In Chapter 2 of The Horizontal Society, Rabbi José Faur delivers a penetrating critique of hierarchical systems that rely on monolingualism and pure orality to sustain dominance. Through an analysis of language, textuality, and culture, Rabbi Faur exposes the intellectual stagnation fostered by what he calls the “analphabetic mind,” contrasting it with Judaism’s dynamic, participatory tradition rooted in written texts. This chapter reveals how the Jewish embrace of consonantal writing, interpretative engagement, and intellectual diversity offers a compelling alternative to the cultural and philosophical monoliths of monolingual societies.
Monolingualism as a Tool of Domination
Rabbi Faur identifies monolingualism—the elevation of one language as uniquely superior—as a hallmark of hierarchical systems. Cultures such as Greek, Arab, and German civilizations have historically linked linguistic dominance to political and intellectual supremacy. For example, the Greeks dismissed non-Greek languages as barbaric, embedding their linguistic chauvinism into their worldview. Rabbi Faur critiques this as a means of cultural exclusion, where diversity is suppressed in favor of a monolithic, hegemonic narrative.
Monolingualism’s tendency to conflate language with identity enforces rigid hierarchies. By establishing one language as the sole bearer of truth, these systems marginalize other perspectives, reinforcing political and cultural dominance at the expense of intellectual plurality.
The Analphabetic Mind and Mythological Stagnation
Rabbi Faur introduces the concept of the analphabetic mind, which he links to oral traditions and mythological thinking. Such systems prioritize auditory performance over written texts, treating language as static and immutable. This mindset fosters dogmatism, where ideas are accepted without critical analysis or reinterpretation. For Rabbi Faur, the analphabetic mind represents intellectual stagnation, unable to generate new meanings or challenge existing structures.
Greek philosophy, despite its advancements, serves as an example of this limitation. Socrates’ mistrust of writing, as documented in Phaedrus, illustrates a reluctance to embrace textuality as a medium for intellectual growth. Rabbi Faur critiques this bias, arguing that it undermines the generative potential of texts to democratize knowledge and preserve ideas across generations.
Judaism’s Alternative: Textual Engagement
In contrast to monolingual and pure orality, Judaism embraces a dynamic and participatory model of textual engagement. The Hebrew alphabet, with its consonantal structure, requires readers to actively supply vowels and context to generate meaning. This feature reflects the covenantal principle that knowledge and responsibility are shared among all members of the community.
Rabbi Faur highlights the Torah as the ultimate example of this textual dynamism. Unlike monolingual systems, which impose rigid interpretations, the Torah invites ongoing dialogue and reinterpretation. This democratizes knowledge, fostering an egalitarian society where meaning is created through collective engagement rather than dictated by an elite class.
A Critique of Modern Reductionism
Rabbi Faur’s critique extends beyond ancient cultures to modern scholarship. He challenges reductionist approaches, such as the Documentary Hypothesis, which fragment the Torah into disparate sources. These methodologies, Rabbi Faur argues, reflect the same hierarchies inherent in monolingual systems, treating the Torah as a static artifact rather than a living document.
This modern “analphabetic mindset” alienates the Torah from its role as a constitutional and covenantal text. By stripping it of its unity and purpose, reductionism undermines the Torah’s ability to sustain Jewish identity and foster intellectual engagement.
New Vocabulary in Context
Rabbi Faur’s analysis introduces several key terms that illuminate his critique of hierarchical systems and his presentation of Judaism’s countermodel. One central term is monolingualism, which refers to the elevation of one language as superior, often tied to cultural and political dominance. Rabbi Faur demonstrates how this mindset enforces exclusion and stifles intellectual diversity, presenting it as a hallmark of hierarchical systems like those of the Greeks and other imperial traditions.
The analphabetic mind is another pivotal concept, describing a worldview rooted in oral traditions that resist textual engagement and interpretation. This perspective fosters dogmatism and mythological thinking, reducing sacred texts to static artifacts and stifling intellectual growth. Rabbi Faur contrasts this with the participatory model of Judaism, which democratizes knowledge and invites active involvement.
A particularly unique feature of Jewish tradition is consonantal writing, the hallmark of the Hebrew script. By requiring readers to supply vowels and context, this system transforms reading into an active process, reflecting the covenantal principle that meaning is generated through engagement. Rabbi Faur highlights how this participatory approach to writing and interpretation opposes the static nature of oral and monolingual traditions.
Conclusion: Toward a Horizontal Society
In Monolingualism and the Analphabetic Mind, Rabbi José Faur critiques hierarchical and static systems of knowledge, exposing their reliance on linguistic dominance and uncritical acceptance of tradition. By contrasting these systems with Judaism’s textual and participatory ethos, Rabbi Faur highlights the transformative power of Alphabetic Judaism to foster intellectual growth and egalitarianism.
This chapter deepens the themes of The Horizontal Society, offering a compelling critique of cultural and scholarly reductionism. By embracing textual engagement and rejecting monolithic traditions, Judaism provides a model for a horizontal society where knowledge is accessible, diverse, and alive with meaning. Rabbi Faur’s analysis challenges us to engage with texts—and the world—not as static artifacts but as dynamic, interpretative systems that demand active participation.