A Tale of Three Incidents

By Peter E. Tarlow

Abstract

This essay examines how one set of Biblical texts understood social control/deviance in light of sociological theory. By discussing the topics of social deviance and loss of social control within the framework of a series of incidents, beginning with the “Golden Calf” incident and in ending with Korach’s failed “coup d’Etat”, the essay seeks to demonstrate Torah’s relevance and actuality for the discussion about core-paradigms in social thepry and deviance theory.

In 1926[1] Ortega y Gasset wrote his famous “Rebelión de las Masas.” One of the reasons that this book is fascinating is that critics have interpreted it to be both democratic and anti-democratic, elitists and popularists. No matter which interpretation one chose it is clear that Ortega y Gasset well understood that societies must maintain social control, that such maintenance is not an easy task to accomplish, and that as Durkheim argues, social control sets the boundaries for social deviance. Durkehim noted in his comments on social sanctions (that is to say: “control”) that “Every precept of law can be defined as a rule of sanctioned conduct. Moreover it is evident that sanctions change with the gravity of the role they play in society.” (Durkehim: pp. 68-69)

This essay will examine how one set of Biblical texts understood social control/deviance in light of sociological theory. Were the actions taken within the text examples of deviant behavior and as such criminal? Were the punishment justified or used as a means to frighten the population into submission? Such an academic exercise is useful not only because it produces greater Biblical clarity but also as a basis for modern theory. The advantage of a Biblical text is that extraneous materials do not encumber the researcher-theorist. Instead, the scholar posses the totally of the data, that is to say that the Biblical text acts as an all-inclusive text. What we read is what we have. As such, the Bible serves as an excellent basis for theoretical discussions. Certainly the Book of Exodus and its main personage, Moses, are prime examples for the study of leadership issues, issues of social control, and in the case of the Golden Calf, of social deviance and mass revolts. This paper examines the incidents of social deviance and perceived loss of social control beginning with the golden calf incident and in ending in the Book of Numbers with Korach’s failed coup d’état. Although, traditionally read as three separate incidents, when read as an integrated unit, these three incidents not only provide us with insights into Biblical history but also provide a theoretical model for progressive social deviance leading ultimately to political instability. It is valuable to ask if these three incidents taken together also provide us with value insights into transient peoples, be these tourists or migrating peoples. How do people act when separated from the locus of known social control? Do nascent societies follow the same norms as established societies? Do these three vignettes speak to Europe’s failed social integration policies and what kernels of wisdom might modern migrant receiving societies mine from this information?

The three incidents to be studied are closely related to each other both in substances and in location. All three occur in the first books of the Bible, all three are set during Biblical Israel’s migrant desert wanderings, all three occur prior to Israel’s total transformation from a tribal grouping into a nation-state. The three incidents to be studied are: (1) the making of the golden calf and Aaron’s role in this incident, (2) the revolt against Moses by his siblings, Aaron and Miriam, and (3) Korach’s failed coup d’état against the leadership of Moses and Aaron. All three incidents involved threats to Moses’ leadership as seen by the table below:

	Role of Moses	Role of Miriam	Role of Aaron
Gold Calf	On defensive	n/a	Permissive
Cushit Incident	On defensive	On offensive	On offensive
Korach’s Revolt	On defensive	n/a	On defensive

It should be noted that these are not the only incidents of passive or active “cynical-aggresivity” on the part of Israel toward either Moses or G’d. In fact, Moses must be convinced by God to accept the leadership position. Nevertheless, these three vignettes provide valuable insights into macro deviance within the children of Israel’s still formative years and as such possibly offer kernels of understanding as to transient population.

For those who may not be familiar with the Biblical text the follow will provide a brief overview of the data that forms this paper’s theoretical underpinning.

The Golden Calf Incident.

The Golden Calf Incident stands out within Jewish History as perhaps a paradigm of the unexpected (Exodus 32). The incident itself is found in the Book of Exodus chapter 32. The Bible’s accounting of the incident is typical of Biblical style in that it tells us much by often saying very little. The basic outline of the incident is as follows. Israel now finds itself approximately in its second year of freedom. G’d has called Moses to Mt. Sinai where He has given him “shtay luchot ha’edut, luchot even ktuvim b’etzbah Elokim” (two tables/tablets of testimony, tablets/tables of stone written by the finger of G’d”. The text makes it clear that these tablets (today known as the Ten Commandments in most Western languages) were to become the centerpiece of Hebraic jurisprudence. Moses, however, does not immediately return to the camp, (most translators translate the Hebrew verb “boshesh” as “delay” yet the basic meaning of the root “bosh” is “to be ashamed” and the text may be hinting that Moses out of shame for his people delayed his departure) causing “the people” turn to his brother Aaron demanding a god. Aaron accedes to their demands and constructs from golden rings (assumedly taken from the Egyptian in the form of some form of compensation/reparations) and molds them into a god. Aaron seems to “follow-lead” by doing what is popular. Moses learns of the deteriorating situation from G’d, who seems to view the Israelites in much the same way that He viewed Sodom and Gomorrah. This time however, Moses convinces G’d not to destroy the Israelites and instead has slaughtered approximately three thousand people/men. From both a modern ethical position and from a legal/criminal position this vignette raises a great many questions. From the perspective of ethics we may ask such questions as:

• What does the text teach us about civil disobedience?
• What does the reader learn about social dissidence?
• Was it ethical to have so many people murdered for blasphemy?
• If so, were these people the guiltiest or were they simply used as random examples?
• Why was Aaron not tried for sedition or treason?
• Was G’d correct in considering collective punishment?
• Are there times when collective punishment is counter productive?

From a sociological viewpoint we may also ask:

• Is there something in human nature that seems to cause social unrest?
• Was this social unrest due to a delay or to the belief that an absent leader results in social deconstruction?
• Was the Gold Calf an example of Durkeim’s ideas of anomy?
• Is there a Marxian interpretation in that the leadership may have used the incident of the Gold Calf as a means to control the proletariat?
• Does anarchy lead to chaos?

Social tourism theory argues that when people travel they tend to panic are often in an anomic state, and lower their inhibitions. It should be noted that while sociologists use the term anomie to mean ‘goal achievement in a specific culture” in tourism the term refers to a sense of loss of community. In fact the word may be understood to mean “a” (without) norms or from this paper’s perspective the term may be translated as “bli-Torah” or being without Torah or a set of ethical norms. Certainly these criteria are all met within the history of the Golden Calf. (Tarlow: p.97). Tarlow notes that human beings once outside of their physical comfort zones often suffer from anomic behavior. D. Lawrence Weider and Charles W. Wright support this concept in their essay on “Norms, Conformity and Deviance.” Weider and Wright note: “in short it has been argued that an event exists as preinterpreted (sic) within the context of a stable normative order, and order that transcends, but it visible within a particular situation.” (The Sociology of Deviance: 263)

The “Gossip” Incident (Numbers 12)

After the Golden Calf incident, the fact that the journey has now been prolonged by another 38 years and the knowledge that the exodus generation is never to reach the promised land, there is a heightened sense of frustration and perhaps doubt in Moses’ leadership. Despite the sea of data demonstration Moses’ past successes, the general population remains not only cynical but also unwilling to accept responsibility for past mistakes. In chapter 12 of Numbers there are the first hints that Moses may be losing control even within his family-executive staff. Thus, the text reports that Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses due to his marriage to a Cushit woman. No reason is given for their malicious gossip against their sister-in-law Tziporah, simply that it was socially unacceptable. Moses, flustered, appeals for Divine intervention. The result is that Miriam is punished with some form of a leprous disease and which is only healed by Moses’ intervention, thus restoring the power balance. The incident may be foreshowing the Korach failed coup d’état. The vignette leads to a number of questions that need to be asked:

• What caused the rift between Moses and his siblings?
• What was the expected outcome of Aaron’s and Miriam’s speaking against Moses? Was their “gossip” an attempted coup d’état or merely a plan to lessen Moses power?
• What was the issue with Tziporah and why did Moses’ siblings consider his marriage grounds to speak against him?
• Why was only Miriam punished? Was this the second time that Aaron may have failed Moses?
• Did this incident embolden Korach and thus lead to an outright coup d’état?

The Korach (Failed) Coup d’état (Numbers 16)

Chapter 16 of Numbers reveals just how unstable the political situation had become. No longer is this a revolt against a delayed Moses, nor a family dispute, but a direct challenge to the leadership’s authority, In chapter 16 of the Book of Numbers we read that Korach and others in the leadership circle rose up against Moses leadership using the ideological argument that as the entire congregation (people of Israel) is holy, who are Moses and Aaron to take a leadership (power-authority) role? Korach, does not propose an alternative to Moses’ leadership but merely states that the leadership is not valid. The key phrase in this vignette may be 16: 13 when two of the other conspirators state: Ha-M’at ki heelitanu be eretz zavat chalav udvash la’hamitenu baMidbar ki tistarer alenu gam histarer/Is it not enough that you (Moses) brought us from a land flowing with milk and honey (Egypt) to kill us in the desert, but you also will rule (become a prince) over us? “

As in the “gossip incident” Moses’ social control is restored not by popular fiat but by G’d. In this case, G’d opens the earth (16: 32) that then “swallow” Korach and his co-conspirators. A careful reading of the text reminds us of Howard Backer’s dictum as quoted by Ian Taylor: “…that social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance and by applying those rules to particular persons and labeling them as outsiders” (Backer as quoted in Taylor: Sociology of Deviance. P.124)

The Korach affaire also leads to any number of questions. Among these are:

• Why did not more people join the revolt?
• Was this an example of ideology being used to justify economic/political gain?
• How weak was Moses after the “gossip incident”?
• Was his calling on G’d to crush the revolt a sign of strength or weakness?
• Is Korach typical of social dissidence in that ideology is used to justify the seeking of political or economic gain?

Even a brief overview of these three incidents taken together begins to show common patterns and principles that bind them. In all three cases, it is clear that Israel is lacks social norms. In all three cases the text does not report that the people knew that what they did was inherently wrong. The classical Biblical interpreters understood this anomic or state of normlessness well, for them to be without norms, to be without Torah and thus a guidance system was a recipe for social dissidence. Thus, in one of the great medieval French commentaries, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaqi, better known by the acronym Rashi, notes that there was a miscommunication as to what was meant by 40 days. Rashi asks if the 40 days for Moses absence (on Mt. Sinai) counted the day of his departure or did the count begin on the first day of his absence? What Rashi alluding to is the principle that where norms are lacking, confusion often sets in causing more than mere confusion, but also social dysfunction. In a like manner it is ideology that will set the tone. In all three cases an ideological component is present. In the case of the Golden Calf it is the feeling of abandonment, in the case of Miriam and Aaron it is the sense of betrayal of a principle, and in the case of Korach, it is the question of social equality.

The three controversies lead to the following table:

Summary of Social Dissidence and Discord

	Golden Calf	Gossip	Korach’s failed coup d’état
Action against Moses by	People, possibly aided by Aaron	Aaron and Miriam	Elite circles
Moses’ reaction	Death sentences	Prayer	Death sentences
Carried out by	Moses	Moses	G’d
Outside intervention needed	No	No	Yes
Ideology challenged	Yes	?	Yes
Results in bloodshed or bodily punishment	Yes	Yes	Yes

These three vignettes have a great deal to teach moderns about social dissidence and anomic behavior. Unlike many of the classical sociologists the Biblical lessons deal with macro rather than micro dissidence. This macro level even holds true in relationship to the Korach episode. Furthermore as Andrew T Scull has noted in the Handbook of Sociology: “The most influential recent studies of social control have begun instead with very different theoretical presuppositions and empirically have concentrated most of their attention on what Black terms ‘governmental social control’. Politics and history have in the process been moved to central stage as part of a serious effort to locate social control in historical, social and even physical space” (Scull: 686) This macro approach however is not new, it is clearly imbedded in these Biblical texts.

The three texts taken together show an increasing descent into social dissidence and are a lesson in what happens when both a sense of community and a set of ethics. The Gold Calf may have been a sign of fright, that is to say, were Moses to have returned when the people believed he would, or prior to the set date, the confidence level or level of social control would have maintained a sense of group hegemony. On the other hand, his refusal to punish his brother may have resulted in Aaron’s joining Miriam in speaking against Moses. While the text is not clear as to what the two siblings hoped to accomplish, at least one possibility is that they hoped detour the rising anger among the Israelites with an internal coup d’état. Moses was clearly taken aback by this family coup and it takes an act of G’d to salvage his government and reputation. This need for Divine intervention may have been perceived as weakness on the part of those joining in the Korach attempted putsch, thus forcing further Divine intervention and now added bloodshed. One possible conclusion may be that when governments in power do not take strong affirmative action, they risk increased bloodshed by their refusal to take timely preemptive action. A second conclusion and essential conclusion to be drawn from these texts is that those seeking a political social deviance rarely coach their political agendum in truthful terms instead ideology (political correctness) may be used to destroy liberal ideas or social order. Taken together these lessons teach us that we must surmount what Durkheim regrets. That difference is what makes these ancient texts so relevant to modern men and women.

Reading the texts as a whole we learn a number of principles. Among these are:

• Communities are necessary for a healthy ideology

• As ideologies break down, social dissidence on the macro level increases
• Lack of control on the micro level may well increase social dissidence on the macros level
• Transient populations tend to lack the structure to impose social control
• Permissive attitudes tend to fail in transient populations that have not yet developed a strong sense of social self
• European governments would do well to examine the social dissidence noted in these three texts to determine if their current policies on immigration may not end in failure

A reading of these texts reminds us that while Moses may have been aided by Divine intervention, it would be a mistake not to learn from these texts as ours is not a period in which we can count on Divine intervention, but instead must find a way to permit discourse within the realm of the ethical. In the Mishnaic tractate Pirke Avot, we find the famous saying of Ben Bag Bag: ‘Turn it (the Torah) over and over again, for all is within it” Perhaps what these three incidents teach us is that we can find much of the “wisdom of modern sociological thought” within the pages of Torah.

Bibliography

Durkheim, E.D. De La Division du Travail Social: Étude sur L’Organisation des Societés Supérieures, Paris, Aclan, 1893

Ortega y Gasset, La Rebelión de Las Masas, Colección Austral, Madrid, 1937

Rosenberg, M, R. Stebbins, A. Turowetz (editors). The Sociology of Deviance, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1982

Andrew T Scull, A.T, in Handbook of Sociology, (edited by Neil J. Smelser) Sage, Newbury Park, 1988

Tarlow, P. in Tourism in Turbulent Times, (edited by Wilks, Pendergast and Leggart) Elsevier, Amsterdam & New York, 2006

---

[1] The book was finished in 1926 but not available until 1930.