On 1 - 3 June the international and interdisciplinary workshop “On Commitment and Becoming Committed: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue” took place in the Haus der Universität Bern which was organized by Jenny Tillmanns (Karman Center, University of Bern), Dana Freibach-Heifetz (Tel Aviv University) and Luise Müller (University of Bern). A group of 15 young and senior scholars, mostly from Europe and Israel, and from a variety of disciplines in the Humanities met in order to discuss “On Commitment and Becoming Committed”.

The aim of the workshop was to provide a forum for the exchange of views on an issue that is rarely discussed but is of high relevance due to the existential loss of ties, which were previously provided by, for example, ideologies and religion. Finally, reflection on the subject of commitment is needed owing to today's lack of political and cultural utopias that leaves a vacuum, which could be filled by the various forms of commitment, whether good or bad.

The workshop was divided into five panels according to the various approaches to commitment. The first panel, Religious Commitment, pursued a conceptual approach and was focused on religious commitment and its relation to other kinds of commitments in law, ethics and politics. The second panel, Commitment Responding to Crises, pursued a contextual but rather theoretical approach by focusing on different responses to crises in various (historical) contexts. The third panel Committed Agents in History offered a historical perspective of and on specific committed agents, both individuals and groups and therefore pursued a contextual approach but in a practice-related sense. The fourth panel Commitment Beyond Boundaries continued the historical perspective but with the focus on the challenge of transcending commitment. After all, the fifth panel, Contentious Commitment, dealt with the ambiguous character of commitment.

The first panel – Religious Commitment – was focused on religious commitment and its relation to other kinds of commitments in law, ethics and politics. The paper of THEO WITKAMP (Theology) from the Protestant Theological University in Doorn (The Netherlands) “The Ethics of the Inner Man: Mysticism, Commitment and Law in Paul, the Apostle” discussed the views of Paul, the apostle, regarding the tension between the commitment to do good (according to the divine law) and evil that abides within human beings. He considered the ethical role of the mysticism of Christ to be a ‘source of inner power’ for an inner change of ego that enables a man to follow the (good) law. The paper of YOUVAL JOBANI (Jewish Thought) from Princeton University (US) “Commitments in Conflict: Spinoza on Moral & Political Commitments” outlined the tension between two different and contradicting models of religious commitments that are implied in Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise. One is substantiated in the ethical, wherein obedience to God is reduced to obedience to the laws of morality; and the other is substantiated in the political, wherein obedience to God is reduced to obedience to political law. The paper of JEROME YEHUDA GELLMAN (Theology) from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beersheba (Israel) “The Varieties of Religious Commitment” analyzed the nature of religious commitment and gave an overview of a variety of religious commitments according to their reference (personal and group-wise commitments), their grounds (commitment that comes from belief and commitment that comes from acceptance), and their status (tentative and decisive commitment). Jerome Yehuda Gellman offered a notion of a “tentatively decisive commitment” as a genuine option for a religious commitment that is more suitable for pluralist societies.

The second panel – Commitment Responding to Crises – was focused on the challenge of commitment due to specific circumstances and contexts. The paper of DANA FREIBACH-HEIFETZ (Philosophy) from Tel Aviv University (Israel) “Commitment to Love” confronted the crisis of secularity that is the challenge of finding ways to justify an ethical commitment to love within a secular framework, where there is no God that can commit human beings to such an ethics or to enable it. The paper of SANDRA LEHMANN (Philosophy) from the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna (Austria) “Some basic Remarks on the Impossibility of Commitment” principally questioned the concept of commitment “because it lacks an adequate and true interpretation of human action”. Therefore she did not refer – as originally intended – to commitment responding to crises but reflected upon the conception of commitment in its potential of arousing crises. The paper of ELISABETH GALLAS (Cultural Studies) from the Simon Dubnow Institute in Leipzig (Germany) “‘Facing up to, and resisting of reality’ – Hannah Arendt’s conception of ethics as paradigm for commitment” analyzed the impact of the Holocaust on the thinking and activity of Hannah Arendt. She focused on Arendt’s conceptions of understanding, judging and intervening in reference to her biographical backgrounds and historical experience, which lead to a specific paradigm of commitment.

The third panel – Committed Agents in History – was focused on specific committed agents, both individuals and groups, in history. The paper of IRENE AUE (History) from the Franz Rosenzweig Minerva Research Center at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel) “Commitment to history? An approach to the works of the historian Selma Stern-Täubler” dealt with the study on Prussian-Jewish history of the historian Selma Stern-Täubler which was written during 50 years. It is most striking that Stern’s perspective on this issue hardly changed in the course of history and, in particular, after the Holocaust. Irene Aue questions whether this continuity originates in a specific commitment to history. The paper of LUTZ FIEDLER (History) from the Simon Dubnow Institute in Leipzig (Germany) “Middle Eastern Internationalism – Jewish-Arab networks and the struggle for a common future” investigated the activity of a network of non-Zionist Israeli Jews and Arab oppositionists from various countries during the 1970s and 1980s whose members were participating in the Journal of Revolutionary Socialists of the Middle East Khamsin which was founded 1975 in Paris. They were united in a commitment to social internationalism and the belief in a “universal future, which should transcend and bridge the different groups and origins of the region”. The paper of LUISE MÜLLER (Sociology) from the Institute of History at the University of Bern (Switzerland) “Why to stand up? Initial Motivations for the East German Peace Movement in the Eighties” discussed the question what is the primary motivation for a person or group to become actively committed to a certain goal, focusing on another group: the highly influential East German Peace Movement, consisting of independent local groups, who were active in the 1980’s.

The fourth panel – Commitment Beyond Boundaries – continued the historical perspective but with the focus on the challenge of transcending commitment. The paper of JACKIE FELDMAN (Anthropology) from the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beersheba (Israel) “Contemporary Civil Ritual, Emotional Effervescence and Commitment” examined the potential of contemporary civil rituals to engender commitments to ideals and communities that transcend the boundaries of the nation-state, and the conditions for such an engendering. Jacky Feldman presented two counter-examples of Holocaust-related ceremonies which brought together disparate communities with overlapping commitments. In two encounters of German-Israeli dialogue groups the members expressed and negotiated their various intersecting commitments through ritual performance (intertwining ritual performance and verbal analysis). The paper of REGULA LUDI (History) from the Institute of History at the University of Bern (Switzerland) “Universalistic and Other-Regarding? The Commitment of International NGOs in a Historical Perspective” examined another kind of commitment that transcends boundaries of nation and culture – that of international NGOs during the late 18th-19th century, whose members were committed to the well-being of strangers from distant parts of the globe. Ludi’s paper investigates the cognitive concepts, the language and the moral sentiments that enabled such solidarity. The paper of WOLFGANG LIENEMANN (Theology) from the Theological Faculty at the University of Bern (Switzerland) “Transnational Church Partnerships in Transition Countries” addressed the topic of commitment that transcends boundaries in the context of the Christian church: why and how the common understanding of church unity leads to certain types of mutual commitment, interchurch aid and vicarious acting, within the church and towards suffering non-Christians alike; while focusing on transnational church partnerships in countries which try to overcome situations of injustice and terror.

The fifth panel, Contentious Commitment, dealt with the ambiguous character of commitment. The paper of JENNY TILLMANNS (Cultural Studies/Philosophy) from the Karman Center for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Bern (Switzerland) “Torn between Commitment and No Commitment. Demonstrated by the life and work of Adrian Leverkühn, the protagonist of Thomas Mann’s ‘Dr Faustus’” offered an understanding of commitment as a necessary link that makes people striving for something. She asked whether commitment is not the link between missing and striving and offered the image of the link as a bridge which is connecting two shores. However, sanctions – Jenny Tillmanns argued – are the key to an understanding of the Doctor Faustus. They essentially maintain the tension between the backward-looking missing and the forward-looking striving. Jenny Tillmanns assumed that commitment presupposes this tension and dialectic which produces reservation, suspiciousness and critical attitude in relation to what we actually do and to our motives. The paper of MARTINO MONA (Law) from the Law Faculty of the University of Bern (Switzerland) “Commitment, Criminal Law, and the Separation of Law and Morality” introduced the perspective of the criminal law, and the tension within it between the general principle that commitment (or acting morally) is irrelevant as far as abiding by the criminal law is concerned and can even lead to misuses of law, and the fact that in some cases an excessive lack of commitment to do “good” / accordance with basic moral values is blamed on the offender and forms the basis of his punishment. The paper of PAUL MENDES-FLOHR (Philosophy) from the Divinity School at the University of Chicago (US) “Reflections on the Ethical and Political Dialectics of Commitment” emphasised the “dubious virtue” of commitment which is “a coat of many colours”. On the one hand people are committed to various political and religious ideals which may – and much too often do – lead to fundamentalism. On the other hand any society requires forms of (social) commitment which “in ethical theory is called “supererogation”, acts which transcend the moral norms a society absolutely requires of all its members”. However, “as a homo politicus one is to be hold and decisive while as a homo problematicus one is to demand of oneself to be humble and ever on guard against one’s ideological vanities and ethical conceits“.

Closing remarks: Generally speaking the vague term, conception and use of commitment has been critically affirmed. Indeed, everyone agreed in the lack and therefore need either to substantiate the term, conception and use of commitment or to offer an adequate alternative such as, for instance, motivation, involvement, engagement, obligation, confession, etc. It became obvious that the diverse approaches relied on various notions of commitment which accordingly led to an affirmation of multiple notions and associations. The problem indeed is that the term, conception and use of commitment cannot sufficiently be encapsulated in the above mentioned terms. To the contrary all those terms are essential ingredients of commitment but – and this is decisive – different forms of commitment. Hence, is it helpful to keep up with a term that is as vague and does not help clarifying what it shall express? However, the alternative terms do not capture sufficiently the holistic but – nonetheless seemingly – hollow term “commitment”. How to deal with this paradoxical situation? On the one hand the term commitment is so familiar in our daily use of language and on the other hand it is so little reflected upon (in academia). However, at this stage it would be of the utmost importance to systematize the different approaches and perspectives in order to elaborate fundamental criteria for any understanding of commitment. Such a methodological comprehension should be guided by the question “What makes people act?” Furthermore, a profound reflection on the interrelatedness of empirical case studies (which illustrate, confirm and proof the various phenomenon of commitment) and the (wishful) demand in a normative answer needs to be permanently considered and elaborated. As a conclusion it seems to be ultimately of value to dedicate further reflection on the issue of commitment. However, it requires a much more precise question in reference to the cognitive interest and a much more specific (historical, social, cultural, etc.) context.

Conference overview:

1. Panel: Religious Commitment
Chair: Sandra Lehmann

Theo Wittkamp (Theology), Protestant Theological University, Doorn, The Netherlands: The Ethics of the Inner Man: Mysticism, Commitment and Law in Paul, the Apostle

Youval Jobani (Jewish Thought), Princeton University, US: Commitments in Conflict: Spinoza on Moral & Political Commitments

Jerome Gellman (Theology), Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel: The Varieties of Religious Commitment

2. Panel: Commitment Responding to Crises
Chair: Irene Aue

Dana Freibach-Heifetz (Philosophy), Tel Aviv University, Israel: Commitment to Love

Sandra Lehmann (Philosophy), Institute for Human Sciences, Vienna, Austria: Some basic Remarks on the Impossibility of Commitment

Elisabeth Gallas (Cultural Studies), Simon Dubnow Institute, Leipzig, Germany: „Facing up to, and resisting of reality“ – Hannah Arendt’s conception of ethics as paradigm for commitment

3. Panel: Committed Agents in History
Chair: Barbara Reiter (Philosophy), Berner Fachhochschule, Switzerland

Irene Aue (History), Franz Rosenzweig Minerva Research Center, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel: Commitment to history? An approach to the works of the historian Selma Stern-Täubler

Lutz Fiedler (History), Simon Dubnow Institute, Leipzig, Germany: Middle Eastern Internationalism – Jewish-Arab networks and the struggle for a common future

Luise Müller (Sociology), Institute of History, University of Bern, Switzerland: Why to stand up? Initial Motivations for the East German Peace Movement in the Eighties

4. Panel: Commitment Beyound Boundaries
Chair: Elisabeth Gallas

Jackie Feldman (Anthropology), Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel: Contemporary Civil Ritual, Emotional Effervescence and Commitment

Regula Ludi (History), Institute of History, University of Bern, Switzerland: Universalistic and Other-Regarding? The Commitment of International NGOs in a Historical Perspective

Wolfgang Lienemann (Theology), Theological Faculty, University of Bern, Switzerland: Transnational Church Partnerships in Transition Countries

5. Panel: Contentious Commitment
Chair: Lutz Fiedler

Jenny Tillmanns (Cultural Studies), Karman Center for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, University of Bern, Switzerland: Torn between Commitment and No Commitment. Demonstrated by the life and work of Adrian Leverkühn, the protagonist of Thomas Mann’s “Dr Faustus”

Martino Mona (Law), Law Faculty of the University of Bern, Switzerland: Commitment, Criminal Law, and the Separation of Law and Morality

Paul Mendes-Flohr (Philosophy), University of Chicago, Divinity School, US: The homo problematicus and political commitment.