and sociocultural processes; the method of interpretive understanding (hermeneutics) of meanings from the actors’ point of view; a focus on cultural dilemmas such as collective identities; and an argument about the persistence of traditions including the consideration of modernity itself as a specific tradition (rather than its opposite). The catchwords of civilizational studies are thus culture, meaning, identity, and tradition. In a moment of candid self-reflection, Eisenstadt disclosed that the sociology he had professed hitherto had 54 U. RAM ignored the crucial insights of sociology’s founders, according to which institutional and organizational regulative mechanisms must be founded upon shared normative orientations. Marx, Durkheim, and Weber deliberated, he asserted in his later period, the great tension between the organizational division of labor on the one hand, and both the regulation and legitimation of power, and the construction of trust and meaning on the other hand (Eisenstadt 1990, 23). The new focus on these tensions bears enormous analytical implications. First, each dimension of the social order may be based on an autonomous principle rather than being congruent with other dimensions; and second, some aspects of social activity may generate specific institutional formations that cannot be subsumed under the rubric of functional differentiation. The principal clue to Eisenstadt’s new agenda from the late 1980s on is probably to be found in his search for the “charismatic dimension of social order” (Eisenstadt 1990, 25; also see Eisenstadt 1988). Introducing his new program, Eisenstadt maintained that sociology should focus especially on how and by whom cultural orientations or traditions are interwoven into the institutional arrangement of a society (Eisenstadt 1985b, 19–20). The question now is how this civilizational approach is relevant to the analysis of post-1967 Israel. It seems that Eisenstadt finally realized the undeniable—namely, that the normative consensus that had been formed by the Labor elite was by then extinguished. Yet, both as a devoted Zionist and sociological idealist, he could not accede to an Israeli society devoid of a “normative core” or a “charismatic center.” His revisited agenda is tantamount to arguing that the functional equivalent of that missing core or center was furnished from then on by the Jewish Civilization. This may be seen as a drastic shift in terms of substance—from secular socialism to religious Judaism—but it may be a simple logical exchange of equivalences from a functionalist point of view. And so, while Eisenstadt had accomplished a metatheoretical shift—from a functional paradigm of systemic modernity to an idealistic paradigm of civilizational traditionality—the deep structure of his analysis of Israel remains intact. From this later angle, present tendencies in Israeli society are simply conceived as manifestations of the civilizational tensions between universality and particularism that had supposedly persisted throughout Jewish history, just as, previously, such tensions were attributed by Eisenstadt to the encounter between the pioneering ideology of Labor and its institutionalization. 4 DISCIPLES: NATION BUILDING MODIFIED (1967–1996) 55 Eisenstadt’s book of 1985 received scathing criticism from noteworthy scholars. Stephen Sharot exposed a stylistic deficiency that made the book’s thesis itself almost intractable: “The structure of the book makes it difficult for the reader to appreciate the relative importance of the various changes and the relationships among them. Most of the subjects and themes […] such as the religious trends and the rise of the Likud, are not dealt with in detail in a particular chapter or section, but are picked up, considered briefly, and then dropped a number of times. This makes for a considerable repetition, and rarely an in-depth analysis” (Sharot 1986, 39). Likewise, Ian Lustick, a senior American analyst of Israeli society, found the book “horribly written, sloppy edited,” and its prose “self-protective.” The book is replete with vague and untestable claims and with accounts “just abstract enough to be either banal or incomprehensible to someone reading the text as a study of Israel, but too specified and qualified to be of significance to a reader interested in the book as an application of general social theory” (Lustick 1988, 11–12). I highlighted the ideological underpinnings of the book as follows: Eisenstadt’s recent interpretation signifies the total capitulation of secular Zionism, liberal or socialist. This interpretation in fact echoes on the sociological terrain the rising new national religious fundamentalist vision of Israel, which is advanced by Gush Emunim [Bloc of the Faithfull] and by the Likud bloc in general. While Eisenstadt intends to interpret the move of the Israeli political culture to the national religious agenda, he inadvertently assumes this very essentialist spiritualist agenda as the presupposition of his own work. (Ram 1995, 68) These and other criticisms of Eisenstadt’s exposé indicate the gap that has opened since the 1980s between the relative decline of his eminence within Israeli sociology and the simultaneous rise of his stature at about the same period in world sociology. From the 1980s on, Eisenstadt distanced himself from functionalist sociology as well from the sociology of Israel. As noted above, his interest shifted from modernization to civilization, and he elaborated two major new perspectives, one dubbed “axial age civilizations,” and the other, “multiple modernities” (Eisenstadt 2002, 2005). These conceptual innovations were highly praised in the global sociological discourse and were followed by a host of international conferences and publications, remarkable among them being a special issue of the Journal of 56 U. RAM Classical Sociology of 2011.6 But Israeli sociology had also, meanwhile, moved in other directions, as we shall see later. * In conclusion, S.N. Eisenstadt progressively revised his Parsonian functionalist point of departure, retreated from it, and then progressively elaborated a Weberian cultural orientation, which was articulated in his later writings under the titles Axial Age Civilizations and Multiple Modernities. Eisenstadt should no doubt be credited for tens of years of sociological creativity at the highest level and widest scope. He should be credited also with the formation and the shaping of the discipline of sociology in Israel, and for elevating it to an international level. It is not in vain that he is often described as the father of Israeli sociology. His giant imprint on the Israeli sociological terrain is indelible. Yet, with all that, playing the sole role of a gatekeeper of the discipline, he also stifled critique and controversy for three decades. It was only after the expiration of Eisenstadt’s hegemony in the discipline of sociology—and after the expiration of Mapai’s hegemony in the culture at large—that Israeli sociology could move forward and elsewhere, as we shall discuss in the following chapters. The early functionalist sociological scheme had buttressed the Labor elite in its ambitious nation-building endeavor and the integration of immigrants. The modified functionalist versions have continued to espouse the same movement, but with the realization that by the 1970s it went through a swift decline. The modified versions of functionalism did not praise the Labor regime as the best of all possible worlds, as Eisenstadt had implied, but merely as the lesser evil. The general impression given was that things were not as bad as critics alleged, and that what were called for were incremental improvements in the distribution of the “limited resources.” The revised functionalist variant represented an attempt to close the ranks around the remnants of consensus that still existed in Israel up to the early 1970s, while the revisited variant recognized worriedly the breakdown of this consensus. NOTES 1. Ben-Rafael filled many sociological roles in Israel and internationally, among them President of the International Institute of Sociology (2001– 2004). He is a prolific sociologist who has authored and edited numerous 4 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. DISCIPLES: NATION BUILDING MODIFIED (1967–1996) 57 books. See, among others, Herzog and Ben Rafael (editors) (2000); Ben-Rafael and Sternberg (editors) (2007); Ben-Rafael and Peres (2010); Ben-Rafael et al. (editors) (2017). For an early sociology of the kibbutz see Krausz (ed.) (1983). For accounts of the development of anthropology in Israel, see Abuhav (2015); Handelman and Deshen (1975); Deshen and Shokeid (1974); Marx (editor) (1980); Shokeid (2002); Herzog et al. (editors) (2010). The first organizational separation of the disciplines took place in 2015 at Haifa University, where the leading quantitative sociologists considered that anthropology was a liability. In this genre, see also Weingrod (1966); Weintraub, Lissak and Azmon (1969); Weintraub (1971) and Krausz (ed.) (1980). Lissak is the son of a pioneering family and was a student of Eisenstadt in the Jerusalem sociology department, from which he graduated in 1963. Horowitz, a political scientist, is the son of David Horowitz, who was a leading third-aliya personality and the first head of the Bank of Israel. This personal experience, one should add, includes a close familiarity and affinity with the elite of the Labor movement and later the state. See Hamilton (1984); Eisenstadt (1986, 2002, 2005, 2007); Simon and Taylor (editors) (2011); Fisher (2012). REFERENCES Abuhav, Orit. 2015. In the Company of Others: The Development of Anthropology in Israel. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Ben Ari, Eyal, and Yoram Bilu (eds.). 1997. Grasping Land: Space and Place in Contemporary Israeli Experience. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Ben-Rafael, Eliezer. 1982. The Emergence of Ethnicity: Cultural Groups and Social Conflict in Israel. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Ben-Rafael, Eliezer and Sternberg Yitzhak. (ed.). 2007. New Elites in Israel. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (Hebrew). Ben-Rafael, Eliezer, and Stephen Sharot. 1992. Ethnicity, Religion and Class in Israeli Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ben-Rafael, Eliezer, and Yohanan Peres. 2010. Is Israel One: Religion, Nationalism, and Multiculturalism Confounded. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers. Ben-Rafael, Eliezer, Schoeps H. Julius, Yitzhak Sternberg, and Olaf Glöckner (eds.). 2017. Handbook of Israel—Major Debates (2 Vols). Berlin: De Gruyter Reference. Bilu, Yoram. 2009. The Saints Impresarios: Dreamers, Healers, and Holy Men in Israel’s Urban Periphery. Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press. 58 U. RAM Deshen, Shlomo, and Moshe Shokeid. 1974. The Predicament of Homecoming: Cultural and Social Life of North African Immigrants in Israel. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. 1969a. Absorption of Immigration, Assimilation of Exiles and the Transformation Problems of Israeli Society, 6–13 in Hebrew University of Jerusalem: The Absorption of Immigrants. Symposium at the HUJI (October 25–26, 1966). The Magnes Press (Hebrew). Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. 1969b. Comments and Concluding Discussion, 185–187 in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press (Hebrew). Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. 1973a. The Disintegration of the Initial Paradigm of Studies of Modernization—Reexamination of the Relations between Tradition, Modernity and Social Order. Tradition, Change, Modernity, ed. Idem, 98–115. New York: Wiley. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. 1973b. Breakdowns of Modernization. In Tradition, Change, Modernity, ed. Idem, 47–72. New York: Wiley. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. 1985a. The Transformation of Israeli Society. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. 1985b. Cultural Traditions, Power Relations and Modes of Change. In The Challenge of Social Change, ed. Orlando Fals Borda. Beverly Hills: Sage. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. 1986. The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. 1988. Transcendental Vision, Center Formation, and the Role of Intellectuals. In Center: Ideas and Institutions, ed. L. Greenfield and M. Martin, 96–109. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. 1990. Modes of Structural Differentiation: Elite Structure and Cultural Visions. In Differentiation Theory and Social Change, ed. J. Alexander and P. Colomy, 19–51. New York: Columbia University Press. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. 2002. Multiple Modernities. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. 2005. Axial Civilizations and World History. Leiden: Brill. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah. 2007. Interviewed by Dani Rabinowitz: “Dani Rabinowitz and Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt on Israel Studies, Jewish Studies, Modernization and Globalization: A Series of Talks”. In Generations, Locations, Identities: Contemporary Perspectives on Society and Culture in Israel: Essays in Honor of Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt, ed. S. Zelniker, H. Herzog, and T. Kohavi, 481–529. Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute and Hakibbutz Hameuhad (Hebrew). 4 DISCIPLES: NATION BUILDING MODIFIED (1967–1996) 59 Fisher, Shlomo. 2012. Multiple Modernities and the Sociological Vision of S.N. Eisenstadt. Israeli Sociology 14 (1): 185–193 (Hebrew). Hamilton, Gary G. 1984. Configurations in History: The Historical Sociology of S.N. Eisenstadt. In Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, ed. Theda Skocpol, 85–128. Cambridge Mass: Cambridge University Press. Handelman, Don, and Shlomo Deshen (eds.). 1975. Social Anthropology of Israel. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1969. The Absorption of Immigrants. Symposium at the Hebrew University (October 25–26, 1966). Jerusalem: The Magnes Press (Hebrew). Herzog, Hanna, and Eliezer Ben-Rafael (eds.). 2000. Language and Communication in Israel (Studies of Israeli Society). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Herzog, Eshter, Orit Abuhav, Hervey Goldberg, and Emanuel Marx (eds.). 2010. Perspectives on Israeli Anthropology. Detroit: Wayne State University. Horowitz, Dan, and Moshe Lissak. 1978. Origins of the Israeli Polity: Palestine under the Mandate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Horowitz, Dan, and Moshe Lissak. 1989. Trouble in Utopia: The Overburdened Polity of Israel. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Krausz, Ernest. 1980. Studies of Israeli Society Vol. I: Migration, Ethnicity, and Community. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Krausz, Ernest. 1983. Studies of Israeli Society Vol. II: Sociology of the Kibbutz. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Lissak, Moshe. 1969. Trends in the Integration of Oriental Ethnic Groups in the Stratification and Political Systems of Israel. In Hebrew University of Jerusalem: The Absorption of Immigrants, 51–69. Symposium at the Hebrew University (October 25–26, 1966). The Magnes Press (Hebrew). Lustick, Ian. 1988. The Voice of a Sociologist, the Talk of the Historian, the Limits of a Paradigm. In Books on Israel, Vol. I, ed. R. Stone, 9–16. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Marx, Emanuel. (ed.). 1980. A Composite Portrait of Israel. London: Academic Press. Peres, Yohanan. 1976. Ethnic Relations in Israel. Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Poalim (Hebrew). Michael, Sami. 1984. Interview with Yohanan Peres. In These are the Tribes of Israel: Twelve Interviews about Social Integration in Israel, ed. S. Michael, 79–86. Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Poalim (Hebrew). Ram, Uri. 1995. The Changing Agenda of Israeli Sociology: Theory, Ideology and Identity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Sharot, Stephen. 1986. Review: The Transformation of Israeli Society. Israel Social Science Research. 60 U. RAM Shokeid, Moshe. 1971. The Dual Heritage: Immigrants from the Atlas Mountains in an Israeli Village. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Shokeid, Moshe. 2002. An Israeli’s Voyage: Tel-Aviv, New York and Between. TelAviv: Yediot Books (Hebrew). Simon, Susen, and Bryan S. Taylor (eds.). 2011. Journal of Classical Sociology 11 (3), Special Issue: Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt. Sprinzak, Ehud. 1983. The Poverty of Israeli Politology. Medina, Mimshal and Yahasim Ben-Leumiyim 21: 95–107 (Hebrew). Weingrod, Alex. 1966. Reluctant Pioneers: Village Development in Israel. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Weintraub, Dov. 1971. Immigration and Social Change: Agricultural Settlements of New Immigrants in Israel. Manchester: Manchester Universities Press. Weintraub, Dov, Moshe Lissak, and Y. Azmon. 1969. Moshava, Kibbutz and MOshav: Patterns of Jewish Rural Settlement and Develoment in Palestine. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.