In Praise of Metaphoric Discourse: Confronting the Quandary between Universalism and Particularism

“In Praise of Metaphoric Discourse: Confronting the Quandary of Universalism and Particularism”

Many factors figure in the decision of young Jews to opt for in-marriage or out-marriage: most of them familial or emotional.

Nonetheless, certain thoughtful young Jews might wish to have recourse to a rationale to justify their decisions. They might want to be able to tell themselves why they continue to be “particular” Jews in an open and ostensibly “universalistic” environment. Why should they want to make the sacrifices necessary to maintain a particular identity in an open world?

I wish to maintain that one resource for the clarification of the boundaries of controversy with regard to the issue of particularism and universalism can be found in the areas of hermeneutics and literary theory. It derives from the distinction often made between the literal meaning of a text or tradition, its allegorical meaning and its metaphorical meaning. I will maintain that a “literal” reading of Jewish stories and images can lead to an overly particularistic orientation, whereas an “allegorical” reading will lead, willy-nilly, to an overly universalistic posture. Lastly, I will claim that only a metaphorical reading of key Jewish narratives and images can lead us in both a particularistic and universalistic direction. Metaphors speak of “universal” things that go beyond “particular” meanings without sacrificing their concrete particularity. It is the metaphorical mode of thought, then, that may be able to guide us in our search for a “language” that can mediate the tension between loyalty and liberty.