This was a very thought-provoking book, but often the thoughts provoked were those of disagreement with the author. However, as I write, I am feeling like I understand it a lot more. One of the main arguments that Arendt didn't explain enough for me was how she believes "modern antisemitism grew in proportion as traditional nationalism declined." This is partially based on the assertion that the Nazis were not simple nationalists- since Arendt says the Nazis had a major international aspect to their movement. But I am unconvinced by this since irredentism is a major facet of nationalist movements, and doesn't turn them into some sort of different internationalist movement. Arendt's explanation of why there was no Holocaust in France was even more baffling. She writes that it has to do with the fact that France's antisemitic parties had no supra-national ambitions. That makes sense since the worst parts of the Holocaust came about in the ethnic cleansing of eastern Europe. But then she says that French 19th-century antisemitism was defeated there because "it remained a national domestic issue without contact with imperialist trends, which did not exist there." Like what? I guess I can see how this could be referring to antisemitism not being directly connected to imperialism, but this seems like such an unclear way to see this.
She does however make good criticisms of two common theories of antisemitism. One is the "scapegoat explanation," which says that the Holocaust happened because Jews were made the scapegoat for no other reason than being different. While there is truth in this, it doesn't really explain the ebbs and flows of antisemitism, or why the Holocaust happened in Germany at the time that it did. The other side is "eternal antisemitism," which says that since Jews were always discriminated against, the Holocaust was just a continuation of that past trend, an outburst that needs no special explanation because it is the natural consequence of an eternal problem. But this has the same problem of failing to actually explain why antisemitism emerges in one place or time or the other.
Arendt offers that antisemitism emerged in the 19th century not as a result of nationalism, but as a result of emancipation. Prior to emancipation, court Jews tied the Jewish community to society by binding them to the aristocratic heads of state. By loaning money to princes and kings, court Jews were able to negotiate protections for their unemancipated communities. They were prime allies to the aristocracy because they were outside "the people" and had no interest in politics that would cause them to enter alliances for reasons other than financial gain. It was a key aspect of this relationship that the Jews had no actual power. While they could lend money, they could also have their property confiscated, and court Jews did not attempt to exercise influence over state policy beyond what affected their narrow communities. But this disappeared in the 19th century. Then, Jews were emancipated and no longer tied themselves to the state because the privilege it could grant to an individual already belonged to all of the Jewish individuals as of right. Arendt says that modern antisemitism evolved from the connection between Jews and the state, and that any class of society that came into conflict with the state became antisemitic. The most immune to antisemitism were the workers, who came into conflict less often with the state, but with the bourgeoisie.
An idea of hers that I struggled with is what she says about how "political antisemitism developed because the Jews were a separate body, while social discrimination arose because of the growing equality of Jews with all other groups." So I understand this to mean that 20th century antisemitism came about from a dangerous combination of those two, since Jews shared equal individual rights as citizens of the state while not belonging to the nation. And so I think Arendt says that political equality is dangerous when "society leaves little space for special groups and individuals, for then their differences become all the more conspicuous," meaning that different groups can live together when they are unequal, but if they get equality, there needs to be a matching growth of tolerance. And so now we need to develop that tolerance, because the inequality of political rights served as a protection. The demand of equality for all, therefore causes group conflicts to take on "such terribly cruel forms." But the issue with this for me is that how does this grapple with medieval discrimination against the Jews? Maybe her argument isn't meant to be that the prior position of inequality was anything good, but that it at least avoids an eliminationist effort between groups. If groups can live together in inequality, they can at least live together. If they must live together in equality, then there is a greater temptation to completely eliminate one another, since equality may be intolerable (if they're racist, antisemitic, etc.). This makes a lot more sense in context of immigration. Just in writing this paragraph I think I'm getting it now. Similarly dangerous for Jewish people was how "Jewishness" came to transcend Judaism, so that people were still considered Jewish even after converting or becoming secular. This turned Jewishness into a fundamental aspect of someone's person, once again creating more need for total elimination in the minds of antisemites.
Miscellaneous Facts:
- Because the system of privileges and restraints on Jews required there to be Jewish people to provide some support to the state, Frederick II was once said to remark that he hoped the Jews wouldn't convert to Christianity, likely because that would threaten state functioning.
- Arendt calls Zionism "the only political answer Jews have ever found to antisemitism and the only ideology in which they have ever taken seriously a hostility that would place them in the center of world events."
No comments:
Post a Comment