Principal Jewish Perspectives on Christian Privilege: a Consensual Qualitative Study

Jewish Perspectives on Christian Privilege: a Consensual Qualitative Study

Although multicultural considerations, privilege, and oppression are of current interest across the field, much of the extant research has failed to explore religiosity as a component of the psychological literature. Using Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR) the authors set out to gain an understanding of Christian privilege and the impact it has on Jewish Identity. A sample of 12 adult, American, non-Orthodox Jews were interviewed using a semi-structured interview protocol. The interview data was collected to better understand the manifestations of Christian privilege and the impact of said issues on participant’s lives and identities. Seven themes were identified (1) Personal Conceptualization of Jewish identity (2) Impact of Christian Culture (3) Experience of anti-Semitism/Marginalization in Dominant Culture (4) Coping Strategies for Marginalization (5) Thoughts and feelings about Christianity (6) Thoughts about Christian Privilege and (7) Expectations for Helping Professionals.
Año: 2012
Editorial: Seton Hall University
Idioma: english
Páginas: 124
File: PDF, 431 KB
Descarga (pdf, 431 KB)
Leer libro en línea
Seton Hall University

eRepository @ Seton Hall
Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses

Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses

Fall 10-2-2012

Jewish Perspectives on Christian Privilege: a
Consensual Qualitative Study
Robert Kinney

Follow this and additional works at:
Part of the Counseling Psychology Commons, Developmental Psychology Commons, Jewish
Studies Commons, Multicultural Psychology Commons, Social Psychology Commons, and the
Social Work Commons
Recommended Citation
Kinney, Robert, "Jewish Perspectives on Christian Privilege: a Consensual Qualitative Study" (2012). Seton Hall University
Dissertations and Theses (ETDs). 1909.


Laura Palmer, Ph.D. and Lewis Z. Schlosser, Ph.D., Mentor(s)
Pamela Foley, Ph.D., Chair
Ben K. Beitin, Ph.D.
Cheryl Thompson-Sard, Ph.D.
John Smith, Ed. D.

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
of the Doctor of Philosophy Degree
Seton Hall University


© Copyright by Robert Stanley Kinney, II 2012
All Rights Reserved







Background of Study
Statement of the Problem and Significance of the Study
Research Questions




Jewish Identity
Ethnic Identity
Religious Identity
Reinforcers and Challenges to Maintaining Jewish Identity
Intersection of Multiple Identities/Identity Management
Internalized Anti-Semitism
Christian Privilege
Privilege and Oppression
Origins, History, and Development of Christian Privilege
Jewish – Christian Relations
Jews Experience of Christian Privilege





Consensual Qualitative Research
Preserving Scientific Integrity
Participants and Recruitment
Inclusion Criteria
Protection of Participants
Data Collection
Data Analysis




Personal Conceptualization of Jewish Identity
Impact of Christian Culture
Experience of anti-Semitism/Marginalization in Dominant Culture
Coping Strategies for Marginalization
Thoughts and Feelings about Christianity
Thoughts about Christian Privilege
Expectations for Helping Professionals
American Jewish Identity Scale (AJIS)




Overview of Findings
Personal Conceptualization of Jewish Identity
The Impact of anti-Semitism and Christian Privilege
The Perception of Christian Privilege
Helping Professionals
Summary and Conclusions
Implications for Research and Practice





Appendix A: Recruitment Letter
Appendix B: Formal Letter of Solicitation
Appendix C: Demographic Information
Appendix D: Interview Questions
Appendix E: Informed Consent
Appendix F: American Jewish Identity Scale



Chapter I:

Since the early 1970's, multicultural issues have been gaining momentum in
mental health arenas (Schlosser & Foley, 2008). However, the majority of multicultural
research has failed to include religion as a construct of interest. Of the extant literature,
limited studies have focused on understanding the intersection of religion and privilege,
despite the APA's formal charge to understand religiously based prejudice (APA, 2007;
Paloutzain, & Park, 2005; Rosmarin et al., 2009). Hence, there is a need to explore the
way marginalized religious groups (e.g., Jews, Muslims, Buddhists) understand and
experience Christianity's status in the United States as a privileged social group.
Christians enjoy many privileges that members of non-Christian groups do not
(Altman, 2009; Blumenfeld, 2006; Schlosser, 2003; Schlosser et al., 2009; Schlosser &
Foley, 2008; Schlosser & MacDonald, 2006; Seifert, 2007). Furthermore, Christian
privilege has allowed Christian dominance in the United States to go largely
unquestioned and unexamined (Schlosser & Foley, 2008). The power of Christian
privilege has become more overt across contexts (e.g., politics, education, healthcare) in

recent decades. As a result, there is a greater need to examine the impact of Christian
privilege on non-Christians. One such group is American Jews, a numerically small and
diverse group of people who must contend with Christian privilege in their daily lives.
In the current study, I sought to understand the impact of Christian privilege among Jews.
Some existing literature has focused on understanding Jewish identity (Altman et
al., 2010; Bernstein & Langman, 1999; Friedman et al., 2005; Mael, 1991; Rosmarin et
al., 2009). As with other groups, there is much variability within Judaism (Altman et al.,
2010; Langman, 1999; Schlosser, 2006). Jewish identity is salient for many, even those
that do not adhere to religious practices and identify more with the secular/cultural
aspects of being Jewish (Altman et al., 2010; Blumenfeld, 2010; Friedman et al., 2006,
Schlosser, 2006). In the current study, I interviewed a sample of non-Orthodox Jews, to
better understand how Christian privilege manifests in routine interactions and how
issues related to Christian privilege impact their lives and identity. The knowledge
gained from this study will foster an understanding of religion and the interplay between
them in a culturally pluralistic society.
Non-Orthodox Jews are often overlooked in the literature; thus, in this study I
hope to give a voice to a group that has gone largely unexamined. (Blumenfeld, 2006;
Langman, 1999; Pargament et. al. 2007). The findings will further the understanding of
mental health, coping strategies, and psychosocial costs among American Jews vis-à-vis
Christian privilege to illuminate ways practitioners and researchers can approach working
with and examining religiously different peoples.

Background of Proposed Study
The Jews are a diverse group of people (Langman, 1999). There are many ways
to be Jewish, with varying levels of identification and orthodoxy. Across the population
there is variation in the way traditions and faith are valued (Schlosser, 2006). Although
Judaism is complex, there are some commonalities in the issues that Jews face including
anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and the invisibility of the Jewish identity (Schlosser 2006).
It is estimated that there are between twelve and seventeen million Jews
throughout the world (DellaPergola, Rebhun & Tolts, 2005; Langman 1999; Singer &
Grossman, 2005). Approximately six million, nearly half of the world's Jews, comprise
1-3% of the United States population (Langman 1999; Kosmin & Lachman, 1993;
National Jewish Population Survey, 2010; Pew, 2010; Singer & Grossman, 2005). A
small minority compared to the approximately 78-83% of the United States populations
that identify as Christian, Jews make up the third largest religious group in America, with
most membership in metropolitan and coastal areas (Schlosser et al., 2009; Schlosser,
2006). Of the approximately six million Jews in the United States, 88% identify as nonOrthodox, (e.g., Conservative, Reform, etc.) and were the focus of the study.
As previously discussed, Jewish identity is complex and fluid (Alba, 2006;
Altman et al., 2010; Friedman et al., 2005; Klaff, 2006; Langman, 1999; Schlosser,
2006). However, there is some agreement about basic characteristics of American Jewish
individuals. Jews originated in Eastern Europe/Western Asia, approximately three
millennia BCE (I have chosen to identify time by using the term BCE instead of BC, as
BC indicates time in Christian context) and have maintained common genetic factors

across time (Atzmon et al., 2010). Contemporary Jewish identity is bicultural- both
American and Jewish (Altman et al., 2010).
Jews have faced oppression throughout American history. The dominant culture’s
view of Jewry has fluctuated across time, which has impacted past and current Jewish
experiences. Across history Jews were generally treated as a “half-breed” race. In
colonial times, for example, Jews were not welcome in many colonies and towns. At
times, their presence was punishable by death. Prior to the second world war Jews were
thought of as a mutt race, not fully grounded in any ethnicity (Blumenfeld, 2006). The
Jew as a member of the white majority is a relatively recent phenomenon. During and
after World War II, anti-Semitism became less overt and differences between Judaism and
Christianity were minimized. Jews were discounted as an ethnic group and efforts to fold
Jewish culture into the mainstream changed the face of American Jewry (Langman,
1999). While Jews were allowed to assimilate and acculturate, doing so exacted a steep
cost – namely, aspects of their Jewish identity (Altman et al., 2010; Friedman et al.,
Statement of Problem and Significance of the Study
Throughout American history, Jewish people have been marginalized and treated
as deviants (Langman, 1999; Schoenfeld, 1999). Many Jews opted to integrate into
mainstream culture and give up the traditional aspects of Jewish life, termed a “cultural
genocide” on behalf of mainstream Christianity (Blumenfeld, 2006). This annihilation
has lead to a country that places little value on Judaism as an ethnicity and faith. The
Jewish identity is not respected. Christianity is a benchmark, to which all other faiths are

compared. Possibly related, occurrence of religiously based hate crimes has steadily
inclined, and anti-Semitism has seen a recent resurgence (Anti-Defamation League,
2009). Although legislative steps have been taken to ensure Jewish people are not
discriminated against, anti-Semitism is increasing in America and across the world. Jews
continue to be the group most targeted by religiously based crimes (Anti-Defamation
League, 2005b; Anti-Defamation League, 2009; Pargament et al., 2007; Simon &
Schaler, 2007). However, Jewish issues remain largely unexplored.
Jewish issues may have been under investigated due to the erroneous belief that
they are a “model minority” or “white,” as there is no visible identification of Jewry for
most non-Orthodox American Jews (Friedman et al., 2005; Schlosser, 2006). The lack of
research may also relate to the relatively disproportionate amount of Jews in psychology
coupled with the relatively low levels of religiosity endorsed by psychologists in
comparison to the populations served (Bergin & Jensen, 1990; Bilgrave & Deluty, 1998).
Schlosser (2003) believed that the lack of research into religion could be traced to
Christian privilege, which functions to keep Jewish issues unnoticed. As an important
part of society and the history of psychology, Jewish experience and identity warrant
Jews have had to cope with being marginalized for some time. It is likely that
thousands of years of oppression have installed coping strategies to help Jews survive and
prosper (Altman et al., 2010; Berman, 1994; Fein, 1988; Langman, 1999; Rosmarin et al.,
2009). Adaptive behaviors include an appropriate balance of bicultural identity (i.e.,
American and Jewish) and community support (Altman et al., 2010; Friedman et al.,

2005). Jews are aware of their surroundings and identify times and situations in which
appraisal necessitates denial of identity for safety or coping (Altman et al., 2010). When
identified, Jews are often expected to educate majority culture, or “act Jewish,” and are
questioned when behaviors do not align with stereotypes (Altman et al., 2010; Schlosser,
2003, 2006). Contemporary Jews are likely to face more obstacles from non-Jews
because they are less likely to feel a connection to the traditions of the faith than Jews of
previous cohorts (Friedman et al., 2005; Langman, 1999). Because they are less likely to
have a connection to the faith, today's Jews fear anti-Semitism less than previous
generations (Friedman et al., 2005; Langman, 1999).
Studies have documented the difficulties Orthodox Jews encounter in culture
(Mael, 1991). It is likely that Orthodox Jews face unique difficulties in contending with
Christian privilege, as their religious and ethnic identity is visible, especially among men
(e.g., yarmulkes). Less research has focused on the issues non-Orthodox Jews encounter
on a daily basis. Non-Orthodox Jews face obstacles that are not shared by all members of
the group, which may compound issues found in other populations (Altman et al., 2010;
Schlosser, 2006).
Mental health issues may present when individuals attempt to behave in a way
that does not conform to a Jewish stereotype, “pass” as a non-Jew, or are asked to speak
for all Jews or Judaism (Altman et al., 2010; Fein, 1988; Friedman et al., 2005; Rosmarin
et al., 2009; Schlosser, 2006). Stereotypes and assumptions could have wide ranging
impacts on Jewish mental health. Contemporary Jews are a minority in a majority
Christian Country, where there unique issues often go unnoticed. Today’s Jews face anti-

Semitism and the reverberations of the holocaust (Schlosser, 2006). Jews may exhibit
more paranoia, (i.e., healthy paranoia) due to a long history of oppression and marginality
(Langman, 1995; Schlosser, 2006).
Jews that live and work in Christian culture face issues that could impact their
mental health (e.g., fear of job loss, hate crimes, and mischaracterization of ethnic origins
and religious beliefs are made public). The difficulty non-Orthodox Jews have
navigating mainstream culture likely varies depending on contact with Christianity, level
of acculturation, and religiosity. To be Christian is the “norm” in America. Christian
holidays are regarded as “American” and “secular,” regardless of their religious origins
and meanings. Some may find it easier to choose to remain silent when approached by
an Evangelist or attend work, rather than temple, on the High Holy Days (Schlosser,
2003; Mael, 1991). Non-Orthodox Jews must also deal with being negatively evaluated
by Jews and non-Jews alike for being “not Jewish enough.” This issue, termed legitimacy
testing (The Jewish Daily Forward, 2010), is a unique challenge faced by non-Orthodox
Jews (and likely by others in similar positions vis-à-vis more Orthodox members of their
religions). As noted by a fellow graduate student, you are a heretic if you are less
religious than me, and you are a zealot if you are more religious than me (R. Adisy,
personal communication, 2009).
The voice of American Judaism is overlooked and relegated to stereotypes. The
United States is the most religiously diverse nation in the world, but it is often referred to
as a “Christian nation” (Blumenfeld, 2006) and Christianity is the most common religion
(Pew, 2010). Jewish beliefs are often erroneously bundled with Christian beliefs (i.e.,

Judeo-Christian values) – this minimizes Jew’s marginality and the different values held
by the groups (Friedman et al., 2005; Schlosser, 2006). They inhabit every socioeconomic
status, many geographic areas, and differ greatly with regard to their levels of religiosity.
Jews have been made to feel shame for their accomplishments, face oppression that goes
largely unexamined, and feel more internalized anti-Semitism than previous cohorts
(Beaman, 2003; Friedman et al., 2005; Langman, 1999; Schlosser, 2006).
Recent scholarly work has focused on gaining a better understanding of the
intersection of privilege and religion (Kinney et al., 2011). Little focus has been paid to
understanding the perspectives of those who do not enjoy the benefits of Christian
privilege (Clark et al., 2002; Blumenfeld, 2009; Schlosser; 2003). Aware of the
aforementioned reality, Schlosser (2003) wrote that discussing Christian privilege was
breaking a taboo. The issue is taboo due to pressures; both overt and covert are in place
to ensure that dominance remains in the hands of Christianity (Schlosser, 2003). Christian
privilege, like other privileges, has been envisioned as a sort of “knapsack” that has many
objects inside (Blumenfield, 2006; McIntosh, 1988; Schlosser, 2003). Part of opening and
exploring the knapsack of privilege and oppression is developing an understanding of the
impact of the privileged, which can be facilitated by hearing from the oppressed.
Much of the existing literature on Christian privilege and the Jewish experience is
theoretical or conceptual (Alba, 2006; Altman et al., 2010; Blumenfeld, 2006; Friedman
et al., 2005; Klaff, 2006; Schlosser, 2006). I intend to add to the knowledge base of
Christian privilege and the Jewish identity through qualitative methods. I will explore
their coping strategies and experiences in culture, communities, and workplaces. This

study is designed to fill a gap in the literature by raising awareness of the experience of
religious minorities in America - partially uncovering the pain and success they feel while
working with, and sometimes without, the support of dominant Christian culture to
achieve success and happiness.
Research Questions
1. How do Jews interpret their Judaism in a predominantly Christian culture?
2. What kinds of experiences impact an individual's Jewish identity?
3. How do Jewish individuals view, understand, and experience Christian privilege?
4. What is the individual impact of Christian privilege?
5. How can mental health professionals better support Jewish people?

The main goal of this study is to explore the coping strategies (i.e., behavioral and
psychological) employed by American non-Orthodox Jews in handling Christian
privilege, (e.g., at work, in relationships, with family) while maintaining a sense of
Jewish identity. The knowledge obtained from this research will inform future research
and augment the discourse regarding religion in the United States. The information will
help Jews, other religious minorities, mental health professionals, and graduate training
programs. It is of critical importance to elevate the dialogue regarding religion and
oppression to a level in which the oppressed are no longer nameless, faceless, and
voiceless. Hearing from a group of non-Orthodox American Jews will add to the
understanding of the impact of Christian privilege on those that do not benefit from it.

Giving a voice to the participants will help mental health professionals improve
interventions, dismantle oppression and disparities, add to the sociopolitical dialogue, and
foster an understanding of all religions and the interplay between them in a culturally
pluralistic society.
Definition of Terms

American Jew: Jews who reside in the United States, and spent the dominant portion of
childhood in the United States, regardless of ethnicity. This includes Jews of all sects
(e.g., Reform, Yeshivish, Modern Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox, Conservative, etc.).

Anti-Semitism: Aggression toward Jews that can present on an individual, institutional, or
societal level (Schlosser & MacDonald-Dennis, 2006).

Christian: Previous research has defined a Christian as anyone who self-identifies as
Christian and believes (1) Jesus Christ is lord and savior (2) in the holy trinity (GodJesus-Holy Spirit), and the resurrection of Christ (Schlosser, 2003). For the purposes of
this study, I will operationally define it as anyone who self-identifies as such.

Christian privilege: As the dominant group, Christians have the ability to create an ethos,
in which Christianity is viewed as the norm, thus, creating an environment in which being
non-Christian is abnormal (Blumenfeld, 2006; Clark et al., 2002; Schlosser, 2003).

Ethnicity: A group of people with similar characteristics that live in the same region or
descended from the same geographic region. Close proximity results similar ways of
thinking, feeling, and behaving (Bergen & Jensen, 1990; Fouad & Brown, 2000).

Internalized anti-Semitism: Conflicting or negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors
about one’ s Jewish identity. The thoughts and feelings can range from confusion to selfhatred. Behavioral manifestations include disinterest in Jewish activities, denying one’s
own Jewish identity, and disparaging practicing Jews (Langman, 2000).

Jew: According to Jewish law, a Jew is a person that was born to a Jewish mother or
converted to Judaism (Telushkin, 2001). For the purposes of the proposed study, I will
operationally define it as anyone who self-identifies as such.

Multicultural Personality: Traits that are stable and include stability in racial or ethnic
identity, embracing diversity and spirituality with openness to a diversity of experiences.
This person would also have cognitive flexibility and abilities to adapt and work in
diverse and multiple contexts. This individual would also be open and willing to
advocate (Ponterotto, 2010).

Privilege: Aspects of identity that allow groups to go unexamined and retain a position of
power (e.g., white, male, heterosexual, middle-class, Christian, etc.).

Religion: A socially constructed system of ritual behaviors, worship, faith, and tradition
that organize and bind people (Dyson et al., 1997; Fukuyama & Sevig, 1999).

Religious Minority: Statistically, all religious groups that are not Christian in the United
States (e.g., Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.).

Secular Jew: A person that identifies as Jewish, but does not take part in any of the
religious aspects of the culture (Altman et al., 2010).


Chapter II:

There is limited research that focuses on the experience of religious minorities,
which can be traced to the lenses through which religion is viewed and discussed in
America and psychology. Jewish people are not usually included in lists of minority
groups, people of color excludes Jews, and Jewish scholars usually meet some resistance
when presenting issues pertaining to multiculturalism (Langman, 1999). In the United
States, the discourse around religion is based on assumptions and unexamined beliefs that
establish Christianity as normative, thus, religious minorities are seen as abnormal or
deviant (i.e., subordinate to and less valuable than Christianity) (Schlosser et al., 2009).
Of marginalized religious groups, it has been said that Jews have shouldered the wrath of
Christian privilege and oppression throughout American history (Clark et al., 2002). All
of the above contributes to an invalidation of the Jewish experience (Langman, 1999).
As recently as 2008, bills have been signed into law that protect religious
minorities from hate crimes and some of the impact of anti-Semitism (Anti-Defamation
League, 2009). These legislative actions highlight the importance of understanding the

experience of marginalized religious groups. In an effort to explore the impact Christian
privilege has on Jews, the literature review that follows will focus on these issues: Jewish
identity, the experience of American Jews, anti-Semitism, internalized anti-Semitism,
intersections of identities, identity management strategies, oppression and privilege, and
sources, impacts, and costs of Christian privilege.
There is limited research that focuses on Jews, which may be due to erroneous
beliefs that Jews have succeeded, with both power and access (Goldberg, 1996). Judaism
is at once an ethnicity, a culture, and a religion, rooted in more than 5,000 years of
history. The multifaceted nature of Jewish heritage has yielded a group of people that
occupy every social strata and vary in degree of practice, from traditional to nonobservant (Langman, 1999; Schlosser; 2006; Schoenfeld, 1999). Of the twelve million
Jews worldwide, approximately six million reside in the United States, and make up one
to three percent of the population (Altman, et al., 2009, Kosmin & Lachman, 1993;
Langman, 1999). American Jews can be divided into three major groups, (1) those who
descended from Jews and practice Judaism, (2) those that do not practice, but are of
Jewish descent, and (3) those who have converted to Judaism (Schlosser, 2006).
Jewish Identity
American Jewish identity is complex, fluid, personal, and contextual (Altman et
al., 2010; Blumenfeld & Klein, 2009; Boyarin & Boyarin, 1993; Friedman et al., 2005;
Gans, 1956; Langman, 1999; Naumburg, 2007; Rosen, 2006; Schoenfeld, 1956;
Schlosser, 2006). Early inquiries into Judaism assessed it in terms of behavioral and

associational dimensions that were attributed to “good Jews,” implying that religious
practices are part of Jewish experience (Altman et al., 2010; Gans, 1956; Steinberg 1965).
Contemporary inquiries into identity incorporate that American Jews have traditions and
commonalities that transcend religiosity (Altman et al., 2010; Friedman et al., 2005;
Langman et al., 1999; Schlosser, 2006; Smith, 2009). Jewish people can hold a strong
sense of Jewish identity, but not ascribe to any of the religious aspects of the culture, such
as keeping Jewish law, participating in religious services, or observing Jewish holidays
(Schlosser, 2006).
Many Jewish people do not identify any denominational affiliation, but still retain
a strong sense of Jewishness (Altman et al., 2010; Friedman et al., 2005; Langman,
1999). Developmental change and events throughout life influences Jewish identity
formation (Friedman et al., 2005). Variability leads to differences in practice, affiliation,
and observance. Religious Jews may experience Judaism in terms of observance, while
non-observant Jews experience Judaism as personal and communal (Altman et al., 2010;
Friedman et al., 2005; Schlosser, 2006). Some keep the traditional living style of
ancestral Judaism, while others see their Jewishness in terms of political affiliations, most
notably through identification with Israel, while others mix the traditional and
contemporary aspects of Judaism (Friedman et al., 2005). Whether more secular or
devout, Jews can retain a strong cultural identity that consists of conflicting views such as
pride, shame, generativity, and marginality in American culture (Friedman et al., 2005;
Schlosser, 2006). Jewish identity is an ethnicity and a faith, and as such primary Jewish
identity should be delineated into two categories: one that is ethnic and another that is

religious (Schlosser, 2006).
Ethnic Identity
Ethnic identity is stable and contributes to self-concept in minority group
membership (Atkinson, 1983; Fischer & Moradi, 2001; Phinney, 1996). Jews report that,
although their level of practice and observance fluctuates across time, their sense of being
Jewish is enduring (Friedman et al., 2005). This lifelong feeling of Jewishness is present
in values, cognitions, relationships and ideas. Individuals are born into the Jewish
ethnicity, and maintain that sense of culture, while one can choose to observe or not
observe Judaism as a religion.
At the cornerstone of American Jewry are peace and justice, expressed through an
emphasis on life, freedom for all, homeostasis between nature, animal, and humans, and
Tikkun Olam – taking actions to repair the world (Schlosser, 2006). With regards to
Tikkun Olam, Jews that identify more with religious law may not endorse this value,
although it is taught throughout religious education (R. Shapiro, personal communication,
2011). This difference in value is reflected in the American Jewish identity scale, which
places Tukkun Olam in the cultural domain rather than the religious realm (Friedlander, et
al., 2010). Most American Jews value debate, discussion, and education, which has
contributed to the variability in the American Jewish perspective on moral and political
issues, such as abortion (Langman, 1999; Levitt & Balkin, 2003; Schlosser, 2006).
While valuing multiple perspectives, many American Jews agree on the political
issues of Israel. American Jews feel a connection to both the United States and Israel,
along with concern for the welfare of each (Altman et al, 2010; Friedman et al., 2005).

The connection and pride are manifested through supporting American projects in Israel,
and traveling there whenever possible (Friedman et al., 2005). While aware of their
minority status, many express pride for America, Israel, and Jewishness (Friedman et al.,
Research indicates that Jews feel they have a bicultural identity, both Jewish and
American (Altman et al., 2010; Friedman et al., 2005). Either identity can become
salient, dependent on the context (Altman, et al., 2010; Clark et al., 2002; Friedman et al.,
2005; Langman, 1999). Each serves as a lens to view the world through. Some see their
American identity as secondary to their Jewish identity, but feel each is equally
important, and ever present (Friedman et al., 2005). Judaism becomes more relevant
when surrounded by non-Jews, while American identity might be the focus during times
of national tragedy or while traveling abroad (Clark et al., 2002; Friedman et al., 2005).
Cognitive factors, such as awareness of oppression and anti-Semitism, also play a
significant role in the expression and understanding of Jewish identity (Altman et al.,
2010; Smith, 1991).
Ethnic Jewish identity is marked by value of communal aspects of life, such as
family and traditions (Schlosser, 2006). Interpersonal relationships, including marriage
within Judaism, are important, as many feel more comfortable and understood in Jewish
company (Altman et al., 2010; Friedman et al., 2005). Most are able to express Judaism
within Jewish settings, such as temple or at the Jewish Community Center, but feel less
apt to do so in non-Jewish settings. Continuing to practice and observe Jewish traditions
aids in paying tribute to ancestral Jews that were persecuted and sometimes killed for

their beliefs (Altman et al., 2010).
Religious identity
In contrast to ethnic identity, which is stable across life, religious aspects of
Judaism are dynamic (Friedman et al., 2005). At times, the traditions and faith are more
important, while at others it is less so. The fluctuation usually occurs surrounding
milestones of lifespan development, such as marriage, birth, and death (Friedman et al.,
2005). During these times, many Jews want to add religious practices. In a study
conducted by Friedman et al., (2005) participants spoke about feeing guilt for not
integrating Jewish practices and traditions into daily living. Adding Jewish practice to
life takes many different forms, including temple attendance or enrolling children in
religious education courses (Altman et al., 2010; Friedman et al., 2005).
Although many Jews are affiliated with denominations, some are reluctant to
discuss the affiliation because the historical denominational distinctions do not accurately
capture individual experiences (Friedman et al, 2005). Many see Judaism as a personal
experience. Many Jewish people search for God through individualized spiritual
practices (Friedman et al., 2005). The diversity of the American Jewish experience is
reflected in the different sects and movements.
Denominations. The denominations of Judaism share some similarities, but each
have distinct practices and beliefs (Friedman et al., 2005; Schlosser, 2006). Although
there are many movements within Judaism, below I will outline the most common in the
United States, as identified by Schlosser, (2006) beginning with the most traditional.
Hasidic Jews are distinct in their attire: the men wear black hats and women dress

modestly, often shaving their heads and wearing wigs (Schlosser, 2006). They are
steeped in Jewish tradition, first learning to speak Yiddish, then Hebrew, and finally
English. These Jews strictly adhere to the religious lifestyle by keeping kosher and the
Sabbath, and observing the laws of family purity (Schlosser, 2006). They believe the
Torah is literally God's law and live in communities outside of secular culture (Schlosser,
2006). The Orthodox follow most or all of Jewish law, such as keeping Sabbath,
observing holidays, and keeping kosher. Their dress is mostly indistinguishable from
secular culture, with the exception of the male yarmulke and women's slightly more
modest attire (Altman et al., 2010; Schlosser et al., 2006). The Conservative sect is more
egalitarian, mixing modernity with many traditions. Services are mostly performed in
Hebrew and conservative Jews are more likely to keep kosher (Altman et al., 2010;
Schlosser, 2006). The Conservative movement has a positive outlook on its mingling
with modern culture. Reconstructionists keep the traditional aspects of Judaism, and
maintain a progressive ideology (Schlosser, 2006). For example, Reconstructionists were
the first movement to hold Bat Mitzvahs for girls (Langman, 1999). Finally, Reform is
the most progressive of the major groups, promoting individualism and envisioning
Judaism as a dynamic religion that changes with culture (Altman, 2010; Schlosser, 2006).
With the evolution of the Conservative and Reform movements, the two denominations
now closely resemble one another (Schlosser, 2006).
Reinforcers and Challenges to Maintaining Jewish Identity
Reinforcers. Maintaining traditions and religiosity through attending services,
going to temple, or holding Bat/Bar Mitzvahs helps retain a strong sense of Jewry. These

events and services help individuals reinforce the Jewish identity that live in areas with
both high and low Jewish populations, for example, if Jews live in an area with a small
Jewish population, it facilitates a connection to the traditions of the faith and other Jews.
A personal connection to Judaism is reinforced by family and community that
share similar beliefs, morals, and values (Altman et al., 2010). This allows one to feel
confident that their traditions and values will be respected and transmitted (Altman et al,
2010; Friedman et al, 2005). For many, living in a community that has the support of
Jewish family and friends is an important asset that adds to comfort and free expression
(Altman et al., 2010). Having friends with similar beliefs promotes a sense of
commonality with a safe, shared experience.
Challenges. It can be difficult to find reinforcers of Jewish identity. Finding
friends and partners with similar experiences can be a chore for this population
(Friedman et al., 2005). For that reason, some seek out non-Jewish communities that are
tolerant and willing to learn about Jewish issues, and make it a priority to be forthright
about beliefs and Jewish ethnicity in non-Jewish company (Altman et al., 2010; Friedman
et al., 2005).
Jewish minority status can disrupt maintenance of Jewish identity and has taken a
psychological toll on the population (Altman et al., 2010; Friedman et al., 2010;
Langman, 1999). Christian traditions that are part of Americana have no meaning for
Jewish people and remind them that they are different from the majority of the population
(Altman et al., 2010). This leaves Jews feeling marginal, hurt, and inferior to others
(Altman et al., 2010). Marginality leads Jews to wonder about their fit across cultural

contexts, often asking if they belong or are accepted by the dominant culture. It has led
Jews to question their racial identity- aware that they are not fully White and not as
marginal as people of color (Alba, 2006; Brodkin, 2000; Langman, 1999; Schlenfeld,
1999). Jews tend to be aware of their differences from others, while uncertain about
majority-minority identity (Baile et al., 1998; Blumenfeld & Klein, 2009).
The non-Orthodox Jewish identity is invisible, unless one makes their identity
known through actions, such as wearing a symbol or vocalizing their identity (Langman,
1999; Schlosser, 2006). Most Jews would not be comfortable disclosing their heritage
due to the disparities that are present in the United States (Schlosser, 2006). Jews have
been compelled to go unseen by the majority of people.
Jews can experience some, but not all, of the benefits of White privilege
(Langman, 1999; Schlosser, 2006). The success afforded to Whites would have been
difficult to achieve, unless the distinctions between Judaism and Christianity were
weakened, allowing for permeation of the artificial boundary that more overtly oppressed
Jews prior to World War II (Alba, 2006). To pass, Jews had to critically look at practices,
and shed some traditions that were not accepted by dominant American culture (Alba,
2005, 2006). For the most part, dominant culture persists without noticing individual
Jewish identity. This leaves Jews confused about their role in culture, feeling that their
issues are not important in America (Blumenfeld, 2006; Blumenfeld & Klein, 2009;
MacDonald-Dennis, 2009; Schlosser, 2006).

Intersection of Multiple Identities/Identity Management
As previously discussed, American Jewish identity is bicultural (Altman et al.,
2010; Croteau et al., 2002; Friedman et al., 2005). The duality of American Jewish
identity can cause value conflict. Jews feel like outsiders in contemporary American
culture (Alper and Olson, 2012). People experience conflict when American identity is
not congruent with Jewish identity. American culture can be more individualistic, while
Jewish culture tends to be more collective (Schlosser, 2006). Jews can feel
uncomfortable when their individual wants are not parallel to that of their family
(Schlosser, 2006). It can also be difficult to balance bicultural identity and observance
due to minority status and lack of reinforcement, as the majority of people are Christian
in the United States (Altman et al., 2010). For example, when school is in session during
Jewish holidays, families are forced to choose to observe the holiday or send their child
to school (Altman et al., 2010). Aware of the bicultural identity, many feel a sense of
pride and congruence for both Jewry and American citizenship, while also expressing
marginality and inferiority in American culture (Altman et al., 2010; Friedman et al.,
Jews have been systematically attacked through violent acts and prohibition of
education, travel, and business dealings (Schoenfeld, 1999). Anti-Semitism has existed,
in some form, for thousands of years. However, anti-Semitism and its impact have
changed over time. The persistent existence of Jewish discrimination and oppression has
become part of the Jewish identity (Altman et al., 2010; Cohen; 2010; Friedman et al.,

Dubbed the world's “Longest Hatred,” today's anti-Semitism is qualitatively
different than in previous years (Judaken, 2008; Klug, 2003; Moyn, 2009). The act of
openly discussing anti-Semitic attitudes, most notably, discussing hostility toward Israel,
is growing in popularity (Judaken, 2008; Klug, 2003; Moyn, 2009). Many openly say
that Jews are too powerful in the United States government. In reality there are few
Jewish people in elected office (Simon & Schaler, 2007). Some Europeans and
Americans think that the United States is overly supportive of Israeli issues, which may
be related to the erroneous belief that Jews are too powerful in United States government.
A large percentage of Europeans and Americans think Israel is the single largest threat to
world security, with some countries calling for Israel to be disbanded (Simon & Schaler,
Recent research indicates that anti-Semitic acts and values are increasing in
Europe and United States (Anti-Defamation League, 2005b; Klug, 2003; Paragment et
al., 2007; Simon & Schaler, 2007). There has been a surge in the number of journalistic
reports that have anti-Semitic themes and reports of hate crimes on college campuses
(Cohen, 2010; Marcus, 2007). In 2000, there was dramatic increase in domestic antiSemitic hate crimes (Simon & Schaler, 2007). In 2007, hate crimes against Jews
constituted 66% of religious hate crimes and 12% of all hate crimes (Anti-Defamation
League, 2005b). The Anti-Defamation League reported that 2009 hosted the largest
number of anti-Semitic crimes since 2000. It is possible that anti-Semitic crimes are
higher than the statistics indicate, due to a number of incidents that go under and

misreported (Henry & Jacobs, 1996). Although less widespread and violent than the antiSemitism that lead to the Holocaust, Jews rank number one as targets of religiously
motivated crimes (Kille, 2005a).
With closer ties to anti-Semitic laws and the holocaust, older American Jews see
anti-Semitism as a major world issue (Langman, 1999). These connections and views are
often passed to Jewish offspring through more protective parenting styles (RowlandKlein & Dunlop, 1997; Schlosser, 2003). Thus, some Jews are over-identified with the
persecution they experienced during the Holocaust, and view the world as unsafe or
dangerous (Rowland-Klein & Dunlop, 1997; Schlosser, 2003). This outlook on the world
results in heightened levels of paranoia that manifests as constant vigilance that limits
expression (Altman et al., 2010; Cohen, 2010; Friedman et al., 2005; Schlosser, 2006).
The targets of anti-Semitism tend to be more religiously identified Jews (Cohen,
2010; McCoy & Major, 2003; Ontario & Fiske, 2001; Sellers & Shelton, 2003; Shamir &
Sagiv-Schifter, 2006). Individuals that are more expressive with their Judaism, such as
through wearing a Star of David or through correcting stereotypes publicly, are more
likely to have had experiences with anti-Semitism (Cohen, 2010; McCoy & Major, 2003;
Ontario & Fiske, 2001; Sellers & Shelton, 2003; Shamir & Sagiv-Schifter, 2006). The
anti-Semitism they experience most often presents as derogatory terminology or
questioning of religiosity (Friedman et al., 2005). Experiences with anti-Semitism cause
Jews to question their responsibility in victimization and feel a sense of diminished selfworth about one's heritage (Altman et al., 2010; Friedman et al., 2005).

Internalized Anti-Semitism
Internalized anti-Semitism can be thoughts, feelings, or expressions (Langman
1999, 2000). One with internalized anti-Semitism might have a diminished sense of
well-being and have poor opinions of Jews in general (Altman et al., 2010; Schlosser
2006). The cognitions are on a spectrum from confusion to self-hatred. Behavioral
manifestations include disinterest in Jewish activities, denying one’s own Jewish identity,
and disparaging other Jews that are practicing (Langman, 2000). The internalization of
anti-Semitism impacts the practices and retention of Jewish identity (Altman et al., 2010;
Friedman et al., 2005). Those that internalize anti-Semitism are more likely to feel some
disdain for Jewish heritage and move away from or avoid Jewish affiliations. Some
express feelings of shame for their Jewish heritage, even when alone (Friedman et al.,
Modern non-Orthodox American Jews closely resemble members of dominant
culture. Assimilated Jewish people are more ambivalent about their heritage (Friedman
et al., 2005). These Jews are more likely to feel some internalized anti-Semitism,
because mainstream culture does not regard Judaism as a desirable identity, but rather,
hold Christianity as the standard (Friedman et al., 2005; Langman, 1999; Schlosser,
2003). A reform Jew may never wear a sign of their Judaism in public, and feel Judaism
is more of a hindrance than something to be proud of (Langman, 1999).
Experiences with anti-Semitism can cause pain and lead one to question safety.
To avoid the pain and ridicule, many do not express Judaism outside of Jewish company
or deny their identity all together (Blumenfeld & Klein, 2009). This is done most often to

pass as non-Jewish, due to uncertainty of surroundings and of attitudes others hold
toward Jews (Altman et al., 2010). Some may turn from Judaism, in favor of a secular
lifestyle, which will not include the difficulties of Jewish identity. Trends highlight nonOrthodox Jews favoring non-religious life through intermarriage and celebrating
mainstream Christian holidays, over the Jewish High Holy Days (Cohen, 2007). For
American Jews, conformity has been salvation (Blumenfeld & Klein, 2009).
Christian Privilege
Privilege is gained and transmitted over time, allowing one's actions and beliefs to
persist unexamined (Duncan; 2003; Schlosser, 2003). It is a systemic issue that protects
the power held by the majority groups (e.g., Whites, males, Christians, etc.). Privilege is
marked by an uneven distribution of advantage or benefit given to a group or individual
(Schlosser, 2003).
Privilege and Oppression
Oppression is across contexts and impacts both individuals and systems, as it
pressures groups to act in ways that meet dominant cultural expectations (Frye, 2003). In
institutional forms, it serves to propagate norms (Sue, 1999). If an individual from an
oppressed group acts against societal expectations, the system seeks balance. Forces
within the system pressure the individual to act as expected (Frye, 2003). The pressure
maintains the status quo and contributes to difficulties in correcting social disparities.
Identifying and confronting privilege is a complicated process that can be difficult
for both the privileged and the oppressed (McIntosh, 1988). Gaining an understanding of
the experience of the oppressed and non-privileged is one of the first and best steps in

leveling disparities (Kimmel & Ferber, 2003). When confronted by privilege a member
of the privileged group may have difficulty identifying it and become defensive, citing
non-privileged identity variables. Oppressors are often unaware of the impact of their
actions (Sue, 1999).
Origins, History, and Development of Christian Privilege
Christians experience privilege and have advantages in American culture
(Schlosser 2003). Christian privilege, like other privileges, allows Christians to go
through life unexamined and unnoticed (Schlosser 2003). Christianity is an expectation,
partially because most people in the United States are Christians. Fully 88% of the
population, Christians are a larger majority than the White population (Duncan, 2003;
Pew, 2011; Schlosser, 2003; Schlosser & Foley, 2008). More than 50% of Christians
self-identify as Evangelical (The Pew Forum, 2010; Gallup, 2005). Evangelical
Christians understand biblical texts as the errorless word of God and the only authority.
Evangelical beliefs are important to note as many non-Evangelical Christians hold similar
beliefs, thereby, it is likely that the views of conservative Christianity have a large
influence on the current cultural ethos that influences religious discourse (Cumings,
Haworth, & O'Neil, 2011; Hyers & Hyers, 2008; Rosik & Smith, 2009).
History. Understanding the history of Christian privilege is part of the process of
deconstructing the disparities it causes (Fairchild, 2009; McIntosh, 1988). Christianity
was established as a religion surrounding the death of its leader (McGrath, 2006).
Described as “post-traumatic” expansion, it has been theorized that the trauma of Jesus’
persecution and subsequent death has become the focal point of the religion, and created

an entire population that believes itself to be persecuted (McGrath, 2006). This belief has
propelled Christianity to grow at a rate unparalleled in history until recently eclipsed by
Islam (McGrath, 2006; Schlosser et al., 2009).
Christians left Europe to escape religiously-based persecution and oppression, in
pursuit of an environment suitable for free observance (Schoenfeld, 1999). Upon
American settlement, several colonies established state religions and banned others
entirely, sometimes punishing non-Christians by death (Blumenfeld, 2006; Duncan, 2003;
Fairchild, 2009; Schoenfeld, 1999). In 1776, states began removing religious affiliations,
because the newly established federal government resisted endorsing a religion. The
founders understood religion as part of government to be oppressive (Duncan, 2003;
Fairchild, 2009; Waldman, 2008). However, today's America remains a “Secular nation”
dominated by Christianity.
Manifestations. Christian privilege can be seen across communities and
contexts. The current calendar, originally designed by the Romans, marks time through a
Christian lens, beginning with the birth of Jesus (Blumenfeld, 2006; Schlosser, 2003).
School calendars support the Christian holidays, and in many areas of the country nonChristian children have to be absent to observe their holidays (Schlosser & Sedlacek,
2003; Schlosser, 2003; Seifert, 2007). Some states prohibit certain business from taking
place on Sundays (e.g., “Blue Laws” prohibit stores from opening or making specific
sales) (Blumenfeld, 2006). Religious traditions are entrenched in American pastimes and
government practices such as, prayer before sporting events and before lawmakers
convene (Schlosser, 2003). While being manifestations of Christian privilege, these

examples serve to keep power in the domain of Christians, effectively disempowering
minority religious groups (Schlosser, 2003).
Jewish - Christian Relations. Jews have such a long history with Christian
privilege that anti-Semitism has been identified as the oldest manifestation (Clark et al.,
2002). Historically, Christians have been reluctant to discuss anti-Semitism (Eckardt &
Eckardt, 1970). However, the Holocaust, the formation of Israel, and other anti-Semitic
events have forced Jewish and Christian theologians to examine the discourse (D'Costa,
1990). Many researchers and authors have wondered if Jewish-Christian relations will
always be marred by anti-Semitic acts. Some have asked if Christianity and the Gospels
are inherently anti-Semitic, and have concluded that they are not (Kille, 2004, 2005). It
is more likely that anti-Semitic acts are from erroneous beliefs that some ethnocentric
Christians hold than that the entire religion is against Judaism (D'Costa, 1990; Feldman,
Anti-Semitism has been condemned by the major denominations of Christianity.
Despite this, prejudice remains high among the devout, with its highest rates among
frequent churchgoers, who endorse extrinsic religiousness and believe their religion to be
the only truth (Allport, 1966; Allport & Ross, 1967; Hoge & Carroll, 1975; Langman,
1999; Scheepers et al., 2002). Belief in one truth, submission to authority without
question, and church attendance co-vary with prejudice and anti-Semitic attitudes
(Allport & Ross, 1967; Sheepers et al., 2002). That is, as one forgoes the option to accept
and respect other religious beliefs, while seeing their religion as the one and only true
faith and frequency of church attendance increase, so does the likelihood that one will

hold anti-Semitic values. When an individual feels other religious beliefs are an attack on
their own values, that person may feel it necessary to defend their values with prejudice.
Prejudice facilitates self-esteem development and helps group members feel valued by
their faith group (Aberson et al., 2000; Paragment et al., 2007).
Christians are the politically powerful numerical majority dominant religious
group in the United States (Schlosser, 2003). Schlosser (2003) called the discussion of
Christian privilege “breaking a sacred taboo.” He believed covert and overt forces exist
to ensure privilege is retained by Christians alone. First termed in relation to gender
inequalities, the “Nonconscious Ideology” has been applied to Christian privilege (Bem
& Bem, 1970; Schlosser, 2003). The nonconscious ideology is a belief that Christian
privilege allows one to live life without examination, much like a fish that has never been
out of water (Bem & Bem, 1970; Schlosser, 2003). The fish, with no experience of air
has no idea that it is surrounded by water, as it has only been wet. Christians in the U.S.,
like the fish, only know the privilege that comes with Christianity, because that is their
only experience. Not only are they unaware of their privilege, but they do not see the
impact it has on others. Christianity is seen as normal and assumed in most cases in
America (Blumenfeld, 2006; Schlosser, 2003; Schlosser et al., 2009). These beliefs serve
to perpetuate a consistent state of affairs (Schlosser, 2003).
Even when made conscious, Christian privilege can be a difficult construct of the
privileged to understand (Kinney et al., 2011). Much like Whites find it hard to examine
their racism, it can be difficult for Christians to comprehend the impact of their actions

(Schlosser, 2003). Looking at built in beliefs causes discomfort and guilt (Langman,
1999). When Christian privilege is illuminated to Christians, many object, citing their
individual experience of persecution (Clark et al., 2002). Some might begin to artificially
fragment personal beliefs from “mainstream” Christian beliefs (e.g., describing their
denominational or individual beliefs in contrast) (Clark et al., 2002; McIntosh, 1998;
Schlosser et al., 2009; Simoni & Waters, 2001). Others may see reasons for Christian
privilege, such as numerical majority status, which many believe warrants some level of
freedom and special allotment (Kinney et al., 2011). Many see Christianity as the
American institution, although the federal government was never established as a
Christian state. Some believe the United States democracy should protect Christians
over and above marginalized religious groups (Kinney et al., 2011). These and other
rationalizations further invalidate the experiences of religious minorities (Schlosser,
Although there are costs to Christians and Christian culture, including negative
views held by marginal populations, loss of opportunity for relationships, and decreased
diversity, this portion of the manuscript will focus on the costs to marginalized religious
populations. There is limited research that focuses on the costs of Christian privilege to
marginalized religious groups. Drawing from identified Christian privileges, probable
costs to religious minorities include negative stereotypes and limited access to resources,
such as missed employment and societal support opportunities (Schlosser, 2003).
When it is assumed that all people are Christian, it offends non-Christians and

contributes to segregation among the religions (Schlosser, 2003). Some states still
prohibit certain business dealings on Sundays, effectively restricting religious minorities
from being able to make purchases during free time. Like other oppressed populations,
negative stereotypes cause pain on an individual and group level (McIntosh, 1988).
Minority religious group members are likely concerned about the impact of disclosing
their affiliations, and the possible safety issues that it could have (Schlosser, 2003).
Jews Experience of Christian Privilege
It is difficult to comprehend the psychological experience of Christian privilege
on the Jewish population. As previously discussed, Jews have shouldered the majority of
Christian privilege and currently experience more hate crimes than any other religious
group in America (Anti-Defamation League, 2006a; Anti-Defamation League, 2006b;
Anti-Defamation League, 2009; Clark et al., 2002; Simon & Schaler, 2007). The
awareness of discrimination affects the thoughts, actions, beliefs, and views of Jewish
Some Jews express a constant feeling of embarrassment for being Jewish (Friedman et
al., 2003).
Christian privilege has changed the face of Jewish practice in the United States, as
(Schoenfeld, 1999). Jews have been compelled to assimilate into the mainstream (Gans,
1956). They question religious law and shed traditions to gain access to resources held
by dominant culture (Mayer, 1979; Schoenfeld, 1999). The longstanding oppression of
Jews has resulted in a mentality marked by anxiety, uncertainty, and questioning of status
as Jewish Americans (Altman et al., 2010; Berman, 1994; Blumenfeld & Klein, 2009;

Fein, 1988).
Christians are a privileged group, much like Whites, males, and heterosexuals
(Schlosser, 2003). There is limited research that focuses on the experience of religious
minorities, which can be traced to the way religious issues are viewed in the United
States and psychology. The discourse around religion is based on assumptions and
unexamined beliefs that establish Christianity as normative. Thus, religious minorities
are seen as abnormal or deviant (i.e., subordinate to and less valuable than Christianity)
(Schlosser et al., 2009). The beliefs leave religious minorities to wonder about their
value and place in society.
Furthering the understanding of religiously based oppression may support the
religious dialogue and aide in dismantling oppressive ideologies and systems. Jews have
been the group most affected by Christian privilege throughout history (Clark et al.,
2002). The above literature review highlights the importance in understanding how
religious minorities are impacted by Christian privilege. Jews, with a long history of
experienced anti-Semitism and oppression are likely aware of the benefits and costs of
Christian privilege. Illuminating the experience of Jews, is a pivotal step in opening
dialogue and deconstructing privilege and oppression (Fairchild & Blumenfeld, 2007;
Swim et al., 2001; Watt, 2007, 2009).

Chapter III:

Because of the limited research on the construct of Christian Privilege, a
qualitative approach was utilized for examining the experiences of Jewish individuals in
the Christian-dominated United States culture. Qualitative methodologies have been
used by an increasing number of scholars in recent decades (Hill et al., 1997, 2005).
Qualitative methods allow researchers to explore previously unexamined phenomenon
using words instead of numbers to provide a rich description of a phenomenon (Hill et
al., 1997, 2005). The study sought to add to the knowledge about the experience of
Jewish individuals through the use of Consensual Qualitative research (CQR).
Consensual Qualitative Research
Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR) was designed in 1997. The originators
wished to investigate phenomenon via qualitative methodologies, but felt a need for more
structure and clarity in conducting qualitative research (Hill et al., 2005). Based in postmodern theory, qualitative research postulates that reality is an individual experience and

there are multiple valid truths (Hill, Thompson & Williams, 1997; Corey, 2005). CQR
has its roots in previous qualitative methodologies, drawing on the strengths of
phenomenology, comprehensive process analysis, and grounded theory (Hill et al., 1997).
CQR consists of several components including (1) open-ended questions in an
interview format, (2) judges that revisit the data throughout the data analysis process (3)
required consensus about data meanings between judges (4) an auditor to check the work
of the team and (5) domains, cores, and cross analysis (Hill et al., 1997, 2005). The
above steps allow for the consistent collection of rich data across cases, and analysis from
multiple perspectives that minimize opportunity for error (Hill et al., 1997, 2005). The
research is analyzed by a primary research team, consisting of three researchers, and one
independent auditor. Having multiple reviewers ensures the adherence to the participants'
narrative as much as possible, and multiple perspectives on the meaning of data that must
result in consensus. The auditor is in place to protect the data integrity from the effects of
groupthink in the primary team. The analysis by the team results in data that are
organized into domains which have themes within and core ideas (e.g., distillations of
data) that are created in the cross analysis process. The analysis of data can be divided
into three separate and related steps followed by the team (Hill et al., 1997, 2005).
The three steps in CQR are referred to as Domain creation, developing core ideas,
and cross analysis. Domain creation consists of a beginning list of broad categories
based on the interview questions. The researchers attempt to fit the data into the
domains. After the domains are developed, the researchers distill the raw data (i.e., the
interviews) into core ideas. The researchers attempt to use participants’ words in the core

ideas whenever possible. The core ideas consist of distillations of the main ideas that are
said by participants. The core idea process attempts to make the data more workable,
parsimonious, and consistent across interviews (Hill et al., 1997, 2005). Finally, cross
analysis is a further extraction from the original interview data. Team members place the
data into themes and come to consensus about the amount of consistency across
interviews. Data fall into general, typical, or variant categories and are reported in the
final manuscript. The proceeding terms are descriptions of the prevalence across cases
(i.e., general n or n-1; typical ½n-(n-1); variant 2n < ½n). Throughout the analysis, data
are checked for bias and other issues by the outside auditor (Hill et al., 1997, 2005).
Preserving Scientific Integrity
In the past, qualitative methods have been avoided by researchers because of the
perceived lack of scientific rigor. In recent decades, qualitative methods have gained
acceptance and reputability in the literature, with some describing it as the fifth force in
psychology (Ponteretto, 2002). Recent advances in qualitative methods have opened
avenues for new research into phenomena that had gone previously unstudied, possibly
due to the difficulty in obtaining data through quantitative methods. Because of the
methodical differences, there are special considerations when using qualitative methods.
In the following section, I will discuss the ways scientific method will be employed to
avoid contamination (i.e., the preservation of integrity).
The designers of CQR saw bias as anything that might make objective data
analysis difficult (e.g., personal experience, race, gender, religious orientation, etc.). The
data are protected from research bias across the research process. Prior to data collection,

the primary team and auditor are advised to discuss biases related to the construct of
interest. Hill advises that the team should be comprised of members that have knowledge
of the construct of interest and the auditor should have expertise in both CQR
methodology and the construct of interest (Hill et al., 1997, 2005). In the update to CQR,
Hill and colleagues (2005) recommend reporting biases so that the reader can interpret
findings with additional data. CQR researchers have reported the biases in several
different ways across studies (Altman et al., 2010; Blustein, 2010; Davis, 2010; Hill et
al., 2005; Isacco & Garfield, 2010; Ming Liu, 2009; Park-Taylor et al., 2008; Sim, 2010).
Biases will be reported in the limitations portion of the final manuscript.
Participants and Recruitment
Inclusion Criteria
Inclusion criteria was one of self-identification. Huddy (2003) argues that group
membership ought to be identified by the individual (i.e., one should be able to selfidentify). Based on previous research on Jewish identity, participants were selected if
they had at least one Jewish parent, and identification as Jewish and Conservative,
Liberal, Reform, or secular (i.e., non-Orthodox) (Schlosser, 2006; Altman et al., 2010).
Data were collected from 12 volunteer participants. CQR calls for a population
that is somewhat homogeneous (Hill et al., 2005) and cautions that research being done
on less homogenous populations should seek a larger participant pool. Thus, the research
sought to obtain an n between 10 and 12. Of the respondents to the solicitation, the first
individuals that met the inclusion criteria were selected for participation (i.e., selection
was done on a first-come basis). Twelve non-Orthodox Jewish adults (Eight women and

four men) participated in the study. Of the participants 67% were married and 83% had
children. Participants ranged in age from 24 to 69 (M = 49.8). Ethnically, participants
self identified as Jewish, (50%) or White, (50%). All participants had obtained a
bachelor’s level education, while eight had achieved graduate degrees. Eight of the
participants reported being raised “Jewish,” while three were brought up in the
Conservative tradition, and one was reared in the Reform tradition. At the time of data
collection 50% of participants reported “Jewish” as current affiliation, while two reported
Reform, two endorsed Conservative, one identified as Reconstructionist, and one selfidentified as Conservadox.
Jewish identity is complex and fluid (Altman, 2010; Blumenfeld & Klein, 2009;
Boyarin & Boyarin, 1993; Friedman et al., 2005; Langman, 1999; Schlosser, 2006).
Many Jewish people that do not attend temple or keep any of the traditions still report a
sense of Jewish identity (Friedman et al., 2005). Participants were selected via self-report
as Jewish. Other inclusion criteria included rearing predominantly based in the United
States in a non-Orthodox denomination (e.g., secular, reform, conservative, etc.).
Orthodox denominations (e.g., Modern Orthodox, Orthodox, Yeshivish etc.) were
screened out of the participant pool. This exclusion is based on the researcher's belief
that they likely to have a vastly different experience from that of the approximately 88%
of American Jews that have daily contact with Christianity and Christian culture (e.g., at
work, on television, etc.). All participants were adults that were employed in non-Jewish
institutions at the time of data collection (e.g., all participants were18 years of age or
older, not employed in Yeshivas, Temples, Jewish Community Centers, etc.). Their

experience in work would be different than other groups. Participants were asked to
indicate their level of education, racial ethnic identity, relationship status, place of
employment, denomination, and age.
Confident in the power of this method, Hill et al., (1997) recommends
researchers utilize standardized instruments to triangulate the qualitative data.
Triangulation aids in supporting researchers' understanding of data. It can also be useful
to utilize multiple data methods to build on participants’ narratives (Hill et al., 1997). For
these reasons, participants were given the American Jewish Identity Scale (AJIS See –
Appendix C) as part of the initial packet of materials, prior to the interview.
Because of the size of the population and nature of data analysis, a
chaining/snowball technique is a reasonable sampling strategy (Meyer & Wilson, 2009).
A chaining/snowball sampling ensured that participants would be more likely to
participate. As a non-Jew it allowed me to use the endorsement of members of the
population and gain trust not usually afforded to outsiders (e.g., it allows the researcher to
“borrow” trust that is more easily gained by other members of the group). A letter was
sent to possible participants known to the researcher(s) in both paper and digital forms
(i.e., mail and e-mail). The letter gave information about the nature of the study and
contact information for the principal researcher. The letter closed with a request – (1)
contact the principle researcher if interested in participating and/or (2) forward the letter
to other potential participants. The primary researcher, upon e-mail contact, confirmed
the potential participant's age (18 years of age or older), self-identification as Jewish and

non-Orthodox. Participants that were interested in participating in the study were
administered informed consent letter. Once the participant confirmed interest in the
study, she or he was supplied with the demographic form, a brief questionnaire (i.e.,
American Jewish Identity Scale), the article prompt, (i.e., Schlosser's Christian Privilege:
Breaking a Sacred Taboo) and the interview protocol via e-mail. The primary researcher
secured the documents and scheduled an appointment for the telephone interview.
Protection of Participants
Participants were made aware of the voluntary nature of the study at both the time
of the interview and during recruitment and that they were able to withdrawal at any time,
without penalty. Participants were not required to cite a reason for withdrawal. In the
recruitment and informed consent letter, participants were informed of the credentials of
the principal researcher, reason for the study, and contact information for both the
Principal researcher and the faculty advisor (i.e., Lewis Z. Schlosser). If participants
presented with concerns about their own psychological well-being, referrals were ready
to be provided to mental health professionals. Anonymity could not be guaranteed
because of the qualitative nature of the study. However, the researchers did maintain
confidentiality. Again, participants were informed about confidentiality, and anonymity.
The individual interviews were recorded and transcribed. The three researchers
and auditor were the only individuals who had access to the data. After completion of an
informed consent, the participant was informed that if his/her name and/or any
identifying information is recorded, it would later be removed from the transcription and
the recordings were to be destroyed after the transcription process has been completed.

Instead of using names, each participant was identified by a code number, and the
transcripts included no identifying information. Data were kept on the primary
researcher’s USB drive, which was kept in his lockable office.
Data Collection
The data are the interviews. The interviews are designed to gather rich data that
captures the qualitative experiences of the participants. Of the types of data collection
employed in this type of qualitative research (i.e., paper and pencil essay style
questionnaires, face-to-face interviews, phone interviews, and e-mail interviews) it is the
researcher’s belief that telephone interviews presented the best option. It was believed
likely that most participants will be unable to present for face-to-face interviews. As
such, all interviews were done over the telephone. It is likely that participants were more
willing to give richer narratives than written surveys, and felt more comfortable than in a
face-to-face situation (Anquilino, 2005; Groves, 1990). Using the telephone also allows
for more diversification in the participant pools’ geographic region, given that a limited
number of Jewish people are living outside the northeast coast, western coast, and major
metropolitan areas. Some evidence suggests that participants were more likely to
participate and give honest responses in a phone interview (Aquilino, 1994; Groves,
1990; Hill et al., 1997, 2005). Although ideal, there are disadvantages to the phone
interview format.
Findings thus far are inconclusive about the impact of telephone interviews on
rapport. Rapport could suffer as a result of the physical distance between participant and
researcher (Smith, 2005; Novick, 2008). Researchers must rely on verbal cues from the

participant, whereas, in other methods, researchers could call on nonverbal cues as well
(Aquilino, 1994; Groves, 1990). However, some research indicates that the quality of
rapport does not suffer (Chapple, 1999; Kavanaugh & Ayres, 1998; Novick, 2008;
Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004). Hill and colleagues (1997; 2005) believe that experienced
researchers can call on their clinical skills and experience as sufficient in building similar
rapport to face-to-face interviews. Given the logistical and financial concerns of
traveling throughout the country to conduct face-to-face interviews, interviews conducted
over the phone are an appropriate and favorable alternative that has been used throughout
the literature (Aday, 1996; Park Taylor et al., 2008; Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004; Sweet,
Participants were supplied an informed consent letter and a one page demographic
questionnaire (i.e., Age, sex, race, educational level, occupation, employment setting,
occupation, relationship status – see Appendix A). Once returned to the principal
researcher, an appointment was set for the telephone interview and participants were
supplied with both the article prompt (Schlosser, 2006, Breaking the Sacred Taboo) and a
copy of the interview questions. The interview consisted of a set of questions, supplied
to the participants prior to the interview, which explored their experience of Christian
privilege and managing their Jewish identity in a predominantly Christian culture. All
interviews were conducted by the principal researcher and were approximately 60
minutes in length. Participants were informed of the importance of audio recording
during the interviews, and permission to record was obtained prior to the beginning of the

Interviews were semi-structured and consisted of the questions in Appendix B. A
pilot interview was completed, and the interview protocol was revised based on feedback
from the participant and the principal researcher's experience of the participant's
responses. As in other qualitative research methods, (Hill et al., 2005) there were no
hypotheses prior to data analysis.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using the highly respected and widely utilized CQR
method. As in other qualitative methods, a small pool of participants were recruited and
participated in interviews. The cases were, then, closely inspected to understand the
phenomenon on a deeper level. This in-depth understanding is achieved via a consensual
process, in which the findings are sifted out of the data. Crucial to the CQR process, are
group consensus. As the process evolves, a satisfying interpretation of the data is
achieved and agreed upon by the team members (Hill et al., 1997, 2005). The process is
designed to encourage team members to voice individual opinions and interpretations of
the data. Because of the qualitative nature of the study, and the possibility of groupthink,
an outside auditor checks the primary team's perceptions of the data, to ensure the
researchers' biases do not corrupt the data and the analysis is true to the data (Hill et al.,
1997, 2005).
As indicated by Hill and colleagues, (1997; 2005) teams should be comprised of
three members and one or two auditors, to encourage multiple perspectives and ensure

the data are not compromised by researcher bias. Team members create domains and
core ideas for the cases, through the consensual process. This process creates a close
relationship with the team members and the case creates an opportunity for primary team
members to make comments about the data across cases and as a whole. Team
membership is also designed to use the values and experiences of researchers in the data
analysis process. The variety of backgrounds and experiences of the team members are
advantageous for the consensus process. The team was comprised of me, (Robert
Kinney) a Ph.D. candidate in counseling psychology, (Alexandra Stratyner) a doctoral
student in counseling psychology, and an associate professor of counseling psychology
(Lewis Schlosser). At the time of the analysis I was twenty-seven year old nonreligiously affiliated male, raised in a Protestant Christian-American intact household
who married into a Reform Jewish family. The doctoral student was a Christian female,
and twenty-three at the time of the study. The professor was a thirty-eight year old
Reform Jewish male. A Jewish, female, counseling psychology professor served as the
independent auditor (Julie Ancis). She has expertise in both CQR and the construct of
Christian privilege.
Before beginning the interviews, the research team (primary team and auditor)
came together and discussed biases. This discussion included reporting life experiences
related to the research process, and discussing ways the members believed the
participants would respond to the interview protocol. This illumination of biases is
important for minimizing bias in the interview process. It is hoped that this process

would help researchers be more aware of the way their biases that might have come into
the analysis process, thus maximizing objectivity. The multiple perspectives and bias
discussion helped raise awareness of possible areas independent researchers may have
overlooked (Hill et al., 1997, 2005). It was important to discuss religious history and
interactions with multiple areas of privilege. It was also vital to report values and
perceptions of both Jewish and Christian people. Discussion of biases was not limited to
the initial discussion. Members needed to stay aware of assumptions and biases
throughout the process. Furthermore, team members acted as a check throughout the data
analysis process.

Chapter IV

Analysis of the data lead to the identification of eight domains related to the Jewish
perception of Christian privilege and their Jewish identity. The domains are listed below,
followed by a table of categories and frequencies in table 1.
(1) Personal Conceptualization of Jewish identity
(2) Impact of Christian Culture
(3) Experience of anti-Semitism Marginalization in Dominant Culture
(4) Coping Strategies for Marginalization
(5) Thoughts and feelings about Christianity
(6) Thoughts about Christian Privilege
(7) Expectations for Helping Professionals
(8) Other


Table 1
Frequencies by Domain and Category

Personal Conceptualization of Jewish Identity
A. Jewishness Means Community
B. Jewish Identity is Personally Significant
C. Jewishness has Religious and Cultural Components
(a) Cultural
(b) Religious
D. Judaism is a Way of Life
E. Behavioral Manifestations of Jewish Identity
F. Marginalization Yields Increased Sense of Jewish Identity
G. Connected to Israel
H. Childhood Experiences Impact Current Judaism
Impact of Christian Culture
A. Christian Culture has Negative Impact
B. Moderator of Impact (Reasons for Limited Impact)
C. Christian Culture has No Impact
D. Christian Culture has a Paradoxical Impact
E. Unsure of Impact
Experiences of Anti-Semitism/Marginalization in Dominant Culture
A. Feeling Like an Outsider
B. Manifestations of Anti-Semitism
(a) Verbal Aggression
(b) Ignorance/Microaggressions
C. Difficulty In Personal Relationships
D. Anti-Jewish Problems in the Workplace
E. Minimizes Experiences of Marginalization/Anti-Semitism
F. Experiences that Necessitated Concealing One’s Jewishness
G. Expected to Participate in Christian Activities
H. Childhood Experiences
I. No Identified Experiences
Coping Strategies for Marginalization
A. Concealed Identity
B. Reframes Experiences of Marginalization
C. Travels in Jew-Affirming Circles
D. Uses Education to Cope
(a) Education for Others
(b) Education for Self

Number of

E. Advocates for Self
F. Repressing Negative Emotions
Thoughts and Feelings about Christianity
A. Negative Feelings/Thoughts
(a) Proselytizing
(b) Political
(c) History of Oppression
(d) Other
B. Positive Feelings/Thoughts
C. Neutral/Ambivalent
D. Qualifies Difference Between Christians and Christianity
Thoughts about Christian Privilege
A. Negative Impact of Christian Privilege
B. Benefits of Christian Privilege
C. Effects of Christian Privilege are Mediated by Geographical Region
D. Cannot Identify Benefits of Christian Privilege
E. No Thoughts Previous to Participation
F. Denies or Minimizes Christian Privilege
G. Limited Experiences with Christian Privilege
H. Does not Agree with Construct of Christian Privilege
Expectations for Helping Professionals
A. Recognize Diversity within the Population
B. Gain Basic Knowledge of the History/Traditions
C. Understand Jewish Clients Deal with Privilege and Oppression
(a) Anti-Semitism Impacts Jewish Clients
(b) Christian Privilege Impacts Jewish Clients
D. Have a Multicultural Personality
E. Understand Importance of Community and Family


Personal Conceptualization of Jewish Identity
In this domain, three typical and five variant categories emerges. The typical
categories were (A) Jewishness Means Community, (B) Jewish Identity is Personally
Significant, and (C) Jewishness has Religious and Cultural Components (in this theme
one variant and one ‘other’ subcategory emerged: (a) Cultural and (b) Religious). The
variant categories were (D) Judaism is a Way of Life, (E) Behavioral Manifestations of
Jewish Identity, (F) Marginalization Yields Increased Sense of Jewish Identity, (G)
Connection to Israel, and (H) Childhood Experiences Impact Current Judaism.
As previously noted, participants typically made statements that suggested
Judaism means being part of a community that has a sense of Jewishness, collectiveness,
or acceptance of Jewish culture. Eric describes his Jewishness as a connection, saying,
“Anytime I learn someone is Jewish, I automatically feel this visceral response, kind of
like a connection, a commonality that I don’t typically feel with other demographics.”
Fred described it as both social and the history of his people saying:
[Judaism means] one – circle of friends. And two – a history
behind me… I view it mostly as people who I socialize with and
knowing that generations upon generations live their lives a
certain way and I'm part of that continuum. Observing different
rituals, referring to quotations from different passages in Jewish
writing, respecting past people who struggled to create Judaism
as a way of life for us.
Participants generally reported that their Jewish identity was of personal

significance. Lacy describes the personal nature of her Judaism below:
So, basically, my grandmother was a Holocaust survivor but
stopped believing in God because her parents were both killed in
Vienna by the Nazis. So, she raised my mom and her siblings
without much religious background or observance but with
SERIOUS dedication and loyalty to being Jewish. I think my
mom took that and ran with it in a kind of "hippie" direction she got to the spiritual part of being Jewish which included
some religion and a lot of Jewish traditions being upheld. For
me, being Jewish really stems from all of that. It has to do with
dedication and loyalty to my ancestors, as well as some
spirituality pieces added in, and a lot of tradition keeping...
Generally, participants delineated cultural and religious components of Jewish
identity as illustrated by Eric’s statements on the subject:
[Religious components are] pretty not existent. I don’t ascribe to the beliefs of
the Torah. It is not part of my daily functioning or living. To be honest with you,
I don’t even know what a lot of the religious beliefs of the faith are, which goes to
show you how little, how low of a priority it is for me on a day-to- day basis.
Conversely, Kate illustrated the religious significance of her religiosity stating,
“My Judaism is both my ethnicity, my religious identity. It’s the way that I frame my
world as a person who tries to live by the Torah, to whatever extent that I can, on any
given day.”

In addition to the aforementioned typical themes, variant categories discussed
participants’ conceptualization of their Jewishness. Five participants spoke about
Judaism as a way of life and behavioral manifestations of their Jewish Identity. While the
two variant categories illuminated the impact of childhood experiences on Judaism and
that marginalization yields an increased sense of Jewish identity. The final variant
category illustrated the importance of connectedness to Israel in the American Jewish
Impact of Christian Culture
In this domain, one general, one typical, and three variant categories emerged.
Participants generally reported (A) Negative Impacts of Christian Culture, while they
typically reported (B) Moderators of Impact (Reasons For Limited Impact). The variant
categories were (C) Christian Culture has No Impact, (D) Christian Culture has a
Paradoxical Impact, and (E) Unsure of Impact.
As outlined, participants generally noted the negative impacts of Christian culture
throughout development and currently. The events described were varied, and ranged
from feeling like an outsider during the “Christmas Season”, to feeling guilt and
relationship conflict, due to the influence of Christian culture. Kate describes her
experience of the impact of Christian culture on her life:
I think it is kind of constantly being aware that you are the minority,
is what it feels like…I think it was only as I got older and started
seeing sort of the cultural impact of Christmas, for example, that I
felt significantly different. I maybe questioned it for the first time.

Was I missing something? Is it fun being different (Laughs), when
you can’t have Christmas? Yeah, I think also seeing people’s
perceptions of, “why can’t you have a tree? It doesn’t mean you
believe in Jesus. Why can’t you be like us?” The way my parents
handled it, was ,“No, we don’t have a tree.” There are Jewish
families that do. The way that my family handled it was that we
were very distinctly Jewish, even though I wasn’t raised very
religious…We were Jews, we don’t do that.
Donna described her experiences as a mother within Christian culture:
As far as it affecting my life, it’s a presence and it’s something that
when you live in a community that is primarily Christian, it is thereyou see it - you see crosses, you see things driving down the street
you have to explain them to your children, “Why does it say Jesus
Christ is the Lord on the side of [the highway]?” It is thereespecially in the community we live in. It is definitely present in
our lives.
Unprompted, participants typically provided examples of moderators of the
impact of Christian Culture. These were described as a strong sense of Jewish identity,
along with recognizing that one’s social network included other Jews. Jill succinctly
stated “I was around a lot of Jews…I never felt any adverse impact about being Jewish,
in fact, I thought that in many aspects it was a positive.”
Four participants reported that Christian culture had no impact on their

functioning (although, previously reported, nearly all participants provided examples of
the negative impact of Christian culture). Fred described his reasoning:
I know my place and I'm very careful not to exceed to the status
quo and not cause any waves. And the third part of this answer,
first is guest, second is work, third part is the frequenting of has Christian culture impacted my life...well, in
the concept in frequenting businesses there are lots of businesses
that are clearly Christian run as bases of their organization
structure, and I have never had any reason to think that I was being
discriminated against. So, I feel very positive about my
relationship in businesses that are mostly Christian culture
based…When I'm in an environment that is heavily Christian
culture based, there's a heavy Christian culture basis...I watch very
carefully what I question and why I question and when I
question…So, when I speak and when I create ideas, they had to be
within the context and very careful not to stray very far from their
Four participants spoke about the paradoxical impact of Christian culture (i.e., the
positive impact) is perceived to have. They describe an increased awareness of Judaism
in others, which leads to an increased sense of kinship or community. Harriet provides an
illustrative example of the aforementioned theme:
Although I grew up in a town where there weren’t very many

Jews, we belonged to a synagogue in the next town over that kind
of it brought in the two communities. So, it was a small synagogue,
but it was a very tight knit community, so I always had a feeling of
strength about my Judaism. I always had pride about it and I went
to a religious camp, where we actually did observe the Sabbath,
which was a wonderful experience…
Three of the participants were unsure of the impact of Christian culture. As stated
by Annie, “I don’t know that [Christian culture] did alter [my Judaism].”
Experiences of Anti-Semitism/Marginalization in Dominant Culture
In this domain, four typical and four variant themes emerged. The typical themes
were (A) Feeling Like an Outsider, (B) Manifestations of Anti-Semitism, with
subcategories of Verbal Aggression, and Ignorance/Microaggression, (C) Difficulty in
Personal Relationships, and (D) Anti-Jewish Problems in the Workplace. The five variant
categories that emerged were (E) Minimizes Experiences of Marginalization/AntiSemitism (F) Experiences that Necessitated Concealing One’s Jewishness, (G) Expected
to Participate in Christian Activities, and (H) Childhood Experiences.
Typically, when asked regarding experiences of feeling like an outsider as a Jew,
participants identified specific experiences in which they became keenly aware that they
were not a member of the dominant culture. Ten participants spoke about feeling
marginalized in Christian company or during Christian holiday seasons. Eric described
educational experiences in which he felt like an outsider:
I was pledging a fraternity in college and one of the rules within

the chapter was that whoever the treasurer was had to be Jewish.
That is just- it was very obvious to me that it was an example of
anti-Semitism…So, I don’t think it had a direct effect on me, but it
was definitely a time when I felt like an other, like I felt like an
outsider. So, in that regard I kind of felt like there was some
adversity. So, I guess more psychological adversity than tangible.
Kate draws a parallel to cinema:
There is this Woody Allen skit, where he felt like everyone sees
him as this Hassidic Jew in a black hat and payot, even though he
is not like that. I think there definitely was an element of that for
me, not just because I like Woody Allen, especially looking Jewish
and my parents are from [Northeast]. I had a very New York kind
of way about me and I lived in [city name]. Even among Jews
sometimes, but for sure more Christians, there was this feeling of
being loud and different, and having a whole other calendar and a
whole other set of holidays, very different.
Participants typically described manifestations of anti-Semitism, which were
comprised of two subcategories, (a) Verbal Aggression and (b)
Ignorance/Microaggression, which were reported variantly and typically respectively.
While reported less often than microaggressions, Ian described an experience with overt
verbal aggression in a major metropolitan city:
There have been times when people have said things, or I have

even been afraid someone was going to attack me on the subway!
You know, in those instances like that. There was one instance in
particular when [spouse’s name] and I were coming home from a
party late at night, and a man got on the subway, and he looked at
me and said “Eat shit and die, you fucking Jew.” Those are the
words he said! It was just [spouse’s name], and me and this man
sitting on the subway.
More often, ignorance of Judaism or microaggressions were spoke of by
participants. Annie reported hearing statements such as, “‘Oh, I didn’t know you were
Jewish!’” when her ethnicity is discovered, “As if there is something Jewish looks like.”
Six participants spoke about difficulty in personal relationships. Becky stated, “There
were times when my in-laws would say not kind things about Jews in general.” Also
under the typical category, participants identified anti-Jewish problems in the workplace.
Annie recalled “A boss who hired me and when I told him shortly after being hired that I
needed to take the high holidays off he got up, shut the door and asked me not to tell
anybody I was Jewish and he was upset.”
Variantly, five of the participants minimized their experiences of
marginalization/anti-Semitism. Nearly all of those same participants also identified
experiences of anti-Semitism or feeling like an outsider (a phenomenon that will be
discussed in chapter 5). Five participants identified experiences that were appraised to
necessitate concealing one’s Jewish identity. Three participants identified experiences in
which they were expected to participate in Christian activities, while two recalled

childhood experiences.
Coping Strategies for Marginalization
In this domain one typical and five variant categories emerged. The typical
category was (A) Concealed Identity. The five variant categories were (B) Reframes
Experiences of Marginalization, (C) Travels in Jew-Affirming Social Circles, (D) Uses
Education to Cope (subcategories of (a) uses Education for Others and (b) uses Education
for Self), (E) Advocates for Self, and (F) Represses Negative Emotions.
Participants in this study typically identified instances in which they concealed
their identity. This was done to maintain appearances, minimize scrutiny, or avoid
confrontation. Becky said, “If somebody made an anti-Semitic comment or something…
it depends on the situation and who said it, but I might just not say anything, just to avoid
confrontation and mind my own business.”
The first variant category emerged from six participants that described their
efforts to reframe experiences of marginalization. Becky reminds herself of the
importance of her Jewishness and the pride she feels for her heritage, while Jill
contributes the experiences to ignorance and Kate uses humor to cover discomfort. Five
participants travel in Jew affirming social circles to cope. Harriet describes her efforts:
There are things I could be doing, activities or things, that I've just
not chosen to do that would make me feel like an outsider. I guess
most of what I do… none of those situations ever seem particularly
Christian dominated or would feel like my being Jewish has made
me somehow different than everyone else. A lot of things that I do

are connected to my synagogue, so I generally feel that I'm living
in a community. I'm living on a cul de sac with six homes. Four are
Jewish families. One is a mixed marriage of a Jewish woman and
an Italian and she is of my best friends. … I'm in a community and
a lot of our Jewish friends live within a block or two blocks from
where we live and we have a thousand families in our
synagogue…” in [city name].
Five participants comprised a variant category described the use of education for
others/self to cope. Jill uses education for his own coping:
Just reading and learning, but I try to read and educate myself. I try
to go to classes where they teach about interfaith, I've been
learning a lot about parallels between Christianity and Judaism, in
terms of historical background. So I've been doing...there's a lot of
education at my synagogue to teach and it's been not only at the
synagogue, but at a church, both the Catholic Church and, I think,
Episcopalian, so like interfaith learning going on. So, I’ve been
trying to attend as much as I can of those things, read as many
books as I can. And just seeing greater understanding for things
that I didn't know about like how Jews tried to eliminate some of
the Christian tenets from our own teachings and our own ancient
dogma. So it gives me a little better perspective, but it doesn't
make me feel any better towards the modern church.

Three participants comprised a variant category with data that emerged around
advocating for self. Harriet, a social worker, recalled reaching out to her national
organization to address scheduling a multicultural event on a High Holy Day. Three
participants believe they repress their negative emotions. Fred states, “How has it
impacted me? I repress a lot internal thoughts. I always hold myself back.”
Thoughts and Feelings about Christianity
In this domain, one general category with four subcategories, two typical
categories and one variant category are present. The general category was (A) Negative
Feelings/Thoughts, which contained three subcategories of (a) Proselytizing, (b) Political,
and (c) History of Oppression. The typical categories were (B) Positive
Feelings/Thoughts and (C) Neutral/Ambivalence. The variant category was (D) Qualifies
Difference Between Christians and Christianity.
The general categories mostly emerged from questions around the understanding
of feelings and relationships with Christians and Christianity. Eleven participants
identified negative thoughts or feelings about Christianity. The responses contained
variability and lead to three variant subcategories for those who had negative views of the
doctrines and actions associated with Christian proselytizing (four participants), negative
thoughts or feelings about political ideologies associated with Christianity (three
participants), or the history of oppression associated with Christian institutions (three
participants). Kate shared her thoughts regarding proselytizing:
Christianity began as a religion that supports and believes in
proselytizing - that’s a huge aspect of it, which I personally find

very theoretically problematic (laughs)… I respect people who
have faith, but I am also very skeptical of people who misquote the
Old Testament or interpret the Old Testament to be referring to
things that the Old Testament was not referring to. I’m religiously
critical of people that speak in God’s name, or in the name of
Ian shared his political thoughts/feelings:
I often think of, whenever I think of Christianity, it is very right
wing politicians, things like that. That’s the kind of image that I
often get whenever I think about people who are staunchly
Christian. And, that may be small minded of me, but sometimes it
is hard for me to make that separation.
Harriet provided her thoughts and feeling about the history of oppression:
I'll be honest and say I have some very negative feelings. It brings
up for me again the pogroms, the crusades, which were taught to
me in school in a completely different way than the reality that I
now know them to be. The holocaust, even knowing that Hitler
himself was a Christian, and the church was complicit. And the
many, obviously, the people in the communities in Poland and
France who helped perpetrate this crime against humanity. So, it
does bring up for me a lot of negative feelings. That's why I have a
problem with Christmas, for that reason, because I know in our

country that made it kind of a secular holiday, although I'm sure for
many it does, they've kept and maintained the connection to Jesus
Christ, but for me it's a little oppressive… that it kind of permeates
the atmosphere from Thanksgiving on and it's been, sort of been, to
me pushed on everyone whether you...whether it's your holiday or
not, and a lot of people are surprised by, “Why can't you feel the
good feeling?” And for me, it is a reminder of the fact that many of
my people over the centuries were killed in the name of Jesus
Christ, so I don't forget that.
Typically, participants stated they had positive feelings/thoughts regarding Christianity
and Christians. Donna provided the example below:
I think most people that are Christian are good people that want to
help, that are giving and are really doing things for the right
reasons- they want to help people. Whether they think they are
going to get into heaven, they are good people…When you think
about Christianity, I try to think about the people that are good and
doing good, and not the crazy zealots that are haters. I think the
good loving Christians would frown upon those people…I think
about the people, a lot of my best friends being Christian, they are
good people they want to help you if you are in a bad position.
They want what’s best for you and your family… Christians are
good people that want to help you and do what’s best for you.

Six participants comprised the typical category that reported neutral or ambivalent
thoughts/feelings about Christianity. Greg said, “You know I really don’t have any
particular feelings that I recognize now...” Four participants qualified the difference
between Christians and Christianity. Annie stated:
Some of my best friends are Christian. I do have friends that are
Christian that I see their spirituality in a very positive way for
them, and I am happy for them. I don’t want to place on a religion
one viewpoint. I think there is a wide range of people within that
group who might feel different ways. I personally don’t subscribe
to the same beliefs that they do, but I don’t think I have a lot of
feelings about that. I think I’d feel upset if somebody said, “Well
you are Jewish, so you must be XYZ,” and pigeon hole me.
Thoughts about Christian Privilege
In this domain one general, two typical and four variant categories are found. The
general category was (A) Negative Impact of Christian Privilege. The typical categories
were (B) Benefits of Christian Privilege and (C) Effects of Christian Privilege are
Mediated by Geographical Region. The variant categories were (D) Cannot Identify
Benefits of Christian Privilege, (E) No Thoughts Previous to Participation, (F) Denies or
Minimizes Christian Privilege, (G) Limited Experiences with Christian Privilege, (H)
Does not Agree with Construct of Christian Privilege.
Participants were prompted to reflect on their perceptions of Christian privilege
and its manifestations in America. Generally, they identified a negative impact of

Christian privilege. Christine stated that, “I don't talk openly about my
religion…Sometimes I have to remind myself that, yeah, I grew up in a very Jewish area,
but most people in the world, or most people in the country, will never meet a Jew.”
Similarly, Donna said, “Just like any