Of the hypothetical groups discussed here, committed traditionalists occupy a stringent position on the spectrum. They do not, indeed, practice metzitzah b’peh or allow a mohel to use his thumb- nails to remove the membrane covering the glans or other parts of the foreskin.274 However, they insist on circumcision milah and peri’ah, and STEPHEN R.SCHIFFER,MEANING 30-36 (1972) (analyzing conditions for “mutual knowledge”).
273. Ralph Wedgwood, Is Civil Marriage Illiberal?, in AFTER MARRIAGE: RETHINKING MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS 29 (Elizabeth Brake ed., 2016) (analyzing the social meaning of marriage using expectations and common knowledge). Wedgwood points out that one could introduce norms of the sort explicated by Philip Pettit, Virtus Normativa: Rational Choice
Perspectives, 100 ETHICS 725 (1990), but he considers it unnecessary for his purposes. See id. at 49-50. On how norms arise, see EDNA ULLMANN- MARGALIT,THE EMERGENCE OF NORMS (1977).
Lawyers may be unfamiliar with the term “social meaning” but they are familiar with the concept of social meaning in, for example, Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy. He argued that the social meaning of separate but equal railroad cars for Caucasians and “colored persons” is not se- curing equality for all, but rather depends on “race hate,” denial of “civil rights solely upon the basis of race,” and the supposed inferiority of colored persons. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 552, 557, 559, 560 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Justice Harlan does not explicitly use the philosophical scaffolding in text accompanying supra notes 270-273. 274. See supra text accompanying notes 93, 235.
accept the principle of piku’ach nefesh as it pertains to exemptions from circumcision.275 It does not bother them if God neglects to explain why circumcision is required of each male. Committed traditionalists take very seriously the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17:9-14. They place no stock in hygienic or prophylactic arguments for circumcision. To them, no substitute exists for a ritual circumcision with appropriate prayers. Committed traditionalists lay stress on verse 14: “[a]nd if any male who is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his kin: he has broken My covenant” (Tanakh translation).
The foregoing matters are common knowledge among committed traditionalists. Almost every adult and adolescent member of the group expects almost every other adult and adolescent member to conform to these requirements as elaborated elsewhere in the Torah and rabbinic writings. Verse 12 establishes the eight-day-norm. Verse 14 states a norm that indicates what is to befall the uncircumcised Jewish male: he is to be cut off from his fellow Jews. Toleration and multiculturalism are not seen as relevant to the obligation to circumcise.
The common knowledge, expectations, and norms just described have an impact on an uncircumcised boy. Committed traditionalists as limned here consider an uncircumcised boy to be more than socially anomalous. Both the boy and his parents would suffer grievously if he were to grow up in a community made up principally of committed traditionalists. If parents of a newborn male indicate that they are not planning a bris, members of the community would remind them that they are violating one of the most important tenets of the Jewish tradition. The reminder might come more than once over several days. If the boy’s parents remain stubborn, other members of the community might sever ties with them.
If severing ties is not enough to move the boy’s parents, additional sanctions could follow. The boy’s parents would encounter continued sharp criticism by their adult peers and maybe become pariahs in the community. Other children would probably tease the boy mercilessly if they discovered his uncircumcised status in a locker room or another context. Once the despised boy becomes an adult, it would be difficult for him to find a Jewish partner from his community who is willing to marry him. Thus, the social meaning of circumcision for committed traditionalists is that it comes from an indefectible divine command- ment, is mandatory for Jewish males, and plays a significant role in Jewish religious identity.
As a first reaction, the community just depicted seems highly in- tolerant. It seems hard to justify the teasing by his schoolmates. It is regrettable that the disapproval of the committed traditionalist com- munity would fall so heavily on the child as well as his parents. It would seem, then, that from a secular point of view the community sketched
here is one to be wary of, not applauded. It might remind some readers of Susan Moller Okin’s good sense in favoring a right of exit from one’s group of origin.276
In a way, this reaction misses the point. Committed traditionalists are not looking at this matter from a secular perspective. A person who points out the fate of an uncircumcised boy and his parents in a committed traditionalist community might be simply predicting, not endorsing. It would be consistent to maintain both that the prediction is well supported and that such reactions by schoolmates and other parents ought to be opposed rather than endorsed. Yet, it seems unlikely that opposition would come from the committed traditionalist community itself.