Ariel Stein wrote about a bilingual announcement and shared the post with the author of the announcement, Rabbi Doniel Katz. Ariel and I were both very pleased that Rabbi Katz responded to Ariel's question about his thought process. Here we reprint Rabbi Katz's response, with his permission.

Shalom Ariel,

Thanks for your email. Kind of amusing to read an academic deconstruction of a quick synopsis I wrote. One day I hope people will put as much thought into breaking down the teachings as well. :)

I understand one doesn't usually see two different synopses for the same event, but also there are very few, if any, such events that target such extremely diverse worlds. As I am sure you know - there are events that are usually run for the frum world, and others that run for a kiruv audience, and then there are self-help development seminars, say, that run for a secular audience. But rarely is one product appealing to such a diverse crowd. We see that as a wonderful opportunity for unity, but it comes with certain challenges, to make all types feel comfortable and understood. 

I would say the necessity for two different synopses was motivated by the following factors:

1. THE OBVIOUS: There are key words that describe the content/product to the Orthodox crowd as well as appeal to their primary motivation, that secular people would just not know what they are: emunah, ahavas Hashem, tikkun hamiddos. So the secular world needs a translation. 
2. MORE THAN LANGUAGE: That must be a translation not just of meaning, but also of motivation. For example, I can translate the word emunah into the commonly used English equivalent - "faith". But what secular person wants to see a seminar on faith? So than you have the interesting marketing challenge - well what would appeal to the secular crowd? They want states of spiritual experience.  
3. THIS IS WHERE IT GETS DEEP: So then isn't it a bait and switch? You are pretending to teach about spiritual experience but really just teaching about emunah? So here is the joke - because perhaps the secular understanding of the mindful, meditational spiritual experience is a truer definition of emunah than what the average Orthodox person may perceive emunah is. So then in some senses, the irony is (and we even discuss this in the seminar) the the secular terms are in fact truer than the current religious understandings of the Hebrew words. So in some sense the Orthodox attending are getting the bait and switch. I don't think this is ultimately inauthentic because in the end we are just teaching the texts on the page, and by the end of the seminar what we do is translate the words out of English and Hebrew into the most important language of our generation - the language of experience. And from that point, we are all speaking the same language. Or more importantly - what ever different languages we are all speaking - we all now have the same meaning. And I think that is both deep and beautiful.
   
4. CULTURALLY: One other issue that I should mention is that there are certain key words that may be attractive to one group but off-putting to the other. For example "Kabbalah". In the secular Jewish world - nobody wants to hear about Torah, because everyone knows Torah is uncool and uninteresting and old-school. But Kabbalah, is something new and different and exotic. (Of course one could argue that the Kabbalah Centre has tainted that image, and even secular Jews are over the concept by now, but let's keep this simple for the sake of this discussion.) For the Orthodox people however the word Kabbalah undermines the credibility of the seminar - as they would reply - no one that knows real kabbalah teaches it the masses, so you must be a fake. So they need to know the program is grounded with traditional ideas and that even the psychological and mystical are related to more "acceptable" teachings of chassidus and mussar. I could say to the secular audience we are teaching mussar and chassidus, but that itself is both meaningless and un-interesting to them...hence two synopses.

Hope all that is somehow interesting to you.

Many blessings to you both in the work that you do,

Doniel

In this guest post, Ariel Stein, a research specialist at Brandeis University who has studied Orthodox outreach, shows how an outreach organization uses language to advertise an event to two different audiences.


By Ariel Stein


I was recently invited to an all-day seminar in New York led by Rabbi Doniel Katz, who teaches at outreach yeshivas in Jerusalem. I was not in New York at the time and could not attend, but the manner in which the seminar was advertised immediately caught my interest.

One of the fascinating aspects of Orthodox language patterns that is discussed in Becoming Frum is how loanwords and other elements of speech are used differently depending on the setting and audience. Sometimes this code switching is deliberately planned, rather than spontaneously occurring. Chapter 7 includes an analysis of video tapes of a speaker giving the same lecture for two audiences, one for frum-from-birth (FFB) and longtime Orthodox Jews and the other for newcomers. It’s noted that, in addition to differences in verb use, grammatical influences, and direct rabbinic quotes:

"…for the FFB audience he [the speaker] used over three times as many loanwords, less than a quarter as many English words that have common loanword correlates, and less than half as many translations" (Becoming Frum, p. 152).

In a similar fashion, the seminar was advertised differently for “English” speakers (mostly non-Orthodox), compared to “Yeshivish” speakers (FFBs or long-time baalei teshuvah). What is particularly interesting is that these synopses were right next to each other on the page, labeled with “English” and “Yeshivish,” allowing both types of readers to see how the seminar was advertised to both audiences (for the reader’s convenience, I underline identical portions and italicize Hebrew and Yiddish words):

"SEMINAR SYNOPSIS (ENGLISH): The goal of the Elevation Seminar is to explore the Kabbalah’s definitive map of human psychology and consciousness on an experiential level. We'll teach you how to achieve perfect uninterrupted concentration, overcome fears and emotional blocks, and access an infinite source of deep inner peace, serenity and joy. Based entirely on authentic Jewish mystical sources, we'll deconstruct the psychological mechanism of prayer and learn advanced techniques for transforming your consciousness and accessing profound meditative states that you never realized were part of your own tradition. Rabbi Katz's open and compassionate teachings have been a catalyst for change in thousands of people's lives. Now is your opportunity to join the hundreds of people from around the world who have already participated in this unique and groundbreaking workshop, and get ready to forever transform the way you view Judaism, life and your own heart, mind and soul. 

SEMINAR SYNOPSIS (YESHIVISH): Let’s be honest: tefillah, for too many of us, means mindlessly reciting pages of words that we barely connect to. Pity we were never taught the secret of how to plug those words in and turn on their real power — until now. The goal of this intensive one-day version of the Elevation Seminar is to teach you extraordinary techniques from the depths of Mussar and Chassidus that will allow you to truly feel connected to Hashem while you daven. We will explore Torah’s definitive map of human psychology and consciousness on an experiential level, teach you how to achieve perfect uninterrupted concentration, and learn how to access profound meditative states of higher consciousness. And we’ll learn life-changing techniques from the seforim hakedoshim of how to really m’taken your middos and access madreigos of emunah, ahavas Hashem, deveikus and kavanah that you never imagined were achievable. Join the hundreds of people from around the world who have already participated in this unique and groundbreaking workshop, and get ready to forever transform the way you view Torah, tefillah and your own heart, mind, and soul."

Differences between the two synopses are apparent. The English version makes the seminar about methods for meditation, concentration, and consciousness from Jewish tradition. “Prayer” is mentioned once in the middle of the paragraph, almost as an aside. In contrast, the Yeshivish version makes it clear that the seminar is about prayer. The first line explicitly mentions “tefillah” (prayer) and goes on to say how the words of the prayer services have real power. The middle includes “daven” (the act of praying), and “tefillah” is mentioned again at the end of the paragraph. The end of the English paragraph notes that one’s view of Judaism and life will be changed, but in the Yeshivish version it is Torah and tefillah. “Prayer” is never written in the Yeshivish version. This heavy focus on prayer may be lost on the English reader.

We find several differences in word choice, like “Jewish mystical sources” instead of “Mussar and Chassidus” (texts from the Ethics and Hassidic movements). The English version never mentions “Torah,” substituting in one instance “Kabbalah,” an eye-grabbing word that may attract participants due to its prominence in pop culture. The second half of the Yeshivish description is heavy with loanwords. While the English description just says one will learn about techniques “that you never realized were part of your own tradition,” the Yeshivish description goes into detail where they came from: seforim hakedoshim (holy books). Instead of being able to “overcome fears and emotional blocks, and access an infinite source of deep inner peace, serenity and joy,” one will learn “how to really m’taken [fix] your middos [character traits] and access madreigos [levels] of emunah [faith], ahavas Hashem [love of God], deveikus [cleaving/closeness (to God)] and kavanah [concentration (for prayer or ritual acts)].”

Were the event planners concerned about how to attract different populations to the same event? Were they worried that “English” speakers would be scared off by the Hebrew and Yiddish words? Which description was more “true,” i.e. how much of each was focused on attracting participants rather than giving a straightforward description of what would occur? Unfortunately, since I did not participate, I cannot answer this. But I think this example brings up the wider question of how groups talk to others in their own in-group, how they present themselves to outsiders, and how we can find ways to do both at the same time.


You can read Rabbi Katz's response here.