Challenges and coping strategies in leavening an ultra-Orthodox community

Abstract

This article reports and illustrates challenges encountered by those who were born and raised in an insular Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community and opted to transition to the modern world. Based on content analysis of the narratives shared by means of in-depth interviews with 19 men and women from the NY metropolitan area, social, intellectual, legal, logistic, and financial challenges were identified. Reported strategies for coping with these challenges included reaching compromises and reasoning, relocating to a different geographical area, often to states with a small Jewish population, pretending, developing a “thick skin,” catching up and reinventing. These findings are discussed using a stress and copying conceptual framework. Implications for practice and directions for future research are suggested.

Keywords

Coping culture stress social work practice

An unknown number of individuals disaffiliate from the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community every year. This transition means moving away from an insulated, totalistic, highly structured and tightly bound religious environment where all aspects of life are prescribed, strictly enforced, and monitored. They leave a life governed by rules regarding food, education, cloths, interpersonal and especially inter-gender relationships, rituals, sexual orientation and behaviors, and opportunities for personal choice are extremely limited. Access to media, non-religious books, general education, TV, movies, music, technology, and the non-Orthodox Jewish and gentile community is discouraged and the learning of sciences, languages, and general literature extremely prohibited. Gender separation and gender-roles are rigid, birth control is prohibited, marriages occur early and are arranged, the dominant language is Yiddish, and social control is non-compromising. Those who leave may join other less strict religious groups (such as Modern Orthodox), a spiritual movement (such as Buddhism) or become secular all together. Whatever the nature of the disaffiliation, exiters transfer from a highly structured and clear environment to a world that requires evaluating options and making personal decisions. After leaving, exiters must re-orient their lives religiously, socially, and psychologically and develop a new identify. This reorientation presents numerous intellectual, emotional, social and logistic challenges, requiring those who leave to develop effective strategies for coping with them, a demand that is exacerbated by exiters’ religious education that fails to equip them with the knowledge and skills for meeting the demands of the modern secular world.

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) in their seminal transactional model, conceptualized coping as a complex process occurring in the context of dynamic, reciprocal, and bi-directional transactions between people and their environments. How people cope depends on their assessment of the situation. Three main types of coping are: Appraisal-focused coping, i.e. modifying thinking about the situation; Problem-focused coping, which is an effort to change the reality of a situation, and Emotion-focused coping — an attempt to change the ability to tolerate and regulate feelings about the situation and minimize its negative effects. Environmental pressures, opportunities, constraints, and culture affect the choice of coping strategies. In a later revision of the theory, Lazarus (1991) identified eight types of coping behaviors: confrontational, distancing, self-controlling, seeking social support, accepting responsibility, escape-avoidance, planful problem-solving, and positive reappraisal.

Research about leaving religious sects such as Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and Ultra-Orthodox Judaism has focused on the motivation to leave, types of exiting (e.g. deconversion vs. defection; the former refers to leaving a group one has joined as an adult and the latter to leaving a group in which one grew up), the process of disaffiliation from a sectarian group, and the identity transformation and reconstruction that it involves (Berger, 2014; Coates, 2013; Davidman and Greil, 2007; Gooren, 2010). Hookway and Daphne (2013) stated that

The analysis of ‘endings’ [disaffiliation] developed in the 1980s was focused on two main areas: the causes of disaffiliation and apostasy from establishment religions (Davie, 1995; Roof and McKinney, 1987) and experiences of deconversion that lie behind the stagnation of some contemporary religious movements (Bromley, 1988; Jacobs, 1984; Wright, 1987) (p. 3).

Davidman and Greil (2007) who studied exit narratives of ex-Ultra-Orthodox Jews concur “Only a few studies of disaffiliation have focused on Ultra-Orthodox Jews and others who have been born into enclave communities” (p. 2). Of those few studies that focused on leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, most developed typologies of the motivations for disaffiliation, the process, and dynamics of leaving, whereas the discussion of challenges and of strategies that those who leave use to cope with them has been limited or addressed tangentially. These challenges and how exiters cope with them are the focus of the current article. This is part of a broader project that sought to capture and document the lived experience of those who disaffiliated Ultra-Orthodoxy. Findings related to other aspects of the experience have been reported elsewhere (Berger, 2014), whereas the goal of this article is to focus specifically on findings about challenges related to leaving Ultra-Orthodoxy and strategies for coping with them from the perspective of those who leave and in their own voice.

Method

This study used a narrative approach to capture how participants talked about challenges involved in leaving their Ultra-Orthodox community and how they made sense of the experience. This approach was chosen because it is designed to obtain accounts in which there are significant details regarding the experience and allows preserving the complexity and temporal context of a lived experience, captures how people assign meaning to their lives in the past and the present and provides a way for marginalized groups to participate in the production of knowledge by maintaining equality in the process of communication and the development of dialogic relationships between the researcher and participant through the storytelling process (Creswell, 2007).

Analysis of narratives of exiters has been recognized as offering insight into the experience of disaffiliating from the Ultra-Orthodox community and its social context (Davidman and Greil, 2007; Fazzino, 2014). Accordingly, in this study, the exit narratives of a sample of 19 individuals (12 men and 7 women) were analyzed to identify challenges presented to them both by the social context of the insular community that they left and the secular modern community in which they try to find their place, and coping strategies that they use to cope with this challenges. Given the absence of data about the population and challenges in feasibility of recruiting representative samples, as is common in qualitative studies of marginalized groups relative to sensitive issues, the sample was self-selected, limiting the generalizability of findings. Similar to previous studies, participants were predominantly 25–40 year old; however, the age ranged from 18 to 67. They grew up and lived mostly in NY City, varied in the familial, sectorial affiliation and occupational/professional backgrounds, marital status and length of being off the derech (OTD) [acronym for “off the derech”, which literally means “straying from the path” and is used to describe individuals who digress]. Unlike other studies (e.g. Davidman and Greil, 2007) where respondents often “grew up with one foot out of the door” (p. 207) and those most likely to leave were less embedded in the community, participants in this study self-identified as growing up in families that were typical, Ultra-Orthodox mainstream and sometimes “pillars of the community” by their own testimony with fathers and brothers holding religious leadership positions as rabbis and heads of Yeshivas (parochial schools).

Recruitment was through a posting of an invitation on two websites geared to this population. To be eligible to participate, individuals had to self-identify as having grown up in an Ultra-Orthodox community and having left this community to pursue any other type of life and affiliation (e.g. modern Orthodoxy, non-orthodoxy, secular), be fluent in English or Hebrew and agree to participate in the study and be interviewed. Individuals who contacted the researcher were screened over the telephone for meeting inclusion criteria and after they received a full explanation about the study and signed an informed consent, they participated in a single unstructured in-depth interview. Interviews were conducted at times and locations chosen by interviewees and included the interviewer’s office, a quiet corner in a public space (such as a park, a coffee shop, or a university building where interviewee was studying). The interview began with a general statement that the interviewer (the author of this article) is interested in the experience of the participant regarding leaving the Ultra-Orthodox world. Subsequent questions included inquiry about making the decision, critical points, and sources of help and probes requesting for elaboration, examples and questions directly related and tailored to the specific narrative. When interviewee agreed and conditions allowed (N = 13), interviews were tape recorded; in six interviews, interviewer took extensive notes throughout the interview and completed the manual recording immediately following the interview.

The use of one in-depth interview is common in similar studies (e.g. Black and Santanello, 2012; Blix et al., 2013; Hannold et al., 2011) and as its duration was unlimited, it allowed participants to delve as deep and long as they felt fit. Participants were also advised that if they felt that they needed additional time to share their story, a second interview was possible; however, all stated that they felt that they were able to share as much as they wished in the single interview.

Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed manually by the researcher to identify themes that emerge from participants’ narratives (Stephens and Breheny, 2013). As common in such studies, a constant comparison analysis was used to systematically and recursively identify emerging patterns and themes that were grounded in the participants’ experiences (Silverman and Marvasti, 2008). Reflexivity, low inference reporting and members checking were used to support accuracy of analysis. This was done by consistent self-examination for researcher biases, memoing and journal-keeping (reflexivity), minimizing interpretation of participants’ statement and keeping coding as close as possible to participants’ articulation (low inference) and asking participants to review and comment on the interviews and the analysis of narrative (members checking) (Berger, 2013).

Findings

In leaving the sheltered way of life that characterizes the communities in which they were born and raised, interviewees identified challenges that they encountered and strategies that they used to cope with these challenges. Those are discussed and illustrated below.

Challenges

Challenges presented themselves every step of the way and changed along the road as exiters were entering the new secular society for the first time and trying without support, neither preparation nor the necessary skills, to navigate uncharted waters, learn to assess possibilities, and make decisions rather than follow prescribed routes. Main challenges were social, intellectual, legal, logistic, and financial.

Social challenges

Challenges in interpersonal relationships were reported both relative to the Ultra-Orthodox community that they left and the non-orthodox world that they were entering. Challenges in relation to the Ultra-Orthodox community were regarding maintaining connections with spouses, parents, children, extended family, friends, and the community at large.

Maintaining connection with relatives who remained observant meant walking a tightrope. Participants reported that their families exhibited a variety of reactions as did various members within families. Some families were unhappy but accepting; e.g. “my wife is religious but is more progressive; she is ok with my not being religious,” “my father always told me that no matter what I do, no matter how wrong I am, if I kill people, does not matter what it is he will always be there for me” and yet another reported that his parents supported decisions he made even when they contradicted their aspirations and beliefs “because they want me to be happy.” Fathers were portrayed as more open-minded and accepting than mothers. Several participants described parents, spouses, and members of extended family who were tolerant of “straying away” as long as it was done in private. One participant explained it “They don’t hate you for going off … they hurt because they think you are hurting them.” Another reported that her mother said “Do me a favor. Whatever you do, don’t do it publicly in (neighborhood of residence).”

Other families used “benign” pressure and efforts to talk participants out of wandering away and convince them to come back such as “you are angry, you are hurt and that is why you do not want to believe; don’t throw out the baby with the bath water,” “this is just a phase and you will sober from it.” Several families used “guilt trip” (e.g. “My sister sent me letters that I am killing my father and if he dies prematurely, it would be my fault”), scolding, pressure such as sending rabbis, children’s teachers, therapists, and community members to convince participants to change their mind. Others exercised distancing, “my siblings keep my nieces and nephews away from me to protect them from my bad influence” and “My ex-wife barely murmurs something when we meet in family events that both of us must attend such as children’s graduations and funerals; she does not want to know of me or have anything to do with me.” A few totally cut off. One participant cited her mother saying “If I have to choose between you and God, I’d choose God” and another reported, “I did not hear from anybody, they did not respond to my emails, my calls. I was dead.” One participant shared that a family in her community conducted a funeral for a daughter who chose to leave, because for them she was dead.

As time passed by, some families came around to gradually renew the relationships and welcome visits of those who left, “basically we agreed to disagree and everybody is happy” and “it’s like don’t ask, don’t tell modus operandi.” Some managed to re-establish a good relationships, where they visit their parents and siblings and respect their rituals and norms (“my son, he knows to play the game, he puts on a yarmulka (a cap worn by Orthodox Jewish men), does not turn on lights on Sabbath and I dress modestly when I visit them out of respect and we get along wonderfully.”) Some reported relatives’ being disapproving but maintaining “selectively” some relationships. Others maintain an infrequent contact and when the “exiter” visits, conversations are superficial. In some cases, it was the leaving individuals who distanced themselves. One young woman told her mother to stop calling unless she can full heartedly accept her daughter as she is; another communicates with her family to a very limited degree because she felt that they did not really want to hear about her life. Others remained totally disowned and estranged “When I left 21 years ago, my parents said that they do not want to know anything about me and they have not spoken to me since.”

Interviewees recounted an effort to be respectful of the wishes of their Ultra-Orthodox families and yet feel comfortable with their own new reality. One young woman pointed to the imbalance of the situation from her perspective

They want me to dress in a way that they consider modest [long skirt, thick stockings, and a top that covers the arms and the collarbone] when I come to visit but they scold me for the way that I chose to dress when I am not in their neighborhood; it is all the way that they want it with no consideration of what I want.

Children presented a major challenge. Parents who left with their children struggled with helping them accommodate to the change and the new life as painlessly as possible. One mother described how she bought her three school age kids jeans and t-shirts and they would put them on at home to help them feel comfortable in the new type of attire before they feel comfortable to walk the street with what in their previous life would feel as naked, immodest and unacceptable.

I bought them little clothes that they could wear in the house to play around with and when they were wearing the jeans at home, all of a sudden, when they saw a person in jeans on the train, it wasn’t that other. It was, Oh, would that styles of jeans look nice on me?

She explained the shift

We started talking seriously. We’re going to switch out of these schools. The children adopted secular names, they played around with this and nicknames. … I realized … my children can make this shift. They can come out on the other side whole

Those whose children remained with the observant parent were often forced to fight ex-spouses backed by the extended family including their own parents and siblings and the whole community for opportunities to continue to have a relationship with the children. Men who were contemplating leaving were typically concerned of being able to continue to see and maintain a relationship with their children and in one case, grandchildren. Several men opted to remain “closeted defectors” by pretending to remain Ultra-Orthodox in the community but living a secular life elsewhere because they were afraid that once their leaving becomes public, their access to children will be blocked. When they had the possibility to maintain a connection with children, exiters grappled with finding ways to maintain a relationship that is authentic and compatible with their new reality and identity without shaking the children’s world.

While reactions from families varied, the broader orthodox community was almost always negative, exiters faced ostracism and several women, including victims of spousal abuse, felt abused by the whole community. Sample expressions were “I am a black sheep, I am no good, I am tainted,” “The feeling of the whole community turning their back on me … I was a well-liked person in the community and all of a sudden I’m getting hate mail … it was a lot of rejection.” Negative reactions reflected various degrees of rejection. One participant reported that wherever she went in her Orthodox neighborhood she experienced people starring at her, bashing her, whispering, and spreading negative rumors about her; another reported that neighbors’ kids were allowed to play with his children but not come into his house. One woman reported that the rabbi discouraged her ex-husband from seeing their children who remained in her custody. One participant’s summary of her relationship with the community echoed in the stories of several others “Many people do not feel comfortable around me and I do not feel comfortable around them because I criticize the way in which the community behaves.” Rejection of those whose leaving was related to their sexual orientation was even more severe. One woman shared that a rabbi told her “There’s no room for you in Orthodoxy.” These reactions were met by reported sadness for the loss of a sense of a community by some and relief by others.

Social challenges in the secular modern world were reported by all participants. Most talked about difficulties related to their “otherness” and their efforts to understand the more loosely structured rules and norms of behavior of the modern world than in the culture where they grew up, gain familiarity with music, books, idioms, and language. One stated, “I just wanted to fit in … I wanted to be able to walk anywhere in NY city and just fit it, not stick out.” However, even when they changed their appearance, defectors still felt in a strange land because they lacked social references and idioms that non-Orthodox acquire as they are growing up “I wanted to know what any American youth my age knows” and “my new friends could not believe that I did not know who Pink Floyd were.”

Intellectual challenges

When they move from the Ultra-Orthodox to the modern world, exiters meet a society that operates on the basis of values that are very different than those on which they were raised. Ideas about what matters, is important and respected are unfamiliar to those who leave. Having been raised to think in a prescribed way, refrain from asking questions and accept as given rules and routines, many interviewees reported a challenge to create a new intellectual framework that requires them to take personal responsibility, explore and assess alternatives and make informed decisions in all aspects of life including what to believe, what to study, where to live, whom to choose as friends and spouses, how to dress, what to eat, what to read, and how to spend free time. The submission to authority is so engraved in their psyche that adopting critical thinking is difficult. Some also shared that they realized how much of the Ultra-Orthodox mindset they continue to carry with them after leaving. For example, one young man who enrolled in an orthodox university after defecting, shared how he was asked to write an essay about gay marriage

of course, I was against gay marriage and I wrote some disturbing things in the paper and I did not know that this is disturbing and when I took it to the writing center to have it looked over, a person told me ‘you know that this is bigoted, right? And I was like, no, it’s not

While exiters embrace and appreciate the freedom to think, speak, and behave as they feel is right for them and choose their own path, it is also challenging as they have never been taught how to make such personal choices and compatible with the Talmudic teaching of “Seek not that which is beyond you; do not question that which is hidden” (Vol. Chagigah, chapter 13, p. 1) they were advised against inquiries. When the old way of thinking collapsed, defectors reported facing new dilemmas of choice and a struggle to develop a new belief system, ideas, and moral code. They often felt confused about how to structure their daily life, which previously were organized by the strict religious rules. Furthermore, many felt ambivalent about and torn between what they were thinking and what they were raised that they are supposed to think. They often expressed guilt for the failure to think “as they should” and this guilt lingered with them, in some cases for quite a long time after they left the Ultra-Orthodox way of living. Similar to what Hookway and Daphne (2013) described in ex-Jehovah witnesses “They were able to cut themselves free from the constraints to lifestyle freedom but not from the interdictions of their past moral and belief frameworks (p. 10).”

Legal challenges

Because traditionally women marry in arranged marriage at their late teens, five of the seven women in this study were divorced following their decision to leave Ultra-Orthodoxy. Men hold a significant part of the power when it comes to terminating marriages because only a husband can finalize religious divorce proceedings. Thus, these women encountered tremendous legal obstacles including extortion of high-financial compensation for the husbands’ agreement to give them a Get (a document necessary in Orthodox Judaism to finalize a divorce, without which the woman is considered married even if she obtained a civil divorce and children she has with another man are considered illegitimate and pariah in the Jewish community).

For parents who opted to leave, maintaining custody and access to children were major issues. Custody battles were reported by several mothers. Once it became public that the mother is not Orthodox any longer, some fathers, irrespective to how absent they were from their children’s life prior to that, initiated a fight to gain custody leaving the mother facing alone a battalion of lawyers and rabbis and sometimes her own family. Even the most abusive ex-husbands were supported emotionally, practically, and financially by the Ultra-Orthodox community in their effort to distance children from the defecting mother. Access to children was denied or limited also for several fathers. One man reported that because his wife refused to leave him in spite of his drifting away from Ultra-Orthodoxy, his in-laws took away her mobile phone, did not allow her to leave their home and communicate with him and limited his access to his four-year-old-son.

Logistic challenges

Interviewees reported having to learn without guidance how to choose and enroll in educational programs, search and secure employment and develop a career path, learn to drive (in some Ultra-Orthodox communities driving is prohibited for women), use the internet and social media, open a bank account or rent an apartment, and obtain everyday services. Finding affordable housing is a major challenge for those who leave as many families do not welcome them any longer at their home and they do not have sufficient income nor the skills to locate and secure a place to live. The absence of clear directives about accomplishing these and other practical tasks involved with learning to live in the modern world was a barrier cited by many. One woman stated “everyone who tries to leave is lost; there are no guidelines how to do it,” which is especially challenging for individuals raised in a prescriptive environment where all is dictated and one does not have to find one’s own way.

Financial challenges

Several interviewees reported difficulty to secure means to support themselves and if they were married with children, their families. The conundrum for young unmarried defectors was that with one exception, their families of origin would not support them once they went off; on the other hand the absence of readiness for the secular world and documented education made finding work very difficult and when successful jobs paid very little.

Strategies

Strategies to address the above challenges varied in different phases of the process and included reaching compromises and reasoning when feasible, relocating to a different geographical area, often to states with a small Jewish population, pretending, developing a “thick skin,” and catching up and re-inventing.

Reaching compromise and reasoning

Several interviewees described trying to get their families, especially parents, to understand and negotiated compromise; however, with a few exceptions, their original environment was not very open to such attempts and refused to move an inch. Some reported compromising strategies such as “We developed a don’t ask, don’t tell co-existence and I explained to them that there is nothing wrong with what I do; it is just a different life style.” One man reported that he negotiated with his father an agreement to sign a health proxy, which allowed the son to donate the father’s organs in return for the son’s giving in to the father’s request that he wear a Shtreimel (a hat made of fur that married Hasidic men wear on Shabbat) for a certain family occasion.

Relocating

Several participants moved to a different town or state. This served two purposes—gaining the freedom to behave and appear publically “unorthodox” and detaching themselves from their previous world “I did not want to see a Jew in my life again.” Two participants who joined the army were posted internationally in South East Asia. Several participants moved to Israel for extended periods. When relocating, many reported that their life away is non-Orthodox, “there I am a free man.”

Pretending

“Faking” and “making believe” were common and exercised in two ways: keeping the appearance of Orthodoxy in their old environment (called “orthopraxy” i.e. practicing without believing) and trying to be like everybody else in their new environment. Some participants reported “going through the motions,” maintaining the facade of being still part of the community, behaving “as if” in rituals and letting their parents and extended family believe that nothing has changed while privately they left the faith. “I look the same on the outside, but inside I am someone else.” One participant took the make-belief action so far that her friends considered her too “frum” (extremely orthodox) and refrained from sharing with her their thoughts and desires. One participant, who is pursuing a doctorate in science, does not observe any religious requirement; nevertheless, he appears and dresses as the Ultra-Orthodox that he once was and does not plan to change it in the foreseeable future. Some participants reported “flying under the radar” such as “I rarely attend shul [synagogue]. I live in [name of neighborhood] where there are countless shuls, so not attending cannot be noticed (since everyone thinks I certainly go to some other shul).” One man, whose wife divorced him because he became non-Orthodox, continues to “Behave Orthodox” when he visits his grown up children and their families because he does not want to embarrass them “I live my life but I do not want to compromise their life.” A young man uses a different name when in his orthodox and unorthodox self.

In the non-Orthodox community, they tried to pretend to know what people were talking about even when they lacked the references and the language “There were still plenty of times and things that they would say and I had no idea what they are talking about. I was nodding and smiling, pretending that I know what they meant.” One participant reported spending hours in front of the mirror, listening to tapes and watching movies in an attempt to get rid of his accent and modes of expression and adopt an all-American style.

Developing a thick skin

“I began to not give a dam how they feel about me,” “I just don’t care,” “it does not matter anymore.” One participant who studies in a woman college, where many of the students, faculty, and staff are Orthodox, said “if they do not like it when I show up with a red skirt or with pants, well, too bad. I cannot any longer be controlled by that community.”

Catching up and re-inventing self

Interviewees reported struggling to catch up with the formal and informal knowledge they were missing because of their upbringing as well as finding new friends and establishing a whole new social network. Several participants described heroic efforts to close the gaps in knowledge in secular subjects by spending endless hours studying on their own. They transferred their training in memorizing to the study of literature, history, and additional non-religious subjects. To address the gaps in knowledge of behavior and social norms, participants used books, movies, observing and imitating those around them to acquire the skills. One man in his thirties described watching cartoons and movies for many hours “I would notice how this one speaks … how this one sounds and this one sounds better and how I want to speak. I paid a lot of attention to that” and then standing in front of the mirror he would try to adopt the pronunciation and gestures. Two male participants joined the army as a strategy to immerse in an all American social environment as well as secure income and funding for their education.

Discussion

This study applied standpoint feminist scholar Harding’(1993) idea of “strong objectivity” i.e. the inclusion of diverse standpoints rather than seeking neutrality and paying attention to context and social location as a means to maximize the revelation of different aspects of a phenomenon and the development of relevant knowledge. It started from the narratives about the lived experience of members of a subordinated group whose point of view has been mostly left out of the production of knowledge and sought to elicit a comprehensive picture of their reality.

The findings support previous research on similar population groups. Leaving an insulated community has been documented as a taxing personal process that begets a culture shock, loneliness, and financial difficulties in several studies of defecting the Mormon Church (Albrecht and Bahr, 1983), cults (Balch, 1985; Solomon, 1991), the Amish (Garrett and Farrant, 2003) and in a few cases, Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Davidman and Gareil, 2007; Shaffir, 1997; Winston, 2005) or Islam (Khalil and Bilici, 2007). Participants in this study mostly reaffirmed the reports about the stormy, lengthy, and oscillating nature of the defection process. The wide and diverse array of challenges was present in all aspects of life. Especially, arduous were those related to interpersonal relationships. Like immigrants thrown into a strange land where they do not know the rules, the language, what is expected and what is prohibited, without a script to guide them or anybody to support them, exiters felt like aliens and tried to grope their way to the best of their ability. These challenges yielded feelings of anxiety, frustration, loneliness, sadness, anger, and distress as manifested in statements such as “it drove me crazy” and “I was dying inside.”

In addition to supporting existing empirical knowledge about the difficult nature of the exiting journey, participants provided a detailed picture of their perception and interpretation, i.e. appraisal of interpersonal, intellectual, legal, financial, and emotional aspects of their decision to leave and their life after leaving. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), appraisal includes two phases: Primary appraisal, during which the individual assesses the meaning of the situation and if anything is at stake or anybody important at risk and Secondary appraisal when one evaluates what, if anything, can be done to address the situation; i.e. assessing coping options, the availability of resources, and the probability of success. In the primary appraisal phase, the situation may be appraised as benign, presenting harm, i.e. a damage or loss that already occurred, a threat i.e. something that could potentially produce harm or loss, or a challenge i.e. something that one feels confident about mastering and that has the potential to present an opportunity for positive outcomes or gain. Participants in this study tended to report primary appraisal of their situation that was a combination of harm and challenge; i.e. they recognized and acknowledged losses that affected negatively various aspects of their life and the emotional ramifications of these losses and yet, though at times frustrating and appearing insurmountable, they felt increasingly confident that they could conquer the situation and celebrated the outcomes. While at the time of the interview many were still struggling, they spoke positively in unison and none expressed any regret about the decision to leave.

According to Lazarus and Folkman’s theory of stress (1984), both person and environment factors jointly and independently affect appraisal (Gowan, 1998). Many participants reported the absence of support and disapproving, rejecting, or hostile environment as coloring their appraisal of the situation. Specifically, in agreement with previous research (Bromley, 1997; Davidman and Greil, 2007; Hookway and Daphne, 2013; Jacobs, 1987; Solomon, 1981; Wright, 1984), exiters in this study reported that the absence of a script to help formulate their narratives of de-conversion, presented to them the need to develop their own language, new self and identity, relying mostly on themselves.

Participants demonstrated creativity and resilience in their secondary appraisal, i.e. thinking of strategies to cope with challenges identified in the primary appraisal. Just as diverse as the challenges were, a similarly varied plethora of strategies for coping with them emerged from the analysis of the interviews. Notably, as per Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) classification of coping strategies, no appraisal-focused coping was identified, only one emotion-focused coping strategy was reported (developing a “thick skin”) and most common were problem-focused coping strategies. Thus, participants did not try to modify their thinking about the situation; neither did they attempt to manage their negative feelings associated with it. Conceivably, appraisal-focused coping was not used as participants presented quite a realistic assessment of their situation and none coped by revisiting their perception or interpretation of defecting. In agreement with Doron et al. (2011), they reported self-determined motivation as reflected in the decision to leave the way of life to which they were born and in which grew up, being determined to achieve their educational, professional, and personal goals in the non-Ultra-Orthodox world and an active problem-focused type of coping.

Participants heavily relied on problem-focused coping by centering their efforts on taking practical measures to change challenging aspects of their situation such as lack of preparedness for the modern world, education, and financial means. That problem-focused coping dominated is compatible of similar findings relative to choices made in other stressful situations such as caregiving (Chappell and Dujela, 2009). Strategies of problem-focused coping were abundant and included efforts to develop compromises, reasoning, relocating, pretending, and catching up and re-inventing themselves. Participants used creative and resourceful tactics as they strategized to address their challenges. They searched possible venues for accessing resources to help them complement what they were missing because of the circumstances of their upbringing such as joining the military to recruit funding for education and using community based programs that offer educational and psychosocial services to youth in distress. This often led them to find themselves in circumstances that they never encountered before. For example, one man in his twenties described how in an effort to earn a GED (General Educational Development—an equivalent of a high school diploma for those who failed to complete high school) he applied for a free educational program and found himself as the “strange bird”—the only white person in a group of Black and Latino school dropouts, who were in trouble with the law around issues of drugs, violent behavior, thefts, and other criminal activity and many of whom lacked studying habits and basic literacy skills.

A question emerges as to which environmental, opportunities, constraints, and cultural forces shaped participants’ choice to favor problem-focused coping. Previous research offers various explanations for the choice of coping strategies. Some suggested that situation is a better predictor of appraisal response and of coping than was personality (De Ridder and Kerssens, 2003; McGrath, 2011). Others reported that self-determined forms of motivation and remaining oriented toward the long-term significance of one’s current pursuit are positively associated with more active forms of coping like problem-focused coping (Doron et al., 2011). Future research will need to examine which environmental aspects contribute to shaping exiters’ opting to use mostly problem-focused coping strategies.

Previous research highlighted the important role of social support in coping with stress (Berger, 2014). Specifically relative to transition related stress, Anschuetz (2005) documented the critical role of access to social support. In their struggle to cope with the challenges, participants reported seeking support from diverse sources, especially other individuals who went the same path before them, non-religious relatives, on-line support groups, teachers, counselors, and the very few organized services available for those how leave. Davidman and Greil (2007) posited that a comparison between the accounts of those who disaffiliated with the aid of an organized body with those who did not suggested that the latter often found it more difficult to construct a viable narrative. However, participants in this study who used help from the sole North American organization designed to support them in their journey, varied in their view of and reactions to concepts it employed. Some felt that the language workers and volunteers used was very beneficial in developing their exit narratives, whereas others viewed what they perceived as structured “canned” script as incompatible with their experience.

This study has several limitations. First, it is based on a self-selected, small, urban US sample and therefore caution should be exercised in generalizing the findings and conclusions to dissimilar individual who opt to leave Ultra-Orthodoxy. In addition, the method of data collection was designed to capture the experience of exiting from the perspective and in the voice of those who left. This picture may be shaped by social desirability, memory, and cognitive construction of past experiences, emotional, and psychological factors (e.g. reports that seek to avoid looking at conflicting feelings and uncomfortable recollections). Narrative inquiry is vulnerable to subjectivity because it captures individual constructs of human experience that reflects the way in which participants tell their story to make sense of events and actions in their lives. In this study, the method used may compromise participants’ ability to reflect and report emotional strategies as well as their discussion of coping strategies. Nevertheless, this approach to data collection has gained recognition as offering the potential to provide a holistic context that allows individuals to reflect and reconstruct their experiences and address ambiguity, complexity, and dynamism, as was the goal in this study (Gill, 2001; Järvinen, 2004). Narrative inquiry has been used to gain understanding of experiences as diverse as those of nurses who encounter unexpected deaths of patients in their care, grandparents who raised their grandchildren, gay and lesbians, and mothers whose children were removed from their custody (Backhouse and Graham, 2013; Estefan and Roughley, 2012; Mayes and Llewellyn, 2012; Palese et al., 2014) and thus was deemed appropriate for this study. Finally, the study was conducted at one point of time and conveys participants’ view at the time of the interview and is therefore susceptible to the effects of circumstantial factors. This limitation can be addressed by conducting a longitudinal study which may present its own challenges including attrition of participants and issues of feasibility.

In spite of these limitations, the findings offer several practice implications and directions for future research. The findings suggest that services should focus on addressing basic needs such as temporary affordable housing as well as coaching novice exiters about the world that they are entering including information about educational and employment requirements and opportunities, bureaucratic and legal procedures, norms for acceptable social interactions and behaviors, and familiarity with secular language and concepts. In light of the fact that some participants resisted what they perceived as existing narratives in the support organization (e.g. having an agenda of preference for leaving the Ultra-Orthodox world rather than creating a space and opportunity to weigh and make an informed choice of the way they wish to travel), provision of service should be in a context that allows for different narratives and discourses to emerge without predetermining a direction for those who leave. At the time that this article is written, there are two non-governmental donors-supported organizations in Israel and one in NY that offer services to this population. Clearly, this is a drop in a bucket and the development of additional comprehensive services to facilitate the transition is needed. These should include support groups to substitute the social circle lost to the defection and provide role models and feedback, in-person and internet-based information centers, hotlines for those who are still not ready to leave publicly but are desperate for guidance and emergency help for those who experience despair, depressive spells and suicidal ideation, classes and mentoring for preparation to achieving high school equivalent educational level, and professional and vocational training.

This study joins the handful of previous research about this population group. However, many questions remain to be examined. For example, are there sectorial differences among exiters who leave diverse Ultra-Orthodox communities? What is the long-term nature of the life trajectory of those who leave? What are the effects of defecting on their parents, siblings, and extended families? How does the phenomenon affect the communities that exiters leave? Specifically longitudinal and evaluation studies are needed to develop a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of defecting, its correlates, outcomes, and effective strategies to address its aftermaths for those who leave, their families and communities. Furthermore, comparative international studies, especially between Israeli and American defectors may shade additional light and offer insight that may have implications for the Jewish world at large.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Help with recruitment of participant was given by Shulem Deen, Unpious.com Editor and Footsteps.

Funding

This study was supported by an institutional grant from Adelphi University.

References

Albrecht

Bahr

(1983) Patterns of religious disaffiliation: A study of lifelong Mormons, converts, and former Mormons. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 22(4): 366–379.

Backhouse

Graham

(2013) Grandparents raising their grandchildren: Acknowledging the experience of grief. Australian Social Work 66(3): 440–454.

Balch

(1985) When the light goes out, darkness comes: A study of defection from a totalistic cult. In: Stark

(ed.) Religious Movements: Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, New York: Paragon House, pp. 11–63.

Berger R (2013) Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research. DOI: 10.1177/1468794112468475.

Berger

(2014) Going OTD: The experience of leaving ultra-orthodox Jewish Communities. Jewish Journal of Sociology 56(1/2): 75–98.

Black

Santanello

(2012) The salience of family worldview in mourning an elderly husband and father. Gerontologist 52(4): 472–483.

Blix

Hamran

Normann

(2013) Struggles of being and becoming: A dialogical narrative analysis of the life stories of Sami elderly. Journal of Aging Studies 27(3): 264–275.

Bromley DG (ed.) (1988) Falling from the Faith: Causes and Consequences of Religious Apostasy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bromley

(1997) Falling from the new faiths: Toward an integrated model of religious affiliation/disaffiliation. In: Bar-Lev

Shaffir

(eds) Leaving Religion and Religious Life: Religion and the Order Vol. 7.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 31–60.

10.

Chappell

Dujela

(2009) Caregivers—who copes how? International Journal of Aging & Human Development 69(3): 221–224.

11.

Coates

(2013) Disaffiliation from a new religious movement: The importance of self and others in exit. Symbolic Interaction 36(3): 314–334.

12.

Creswell

(2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13.

Davidman

Greil

(2007) Characters in search of a script: The exit narratives of formerly Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46(2): 201–216.

14.

Davie

(1995) Religion in Britain Since 1945: Believing Without Belonging, Oxford: Blackwell.

15.

De Ridder

Kerssens

(2003) Owing to the force circumstances? The impact of situational features and personal characteristics on coping patterns across situations. Psychology and Health 18(2): 217–236.

16.

Doron

Stephan

Maiano

(2011) Motivational predictors of coping with academic examination. Journal of Social Psychology 151(1): 87–104.

17.

Estefan A and Roughley RA (2012) Composing self on narrative landscapes of sexual difference: A story of wisdom and resilience. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy 47(1). Available at: http://cjc- rcc.ucalgary.ca/cjc/index.php/rcc/article/view/1816 (accessed 25 August 2014).

18.

Fazzino

(2014) Leaving the church behind: Applying a deconversion perspective to Evangelical exit narratives. Journal of Contemporary Religion 29(2): 249–266.

19.

Garrett

Farrant

(2003) Crossing Over: One Woman’s Escape from Amish Life, NY: Harper Collins.

20.

Gill

(2001) Narrative inquiry: Designing the processes, pathways and patterns of change. Systems Research and Behavioural Science 18(4): 335–344.

21.

Gooren

(2010) Religious Conversion and Disaffiliation: Tracing Patterns of Change in Faith Practices, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

22.

Gowan

(1998) A preliminary investigation of factors affecting appraisal of the decision to take early retirement. Journal of Employment Counseling 35(3): 124–140.

23.

Hannold

Freytes

Uphold

(2011) Unmet health services needs experienced by Puerto Rican OEF/OIF veterans and families post deployment. Military Medicine 176(4): 381–388.

24.

Harding

(1993) Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is strong objectivity? In: Alcoff

Potter

(eds) Feminist Epistemologies., New York: Routledge, pp. 49–82.

25.

Hookway

Daphne

(2013) ‘Losing my religion’: Managing identity in a post-Jehovah’s witness world. Journal of Sociology 0(0): 1–14.

26.

Jacobs

(1984) The economy of love in religious commitment: The deconversion of women from non-traditional religious movements. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 23(2): 155–171.

27.

Jacobs

(1987) Deconversion from religious movements: An analysis of charismatic bonding and spiritual commitment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 26(3): 294–308.

28.

Järvinen

(2004) Life histories and the perspective of the present. Narrative Inquiry 14(1): 45–68.

29.

Khalil

Bilici

(2007) Conversion out of Islam: A study of conversion narratives of former Muslims. Muslim World 97(1): 111–124.

30.

Lazarus

(1991) Emotion and Adaptation, New York: Oxford University Press.

31.

Lazarus

Folkman

(1984) Stress, Appraisal and Coping, NY: Springer.

32.

McGrath DH (2011) Effects of personality and situation upon appraisal and coping. Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 44. Available at: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd/44 (accessed 9 December 2014).

33.

Mayes

Llewellyn

(2012) Mothering differently: Narratives of mothers with intellectual disability whose children have been compulsorily removed. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 37(2): 121–130.

34.

Palese

Petean

Cerne

(2014) Unexpected deaths in medical wards during night shifts: A narrative analysis of nursing experiences. Journal of Clinical Nursing 23(17/18): 2599–2608.

35.

Roof

McKinney

(1987) American Mainline Religion: Its Changing Shape and Future, Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

36.

Shaffir

(1997) Disaffiliation: The experiences of Haredi Jews. In: Bar-Lev

Shaffir

(eds) Leaving Religion and Religious Life, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 205–228.

37.

Silverman

Marvasti

(2008) Doing Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Solomon

(1981) Integrating the “Moonie” experience: A survey of ex-members of the Unification Church. In: Robbins

(ed.) In Gods We Trust: New Patterns of Religious Pluralism in America, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, pp. 275–295.

39.

Stephens

Breheny

(2013) Narrative analysis in psychological research: An integrated approach to interpreting stories. Qualitative Research in Psychology 10(1): 14–27.

40.

Winston

(2005) Unchosen: The Hidden Lives of Hasidic Rebels, Boston: Beacon Press.

41.

Wright

(1984) Post-involvement attitudes of voluntary defectors from controversial new religious movements. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 23(2): 172–182.