The Praxis of Matchmaking: Between Self-Devotion and Paternalism

  • Ya’arit Bokek-Cohen


The family is considered a sacred institution in Jewish society, and establishing a family is a central objective in the life of every Jew. Many single Jewish people, of both genders, experience emotional and psychological stress because of their “problematic” marital status. The article examines the violation of humanistic therapeutic principles in the process of matchmaking among national religious Jews in Israel. Twenty-five matchmakers from this sector were interviewed, and the behaviors and practices that characterize the work of successful matchmakers were identified. Six major patterns were discerned: conducting a “therapeutic” interview with that person, accompanying the entire introduction process, offering direction and guidance, avoiding total compliance with the requirements of the applicant, sharing information and cooperating with additional agents, and holding face-to-face introductions with the potential candidates. These six behavioral patterns are compared to the accepted practices of helping professionals from the humanistic school. The findings show that much of the work that is done by the successful matchmakers contradicts basic humanistic therapeutic principles, and infringes the clients’ self-determination and autonomy. Sociological analysis sheds light on the allegedly paradoxical findings and explains how the matchmakers serve as lay therapists who help singles to achieve their goal of finding the right life partner, despite the violation of professional therapeutic principles and their paternalistic attitude. Therefore, it is also recommended that matchmakers be trained to adhere to an ethical code of conduct expected to ensure the respect for their clients’ human rights for self-determination and autonomy.


Helping skills Matchmaking Mate choice National religious Jews Singlehood Therapy 



The author is grateful to the editors of Journal of Social Work & Human Rights and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.


  1. Bartov, H. (2004). The challenge of singlehood: does defining singlehood as a problem fulfill a societal need? Deot, 17, 28–30 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  2. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2011). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods. (5th edition) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  3. Bokek-Cohen, Y. (2012). Women's sex objectification during the matchmaking process in Israel. Asian Women, 28(2), 81–111.Google Scholar
  4. Bokek-Cohen, Y. (2013). Matchmakers as socialization agents in the process of reconstruction a new identity for Jewish singles. In C. Chavez and B. Goss (Eds.), “Identity: Beyond Tradition and McWorld Neoliberalism” (pp. 171–189). Cambridge: Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Bokek-Cohen, Y., & Peres, Y. (2006). Mate selectivity: an empirical confrontation of evolutionary psychology with marriage market theory. Social Issues in Israel, 2, 73–93. (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  6. Bokek-Cohen, Y. A. (2016). ‘Marry a camel, a mouse or a parakeet! The first guy who passes you on the street!’: genderizing marital status by othering Jewish Israeli never-married women. Journal of Family Studies, 1–22.Google Scholar
  7. Brammer, L. M., & MacDonald, G. (1999). The helping relationship: process and skills. (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  8. Breton, M. (1994). On the meaning of empowerment and empowerment-oriented social work practice. Social Work with Groups, 17(3), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). How sexually dimorphic are human mate preferences? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1082–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D.M. (2016). Mate preferences. In Shackelford, T. K. Weekes-Shackelford, V. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science, pp.1–11.
  11. DeRobertis, E. M. (2013). Humanistic psychology: Alive in the 21st century? The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 53(4), 419. Retrieved from Scholar
  12. Diaz-Laplante, J. (2007). Humanistic psychology and social transformation: Building the path toward a livable today and a just tomorrow. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 47(1), 54–72.Google Scholar
  13. Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engelberg, A. (2009). Love conquers all? The national-religious “singles problem”. Theory and Criticism, 280-291, 35 Hebrew.Google Scholar
  15. Engelberg, A. (2016). Religious Zionist singles: caught between “family values” and “young adulthood”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 55(2), 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engelberg, A., & Novis-Deutsch, N. (2010). Disenchanting romantic love and re-enchanting the family: Jewish Orthodox marriage manuals address the challenges of ‘western culture’. Israeli Sociology, 12(1), 111–133.Google Scholar
  17. Engelberg, A. (2011). Seeking a ‘pure relationship’? Israeli religious-Zionist singles looking for love and marriage. Religion, 41(3), 431–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and power. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge (pp. 51–75). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  19. Frank, P. (1983) Methods of Social Work. Tel-Aviv: Ma’ariv. (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  20. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture. NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Greenleaf, A.T., & Bryant, R.M. (2012). Perpetuating oppression: Does the current counseling discourse neutralize social action? Journal for Social Action in Counseling & Psychology, 4(1), 18–29.Google Scholar
  22. Grossman, A. (2004). Pious and rebellious Jewish women in medieval Europe. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jadaszewski, S. (2017). Ethically problematic value change as an outcome of psychotherapeutic interventions. Ethics & Behavior, 27(4), 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, L.C. & Yanca, S.J. (1997). Social work practice: a generalist approach. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  25. Katiuzhinsky, A., & Okech, D. (2014). Human rights, cultural practices, and state policies: Implications for global social work practice and policy. International Journal of Social Welfare, 23(1), 80–88.Google Scholar
  26. Lahad, K. (2014). The single woman’s choice as a zero-sum game. Cultural Studies, 28(2), 240–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mattsson, T. (2014). Intersectionality as a useful tool: anti-oppressive social work and critical reflection. Affilia, 29(1), 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller, R. B. (2001). Scientific vs. clinical-based knowledge in psychology: a concealed moral conflict. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 55(3), 344–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nehari, G. (2007). Now I am ‘between the times’: religious identity of religious single women (Master’s thesis). The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  30. Parsell, C., Eggins, E., & Marston, G. (2016). Human agency and social work research: a systematic search and synthesis of social work literature. British Journal of Social Work, 47(1), 238–255.Google Scholar
  31. Patton, M.Q. (2015). Qualitative evaluation research methods. (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Perlman, H. (1957). Social casework: a problem-solving process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Reichert, S. (2006) Understanding human rights. Sage, Oak Park, CA.Google Scholar
  34. Reid, C. E., Floyd, C. K., & Bryan, V. (2010). Social work, morally relevant properties, and paternalism: why social workers need to know moral theory. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 7(2).Google Scholar
  35. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwartz, W. (1961). The social worker in the group. In New perspectives in services to groups: Theory, organization, and practice (pp. 7–34). New York: National Association of Social Workers.Google Scholar
  37. Shakdiel, L. (1999). It pays to separate but actually, for what? On gender separation in Israeli religious high schools: a case study. In A. Nahem (Ed.), A good eye: dialogue and debate in Israeli culture. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hame’uchad and Ne’manei Torah ve’Avodah. (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  38. Shtul, H. (2000). The single women aren’t waiting anymore. De’ot, 11, 16-20.[Hebrew].Google Scholar
  39. Shulman, L., (2009). The skills of helping individuals, families, groups, and communities. (6th ed.) Brooks/Cole, CENGAGE learning, CA.Google Scholar
  40. Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2005). Theories of personality. California: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  41. Sinnott, J. D. (2008). Humanistic psychology, learning and teaching the “whole person”. Journal on Educational Psychology, 1(4), 56–64.Google Scholar
  42. Siporin, M. (1975). Introduction to social work practice. New York: MacMillan Pub. Company Inc.Google Scholar
  43. Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J.(2015). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures techniques. (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Turner, S. G., & Maschi, T. M. (2015). Feminist and empowerment theory and social work practice. Journal of Social Work Practice, 29(2), 151–162Google Scholar
  45. Videbeck, S.L. (2010), Psychiatric-Mental health nursing, Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, (5th edition).Google Scholar
  46. Weber, M. (1979). Politics as a vocation, retrieved on 10.12.2010 from:
  47. Wu, C. C., Tseng, H. Y., & Chun, Y. A. (2008). The marriage market with/out them? The power-dependence relationship between bachelors and matchmakers in South-Eastern Asia. Journal of Border Police, 10, 133–178.Google Scholar
  48. Zalcberg, S., & Almog, O. (2009). Dress and appearance among women in Israel’s National Religious Community. Sociological Papers, 14, 36–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Family StudiesEfrata Academic CollegeJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Tel Aviv Jaffa Academic CollegeTel Aviv-YafoIsrael

Personalised recommendations