Friday, January 5, 2024

Moral Clarity part 19: Antisemitism

It's been called 'the oldest hatred', 'a mutating virus', another word for 'anti-Israel'. I dislike talking about antisemitism so much. I dislike it because I don't completely understand it. Calling anything 'antisemitic' often feels to me reflex, reactive, or at best imprecise, a kind of catch-all for any destructive act directed at Jewish people. It's an uncomfortable term to use. Try and find a definition of antisemitism and you'll understand what I mean. 

On Wikipedia you get "hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Jews." No word of 'hatred'. On the US State Department website they use a definition taken from something called the Plenary of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA): "A certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews." Hatred is mentioned but it's a 'certain perception' that 'may be expressed as hatred'. Pretty vague stuff. It continues, "Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities" ('non-Jewish individuals'? I guess it's not always apparent if someone is Jewish to antisemites). They struggle with the definition too, and go on to give examples to help explain it. 

I had always thought 'hatred' was the essential component of antisemitism. But that's where things get tricky, because how do you know when someone 'hates'? Hate is an extreme emotion and is associated with extreme and irrational actions. I'm thinking now about when the trump campaign started calling his opponents 'haters'? It was effective because most people don't want to think of themselves as motivated by irrationality. There's a blindness implied by hatred. I don't think most antisemitism is 'hateful' in the sense of blind rage. The Nazis were quintessentially antisemitic, and they were also very methodical and rational, even scientific. Arendt calls their coldbloodedness 'banal'. Seems to me that most people who take actions that are motivated by antisemitism do so with a degree of rationality. If that's the case then something more subtle than 'hatred' must be at play.  

Let's say it's not about hatred, although hatred could certainly play a role. Let's say it's more about blame - which makes it weird that I didn't see the word 'blame' used in any of the definitions I found. That would mean that the essence of antisemitism is blaming Jews as a group for problems; big problems and small problems, global problems and individual problems. The 'as a group' part seems critical. The blame must be generalized, because antisemitism appears to embody something grand, systematic and conspiratorial. In this way, even when a Jewish person is identified as 'blameworthy' it is not because they act alone, but because they represent the group. And so Jeffrey Epstein, or Bernie Madoff, might be terrible people who do reprehensible acts meriting accusation, but the accusations become antisemitic when the fact that they are both Jewish becomes the central factor of their actions, implying that their behaviour is representative (a trait) of the group to which they belong. 

This idea of blaming the group, would help to explain how antisemitism could play such a significant role in conspiratorial belief systems as diverse as Christian Nationalism, Islamism and Qanon, and could motivate such a range of heinous acts as 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombing and the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre. It would also explain the historical persistence of antisemitism over millenia in different cultures and religions. There's never been any rhyme or reason to antisemitism. Jews were blamed for being arch-communists (unionists) by the capitalists, and for being arch-capitalists by the communists. Antisemitism has been religiously motivated, racially motivated, economically motivated and politically motivated. There's only one common element; it's about blame, and blame is human nature. Everyone blames all the time, because taking individual responsibility is hard. Bottom line, if it's human nature, it can't be stamped out. This understanding also explains better, in my mind, how Jews can be antisemitic. I dislike the term 'self-hating' because as a rule I generally don't think people hate themselves. But they can dislike aspects of themselves, namely the group to which others identify them, because it makes them feel insecure. Antisemitism practiced by Jews is essentially an effort at disassociation. It could be motivated by shame, or other forms of psychological discomfort, which launches a whole other topic worthy of deep scrutiny, but not here.

Putting psychology aside, why have Jews been such a perennial favourite for scorn and blame by others throughout history? I've heard some people argue that it's because of jealousy. Jews have been disproportionately prominent, in culture, academia, business, media etc. Jewish prominence is a very recent phenomenon. Historical antisemitism demonstrates otherwise. In most societies where Jews have lived we've been poor, powerless and disfavoured, which never stopped antisemitism, quite the contrary, it accelerated it. Seems to me antisemitism has been around for so long for three simple reasons: Jews have been around so long, we've lived everywhere, and we've been the minority everywhere we've lived (we've kept to ourselves). That's it. It doesn't have to be more complicated. We've been an easy and identifiable target.

If my understanding is correct, we can conclude two things: First, as long as people blame others for their problems, antisemitism will exist. Second, the only thing Jews can do about it is not be such an easy target. Having an army certainly helps.

4 comments:

Ken Stollon said...

This is a a valuable and enlightening contribution to the discussion on anti-Semitism. The idea that "blame" is the central thrust to the thing makes a lot of sense. It also explains how anti-Semitism gets conflated with anti-White/anti-Colonial wokism. Guilty of being white men, we are, just as we are guilty of being Jewish. In both cases, we didn't actually do anything, we are existentially guilty ... because, as you rightly point out, they need somebody to blame.

Glen said...

I think that’s exactly right. I’ve never understood the so-called mutation of antisemitism. The virus analogy seems inapt. Viruses are things you must guard against catching. While antisemitism appears to be something learned. It certainly hitches onto a predisposition in human nature that we all share. Something within. But it gives that predisposition a shape and meaning by externalizing it. An ‘other’. I guess that’s why people use the virus analogy, to describe the way it spreads, from person to person. But it’s not a foreign pathogen. It’s actually within us, and gets externalized.

Ken Stollon said...

You may be right, in which case the situation is perhaps even worse than we think. Viruses go away (or at lease the symptoms) do), but you are suggesting something that never goes away! And can't be inoculated against!

Glen said...

Yeah I think that’s right. The point I was trying to make. As long as people have problems, with the help of politicians, they will find people to blame, and Jewish people will remain an easy and convenient target group. I don’t think there is immunity or inoculation to that, to continue the virus analogy. One thing I found interesting is the phenomenon of antisemitism in China. There was none until the 21st century. It basically coincides with the spread of conspiracy on the internet.