Shlomo Bergaman - Some Methodological Mistakes in The Study of Antisemitism

Some Methodological Errors in the Study of Antisemitism
Author(s): Shlomo Bergman

Source: Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan., 1943), pp. 43-60
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4464472
Accessed: 20-07-2015 16:09 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Jewish Social Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:09:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOME METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS
IN THE STUDY OF ANTISEMITISM
By SHLOMO BERGMAN
Never before has antisemitism so powerfully affected Jewish life as

at the present time. Not only have its practical consequences imperilled
the existence of one out of every three individual Jews, but the fear and
prevention of it have come to condition the major part of organized com-
munal activity. Whereas in the past the main forces of Jewish cohesion
were devotion to tradition and development of a heritage, today they are
self-defense and survival. Children are sent to religious schools not so
much to "study Torah" as to learn the answers to Jew-baiting slanders.
Zionists base their appeals not so much on the need for revitalizing a
dormant Israel as on that of finding a permanent solution to the problem
of antisemitism. Rabbis tend to be appointed not as scholars and teachers
but as "ambassadorsof goodwill" to the Gentiles. The strengthening of
Jewish values and the advancement of Jewish culture takes second place
beside movements for "better understanding" and "interfaith amity."
Nor is it only on organized communal life that reaction to anti-
semitism has left its mark. The events of the past few years have also
produced a significant change in the temper and outlook of Jews every-
where. For the most part, these events came as a shock, affecting not only
those who were directly victimized, but also that large number of their
brethren who, as they put it, had "never come in contact with that sort
of thing." The effect was one of traumatic bewilderment, resulting in an
automatic fear of their recurrence rather than an objective analysis of their
causes. Consequently, the majority of Jews today incline to view the
present with despair and the future with apprehension. A nervousness
43
44 JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES
has been evoked which even the prospect of an Allied victory does not
seem to allay.
In the light of this situation it is apparent tlhat the scientific study of
antisemitism has much to offer both for the orientation of Jewish life
and the restoration of Jewish morale. When we begin, however, to
examine what has so far been done on these lines we are faced with the
distressing fact that this field of inquiry is still beset with a number of
elementary methodological errors long since discarded in other branches
of sociological research. It is the purpose of this paper to draw attention
briefly to some of the more glaring of these fallacies. The reader will
understand that its seemingly didactic tone is due only to the necessity
for conciseness.
The Problem of Definition
1. What is antisemitism? Certainly it is not the general aggregate of
all acts, attitudes and disabilities from which Jews suffer. If it indeed
exists as a substantial entity, it is that specific element which causes them
to be directed against Jews. Accordingly, a mere listing of their character-
istics will not define antisemitism, since it will include many that are
irrelevant. Any man can be hit on the head, socially snubbed or econom-
ically boycotted; and when these things happen to him because he is a
Jew, it is not the hitting on the head, the social snubbing or the economic
boycott, but the reason for them that is antisemitic.
2. By the same token, it is quite absurd to grade those several acts,
attitudes and disabilities according to their intensity or momentum, and
then regard them as "milder" or "more virulent" forms of antisemitism.
All that such grading really assesses is degrees of violence, not of anti-
semitism. There is no reason for assuming that a man who physically
assaults Jews is more antisemitic than one who declaims against them at
street-corners; he is merely more violent. Similarly, the disaster which
results from an anti-Jewish act in no way reflects the degree of antisemi-
tism which inspires it. The firing of a synagogue, for instance, may be far
more tragic than the circulation of a pamphlet, but this does not prove
that its instigator is more antisemitic. He may equally well be inspired
by mere mob hysteria or opportunist ambition. Yet in the majority of
modern treatments of the subject, degrees of violence and disaster are
METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS IN THE STUDY OF ANTISEMITISM 45
blithely identified with degrees of antisemitism. We must teach ourselves

to realize that every act from which Jews suffer is not necessarily and auto-
matically antisemitic. The criterion for so defining it must be the
attitude which it expresses rather than the damage which it inflicts.
Basic Causes and Immediate Occasions

3. It is apparent, then, that what we have to seek is not the immediate
occasion of this or that "antisemitic" act, but the element which gives to
it its specific and distinctive character. Such an inquiry, however, at once
poses the question whether that element is in the nature of a constant
catalytic agent, equally operative in all cases, or whether it is conditioned
in each separate case by the peculiar and unique circumstances of the
occasion. This, it would seem, is the real heart of our problem; for it is
only in terms of such a constant catalytic that we can justly define anti-
semitism as a substantial entity. Otherwise we are dealing only with a
number of disparate exhibitions of hostility, each individually motivated
and incidentally claiming Jews as their victims. The search for a cause,
or causes, of antisemitism then becomes both illogical and futile, since
antisemitism per se does not exist.
Obvious as this point should be, it is, unfortunately, all too often
ignored in current studies. Regardless of whether it itself exists, the
causes of antisemitism continue to be sought; and what is sought is indeed
found by the illogical device of defining as primary causes what are really
no more than immediate occasions. An angry tenant berates a particularly
unscrupulous Jewish landlord, and proceeds thence to an antisemitic
diatribe against Jews generally. Analysts of this situation are apt to
describe the unscrupulousness of the Jewish landlord as a cause of anti-
semitism, and Jews are warned that such conduct promotes it. A mo-
ment's reflection will show, however, that this is muddled thinking. In
reality, three distinct factors are involved: (1) the cause of the particular
grievance or quarrel; (2) the reason why the tenant is against Jews; (3)
the motive for introducing his hostility on this occasion. The first of these
factors has but an incidental and contingent relation to the other two,
and cannot logically be adduced to explain them. The tenant may be
angry because his rent is too high or his apartment inadequately heated;
and these are charges which might be preferred equally well against a
Gentile landlord. A correct analysis must therefore assert that the imme-
diate grounds of the quarrel are merely the occasion for expressing and
exploiting an anti-Jewish bias which originates in quite other considera-
tions.
What is true in this single instance is equally true all along the line;
and the recognition of this error calls into question many current theories
concerning the "origin of antisemitism." When it is asserted, for instance,
that the phenomenon is due to economic competition, one may be per-
mitted to wonder whether those who advance this view are not really
defining as primary causes what are merely immediate occasions. Economic
competition, like many another factor, may indeed be responsible for the
exhibition of an anti-Jewish hostility, this does not prove that all expres-
sions of such hostility are similarly motivated, or indeed, genetically
related as variant manifestations of any single basic tendency.
4. Closely allied to the error of regarding immediate occasions as
primary causes is that of postulating an 'ideal' antisemitism because par-
ticular instances of anti-Jewish bias can be shown to exist. No less an
authority than the Encyclopaedia Britannica would appear to be guilty
of this mistake when it asserts that
"Antisemitismtook its rise in Germany and Austria largely as a conse-
quence of the widespreadruin about the financial crisis of 1873.... The
secret springs of the new agitation were more or less directly supplied by
Prince Bismarck...."
What the writer really has in mind is the political exploitation of anti-
Jewish feelings in modern times. Similar objection can also be made to the
recent statement of Samuel Grafton, leading columnist of the New York
Post, that
"Antisemitismis a political movement deliberately contrived to produce
a certain political result....''1
Here again a particular use of a particular feeling is taken as evidence of
an 'ideal' tendency; and the statement may be taken as typical of an
approach adopted by several other students of the subject. The presence
of anti-Jewish agitation as an essential plank in the platform of Nazism
'In "We Hold These Truths . . ." Statements on Anti-Semitism by 54 Leading American
WVriters,Statesmen, Educators, Clergymen, and Trade-Unionists (Nev York, League of
American WVriters,1938), p. 49.
and Fascism, and the evidence of its dexterous (or sinister) employment
as a political instrument, has led to the widespread belief that there is
an 'ideal' antisemitism, which such movements exploit.
5. Errors of this kind are more than academic, since the manner in
which the facts are construed obviously dictates that in which they are
attacked. By defining instances of anti-Jewish hostility as examples of a
basic antisemitism in action, the idea is apt to develop that by removing
the former, that "antisemitism" itself will be brought to an end, so that
there will be no more attacks upon Jews. The result of this illusion is
that the combatting of what may be really disparate and unrelated phenom-
ena is vitiated by the supposition that they are all of one cause, and that
by defeating one, all are affected.
Equally mistaken, and for the same reason, is the prevalent idea that
by suppressing anti-Jewish movements a basic "antisemitism" will be
itself finally abolished. Jewish and other "defense" organizations expend
a great deal of energy in collecting data on the Pelleys and Coughlins and
in urging that curbs be imposed upon them. As an immediate measure
this is doubtless important; but the delusion is all too common that an
accumulation of such efforts constitutes a program against all anti-Jewish
attacks.
6. Our point is, then, that antisemitism may be no more than a mere
term of convenience, designed to correlate for our own purposes phenom-
ena which are actually disparate and unconnected. If we file in a single
drawer all letters signed by persons whose names begin with "E," this
does not imply that there is any inherent relationship between them; nor
can they be regarded as variant expressions of any basic "E-ism." The
answer to one has no relation to the answer to another; and that which
they possess in common is the least important of their characteristics. In
precisely the same way, a number of unrelated acts against Jews have been
filed in our own minds under the heading of "antisemitism," with the
result that we have fallen into the elementary semantic error of identifying
an 'ideal' classification with a substantial entity, and of approaching the
several phenomena as if they were but aspects of one thing.
General Critique of Suggested Origins

7. Nowhere is the current confusion more apparent than in the
dialectically dubious manoeuvres which have perforce to be introduced in

order to find an 'origin' for the assumed basic antisemitism. Historians
of our subject usually adopt a deductive approach. They begin with
hostile manifestations against Jews in antiquity, passing thence to the
Crusades, the Inquisition, the several expulsions and restrictions, the
Chmelnitzki massacres,the Tsarist progroms and, finally, the persecutions
under the Nazi regime. At the end of such a catalogue, they proceed to
discuss the basis of "antisemitism," and more or less arbitrarily attribute
a cause to these phenomena, by reducing them to their lowest common
denominator, extracting from them their highest common factor, or re-
garding the totality of their elements as constituting a congress of causes.
The weakness of the first two methods is obvious. Not all of the
factors which conditioned the phenomena were due to anti-Jewish im-
pulse. In most, if not all, cases, the persecution of the Jews was but a
consequence of some wider motive. The Crusades, for instance, were
launched against all 'infidels'; while the oppressive and barbarous meas-
ures of the Hitler regime are actually inspired by economic and political
expedience, for which antisemitism serves only as a convenient ideological
'cover.' Accordingly, it is a serious error to draw conclusions about its
basic cause from the gross content of these phenomena; it is necessary first
to isolate their specifically anti-Jewish elements.
As for the third method, its inadequacy is likewise patent: it nowhere
advances beyond a bare repetition of the data, and confuses constituent
elements with determining causes. Typical is the unsigned article on
"Antisemitism" in the new Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia.2 The
writers consider it a phase of the general phenomenon of intergroup hos-
tility, springing from a combination of several human traits. The chief
of these are: dislike of the unlike, group inferiority feeling, the ease with
which great masses are moved to hostility, the will to destroy, and the
tendency to judge a whole group by the actions of one individual. Factors
underlying specifically anti-Jewish hostility are, according to the En-
cyclopedia: the fact that antipathy towards the Jews is "the oldest hostility
of its kind," that Jews for centuries have been considered strangers, that
they have a different religion, cling to their distinctiveness, possess "out-
landish" ways. Other contributing factors are: resentment of Jewish
2 Vol. 1 (New York 1939), p. 342-5.
success, the allegation of conspiracy, the fear that Jews may dominate
economic life, the charge that they lack patriotism, and finally, ignorance
concerning them. What this amounts to is a list of anti-Jewish attitudes
and charges; it is certainly no explanation of why they exist. It does not
explain the origin of the pyramids to say that they are specimens of very
ancient architecture; and in the same way, it does not explain hostility
towards Jews to say that it manifests an age-old antipathy.
Those who adopt this approach seem usually aware of the fact that
they have avoided or evaded the issue: why does minority status provoke
attack? Why is the Jewish minority specifically selected? Why are par-
ticular charges levelled against Jews? They therefore attempt to meet this
deficiency by two devices. On the one hand, they speak elusively of "fac-
tors" instead of "causes," though for purposes of their argument the twvo
are rendered interchangeable; on the other hand, they tend, almost as an
expedient afterthought, to tack on to their catalogue of "factors" some
ultimate motive of a more general kind. The Encyclopedia, for instance,
elects for "ignorance." The inadequacy of this device is apparent, how-
ever, when once it is observed that the type of ignorance shown by Jew-
baiters is of a very specific kind, its essential significance lying in some
unexplained motive for refusing to relinquish it. It is just this specific
character which has to be explained.
The Theory of Xenophobia

8. Nor is it only upon grounds of method that these approaches invite
objection. The particular causes of "antisemitism" which have been
suggested turn out, on examination, to be arbitrarily chosen, to ignore
important aspects of the problem, and to involve dubious dialectical
manoeuvres. In 1936, for example, the editors of Fortune magazine, in
a comprehensive review of the subject, concluded that antisemitism was
"the classicexample of that dislike and fear of strangerswhich the Greeks
knew as xenophobia and which appearsas a familiar phenomenonamong
primitive peoples and peoples revertingto primitivism."
Similarly, Arthur Ruppin, in his Fate and Future of the Jewish People
(London 1940), finds the strangeness and otherness of the Jew to be the
primary cause of hostility towards him; while this is also the view adopted
in Hadassah's serviceable volume Jewish Survival in the World Today

(New York, 1940).
The flaw in this argument is that it begs the question. Xenophobia is,
by etymology and definition, fear of the stranger, not hatred, and it is
just this transference which has to be explained. It would not be un-
reasonable to argue that what is feared excites veneration and placation
rather than hostility. Indeed, have not anthropologists contended that
fear is the foundation of worship? Moreover, is not the postulated fear
of strangers qualitatively more akin to apprehension and dread than to
terror and alarm? Would it not therefore issue in wariness and caution
rather than in dislike and hostility? It might be argued, of course, that
this is but a quibble on words, and that even if it be inaccurate to describe
it as fear, there exists nevertheless a perceptiblq feeling of 'otherness' suffi-
cient to excite opposition to a stranger. To this it may be replied that more
historical evidence is required to sustain the thesis. It is significant, for
instance, that, contrary to a general impression and to the statement of the
editors of Fortune, the word xenophobia is not to be found in classical
Greek, whereas the single term xenos actually combines the notions of
'stranger' and 'friend.' Similarly, in beduin society hospitality towards
strangers is a religious tradition. The parade example usually cited to
support the argument is the hostility which was encountered by many
foreign groups when first they came to the United States. In such cases,
however, the hostility was usually based on immediate economic grounds
(false as they were) rather than on any basic fear of the stranger.
Nor, in the case of Fortune's argument, can one fail to notice the
glaring discrepancy between the careful collection of data and the sweep-
ing and irresponsible deduction from them. Xenophobia is assumed to
be a "phenomenon among primitive peoples and peoples reverting to
primitivism," yet at the same time we are told that this is the key to the
peculiar destiny of the Jews. Surely the editors of Fortune do not imagine
that for hundreds of years the Jews have been living among primitive
peoples? Moreover, how could one then explain the presence of anti-
semitism in countries where Jews have long been assimilated? The editors
of Fortune jump this hurdle by asserting that such Jews are "subtly but
recognizably different."
MwIETHODOLOGICAL ERRORS IN THE STIUDY OF ANTISEMITISM 51
The Error of 'Generic' Explanations

9. Equally unsatisfying are explanations of "antisemitism" whiclh
refer us to generic rather than specific causes. Lee Levinger tells us for
instance,3that it is due to the fact that Jews are a universal minority; while
other writers attribute it to some basic sense of hostility which every one
group allegedly feels towards every other. All that such explanations do is
to place "antisemitism" within the genus of group hatred. But we are
not so much interested in the genus as in the species. What we want to
discover is the distinctive causal agent which differentiates this alleged
tendency from other hatreds, and which makes it possible for several
groups who ought, on this hypothesis, to be fighting one another, to unite
in a combined attack on the Jews. Is it an adequate description of the
anthropoid ape to say that he is a primate? What we want to know is how
and why he differs from Man.
The Theory of a Christian Origin

10. A favorite theory among those who would postulate a single basic
cause for all anti-Jewish hostility attributes it to the fact that Christianity
originated in a Jewish society, but that the Jews refused to accept it, and
were consequently charged with responsibility for the death of its founder.
Among recent writers who hold this view mentio,n may be made especially
of James Parkes,4 Louis Golding,5 and Horace M. Kallen.6
On this assumption, "antisemitism" necessarily begins with Christian-
ity. It is well known, however, that there was already a marked bias
against Jews in the earlier pagan world, especially in Rome. The studies
of N. W. Goldstein,7 Isaak Heinemann,8 Max Radin,9 and Ralph Marcus10
have shown that while the attitude of the Romans towards religious
Antisemitism Yesterday and Tomorrow (New York 1936).
4The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (London 1934).
5 The Jewish Problem (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1938).
"Judaism at Bay: Essays towards the Adjustment of Judaism to Modernity (New York
1932).
7"Cultivated Pagans and Ancient Anti-Semitism," in Journal of Religion XIX (1939),
p. 346-64.
8"Antisemitismus" in Realencyclopadie d. Class. Wissenschaft, ed. Pauly-Wissowa, Supple-
ment V, p. 3-43; "The Attitude of the Ancient World towards Judaism," in Review of
Religion iv (1940), p. 385-400.
9 The Jews among the Greeks and Romans (Philadelphia 1915).
1?"Antisemitism in the Hellenistic-Roman World," in Essays on Antisemitism (New

York 1942), p. 3-24.
minorities was, in general, tolerant, Judaism, although a religio licita,

nevertheless created many serious problems. Unlike the pagan cults which
were easily absorbed, it fitted ill into the framework of the state, what with
its monotheistic emphasis and nationalistic orientation; while the ritual
practices of the Jews, their dietary taboos and their ban on intermarriage
made normal intercourse between them and other peoples of the Empire
peculiarly difficult. A distinct antipathy towards them therefore devel-
oped, and this finds definite expression in contemporary literature.11
Parkes, Golding, and Kallen are, of course, fully aware of this ob-
jection. They surmount it by drawing a distinction between this ancient
bias and antisemitism proper. It would appear, however, that this dis-
tinction is more arbitrary than real, and scarcely supported by adequate
criteria. Ralph Marcus has said categorically that "the pattern of anti-
semitism in antiquity was essentially the same as that of antisemitism
today";12 and anyone who studies the relevant passages of Tacitus13 and
Diodorus Siculus,14 or the earlier evidence in the Book of Esther or III
Maccabees15will find little, if any, difference between the attitudes there
represented and those which are today termed antisemitic.
At best, however, the question whether antisemitism began with
Christianity or is really of earlier date is a mere matter of terminology.
And even if we accept this contention, it by no means follows that the
cause which originally produced it also perpetuates it. A distinction must
surely be drawn between historical origin and psychological momentum.
In the same way, the genesis of the religious impulse can scarcely be
explained by tracing the origin of a cultic institution.
The Theory of Freud
11. Analogous to the view that antisemitism sprang from Christianity
is the theory of Sigmund Freud that it is due to the unconscious jealousy
11Representative extracts are quoted in Mayor, J.E.B., Thirteen Satires of Juvenal, ed. 2,
vol. 2 (London 1878), p. 302 et seq.
12op cit., p. 24.
13Histories, V, 5: "Among themselves there is staunch loyalty and ready charity; but
towards all strangers there is hostile enmity."
14XXXI, 1. 1: the friends of Antiochus Sidetes urged him to exterminate the Jews because
"alone of all peoples they do not participate in intercourse with others." Raymond Kennedy
has recently suggested (Yivo Bleter XIX (1941) p. 184 f.) that such 'ethnocentrism' is the real
basis of antisemitism.
15See especially 7:4, where it is alleged that Jews show a hostile attitude towards all other
peoples.
METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS IN THE STUDY OF ANTISEMITISMI 3
1r?
which Jews evoke in other people by their insistence that they are the
favorite children of God. Antisemitism, he contends, is really the grudge
which "badly christened" pagans feel toward a Christianity forced upon
them by Jews. The fact that the story of the Gospels is enacted among
Jews facilitates such a projection. "The hatred for Judaism," says Freud,
"is at bottom hatred for Christianity, and it is not surprising that in the
German National Socialist revolution this close connection of the two
monotheistic religions finds such clear expression in the hostile treatment
of both."16
Freud's interpretation has the advantage that it succeeds in explaining
not only the origin but also the persistence of antisemitism, since the feel-
ing of jealousy and resentment to which he alludes are at once both his-
torical and contemporary. At the same time, it fails to account for the
fact that antisemitism does not maintain an even course, but is in fact,
subject to fluctuations, the causes of which must surely be inherent in its
origin and nature.
'Polygenetic' Theories
12. Midway between those who believe in a single cause of anti-
semitism and those who subscribe to a theory of many causes are writers
who stress one major cause but at the same time recognize several minor
ones, which modify or accentuate it. A significant representative of this
school is Erich Kahler.17 According to this writer, antisemitism is a form
of hostility which has gone through many mutations. He divides its
history into five periods.
The first extends from the origin of Israel to the Babylonian Exile
(586 B.C.). After the latter event the Jews are already a people witlh a
unique character.
In the second period, which lasts until the end of the Middle
Ages, they suffer for their religious ideas. The unique character of the
Jewish group Kahler sees in "a singularly close correlation of a tribal
ritual which governed everyday life to the last detail and the abstract idea
of God." In this unique correlation Kahler finds the basis for both the
survival and the hatred against Jews. The struggle between Jerusalem
arndRome is seen as the beginning of "a great conflict which has never
IMoses and Monotheism (New York 1939), p. 145.
7"Forms and Features of Anti-Judaism," in Social Research VI (1939) p. 455-88.
since been resolved, the conflict between spiritual and temporal rule,
between the government of man and the kingdom of God." When
Christianity conquers the pagan world, the Jews continue to suffer for
their religious idea. The conflict between the two religions becomes the
struggle between "faith" and "works," the latter denoting the nomistic
outlook which Christianity has overthrown. In Christianity the Jewish
national Messiah is sublimated into the "man-God" whose sacrificial
death relieves the individual from personal responsibility for his conduct.
"The free choice of the Jew between his good and evil impulses" is lost
through the doctrine of the original sin of mankind. It is in this differ-
ence between Jewish and Christian theology that Kahler finds the basis
for "the intense hatred of the Christian Church and of Christians as a
whole for the Jews."
In the third period, which lasted until the American Revolution,
"economic motives combine with religious ones, and little by little out-
weigh them." This is the period of expulsions, heavy taxation of Jews
and other repressive measures.
The fourth period begins with the political emancipation of the Jews.
They are accorded legal equality, but are overtly or covertly excluded from
Christian society. In this period the predominant motive is social.
From 1879 onwards, the fifth and last mutation of antisemitism takes
place. It then assumes a racial aspect. This Kahler sees as a revolt of
"ancient instincts" against the obligations imposed by Christian civiliza-
tion, and as "the intellectual expression of a powerful pagan movement."
In Kahler's essay we breathe the rarefied atmosphere of abstract ideas.
His analysis cuts across many of the points of view we have previously
discussed. He finds the most important cause of antisemitism in the
unique character of the Jewish group. He stresses also the relationship
between Christianity and Judaism, and like Freud, sees antisemitism as
a rebellion against the inhibitions imposed by Christian morality. The
idea of the "government of man" wages war on the idea of the "kingdom
of heaven," the idea of "freedom"is arrayedagainst the idea of "salvation"
-a titanic struggle of ideas. But his dramatic presentation enables him to
gloss over a most important methodological point. Granted that the Jews,
in their combination of tribal ritual and universal religion, were a unique
group,-why did this give offense? At no time were they a real threat to
the pagan world. Why then did the Romans begrudge them their peculiar
customs? Unless we assume an "instinctive dislike for the unlike," mere
difference cannot be synonymous with hostility.
Again, when Kahler speaks of antisemitism as having "gone through
so many mutations and as having appeared in so many forms throughout
the ages," what does he mean by 'mutation'? Would not his thesis lose
much of its point if it did not take for granted the causal connection be-
tween possibly unrelated anti-Jewish attitudes?
More pessimistic, but otherwise akin to this argument is the thesis of
Carl Mayer."8 "One must admit," he writes, "that what is called the
'Jewish problem' is, in the ultimate analysis, in the order of a 'mystery'."
For him, as for Kahler, this "mystery" lies in the unique nature of the
Jewish group, and is further enhanced by its continued existence. Mayer
finds that "the main cause of anti-Judaisn is the fact that the Jews are the
'chosen people'." In addition, "anti-Jewish feeling arises alsof from the
fact that the Jews present a phenomenon which appears to be incompre-
hensible." There are, however, other subsidiary factors which form "a
second layer in the hierarchy of causes." They include "the immensely
dialectical relationship between Judaism and Chlristianitywvhichcreates
a tension of a particular kind" and "the abnormalities of the social-
economic life of the Jews."
Here again, we are presented with a hierarchy of causes. But Mayer
introduces a new concept, the incomprehensibility of the antagonism
towards the Jews. It is this 'mystery' that leads him to describe instead of
to interpret. The distinction between explaining and interpreting is
however not made explicit. If the difference is to have any meaning at
all, description should not deal with causation. But this is precisely what
Mayer does. Furthermore, what are the sociological laws according to
which the Jews should have perished long ago? Mayer does not specify.
'Antisemitism' and 'Anti-Jewishness'

13. Distinct from all of these approachesto the problem is that adopted
by Maurice Samuel in his challenging volume, The Great Hatred. Sam-
uel suggests an initial distinction between 'anti-Jewishness' and 'anti-
18"Anti-Judaism Reconsidered," in Social Research VII (1940), p. 169-83. (Kahler's
rejoinder, ib., p. 372-77.)
semitism.' By the former term he denotes the ordinary variety of racial

and religious prejudice. It manifests itself in a readiness to think evil of
Jews, "but always, as it were, reasonable evil." Antisemitism, on the other
hand, is expressed in "unreasonable symptoms of hallucination." The
cue wvordsfor anti-jewishness he describes as 'sheeny,' 'swindler'; for anti-
semitism, 'international plotter.' The pisychologicalbasis of the former
is a feeling of "group superiority," while that of the latter is fear.
This distinction merely raises new problems. Is antisemitism simply
an accentuated form of anti-Jewishness, or are we dealing with two differ-
ent phenomena? Samuel deals with them as if they were entirely distinct,
and his analysis of antisemitism is similar to that of Freud and to Kahler's
fifth period, with which we have already dealt.
The Contribution of Social Psychology
14. The foregoing discussion has shown that most of the usual
methods of establishing the existence of a basic "antisemitism" prove on
analysis to be invalid. The device of identifying that alleged phenomenon
with the totality of acts from which Jews suffer is, as we have seen, inade-
quate. Similarly, the "historical" approach does not meet the problem,
because all that it does is to establish a chronology of occurrences; there
is no warrant for the assumption that the earliest occurrence of anti-
Jewish hostility is necessarily the fons et origo of a single and consistent
tendency manifesting itself in all subsequent occurrences.
It appears, then, that the correlation of anti-Jewish acts and attitudes
with one another, as evidences of a single basic force, yields unsatisfying
results. There is, however, another method of approach. Might it not be
possible to identify any distinctive feature of them by adopting the al-
ternative procedure of comparing them with other examples of group-
hatred? Even if this should yield negative results, we should have reached
the important conclusion that anti-Jewish acts and attitudes are not
distinctive, and therefore demand no peculiar treatment.
Recent years have seen the growth of a voluminous literature on atti-
tudes towards minorities.19 Investigators in this field have not studied
"I e.g.
Guilford, J.P., "Racial Preferences of a Thousand American University Students,"
in Journal of Social Psychology, vol. ii (1931), pp. 179-204; Katz, D. and Braly, K., "Racial
Stereotypes of One Hundred College Students," in Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology, vol. xxviii (1933), pp. 285 et seq.; Klineberg, Otto, Race Differences (New York
1935); Monjar, E., "Racial Distance Reactions," in Sociology and Social Research, vol. xxi
antisemitism as such, but as a rule have compared attitudes toward Jews

with those toward other minorities. They have thus seen the problem
from a new point of view, and this may perhaps help us to a better per-
spective.
It has been found that Americans, as a rule, have a definite mental
picture of Jews. For example, Princeton students agree with their Negro
counterparts in Virginia that Jews are shrewd, intelligent, ambitious,
grasping, religious, and possessed of strong family ties. Moreover, studies
in social distance have shown that Americans prefer to have personal
associations with almost any other white minority than with Jews. At
the same time, it is quite evident that actual fear of Jews such as animates,
for instance, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is foreign to
the American character. These impressions seem to change little with
the passage of time, and are fairly constant throughout the country. How
prevalent they are in our culture is further indicated by the fact that the
several minorities show towards each other the same prejudices as they
themselves suffer at the hands of the majority. (This inter-minority
prejudice, however, may also be explained by the fact that a prejudice
against another minority, or even against one's own group, can serve as
a means of identification with the majority.)
15. The findings of the social psychologists, taken in conjunction with
the other studies on antisemitism, enable us to formulate a hypothesis
which may prove to be helpful in further research. What is today usually
called antisemitism consists in reality of two distinct groups of attitudes.
The first is a dislike of Jews, which is of varying intensity and is rooted in
the mores of the community. Intimate association with them is discounte-
nanced and regarded as detrimental to social status. Nevertheless, they
are not considered responsible for the major ills of society. This prejudice
is broadly similar to that faced by other minorities, and only careful
designed tests can determine how it differs.
The other attitude emanates from a definite center of propaganda,
and supports a group of "intellectuals" who derive their livelihood from
the creation of anti-Jewish myths. Here the attitude toward the Jews is
(1937), pp. 559-64; Bayton, J.A., "The Racial Stereotypes of Negro College Students," in
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. xxxvi (1941), pp. 98 et seq.; Meenes, Max,
"American Jews and Anti-Semitism," in Journal of Negro Education, vol. x (1941), pp.
557-566.
58 JEWVISH SOCIAL STUDIES
the instrument of a practical strategy aimed at the seizure of power. It

presents entirely different problems and should be studied by different
techniques. In dealing with political antisemitism we have to distin-
guish between the agents or manipulators and the patients, or believers.
Trhe former present no psychological problem, but when we study the
reaction of the latter, we want to know what it is in antisemitism that
proves fascinating, compensating or alluring. Assuming that all strata of
the population are equally exposed to antisemitic propaganda, we want
to know what particular social strata and what particular types of person-
ality prove most susceptible to it.
Some fruitful hypotheses have been advanced on these lines. Harold
Lasswell,20 for instance, believes that the attraction of German anti-
semitism was due to the opportunity which it provided to vent animosity
against the rich and prosperous without espousing proletarian socialism.
He suggests that it appealed mainly to the middle classes. Similarly, Otto
Fenichel21 is of opinion that antisemitism in its positively destructive form
arises from the conflict of two wishes: "When a person is torn between the
wish to rebel against authority and respect for authority, antisemitism
gives him the chance to satisfy both these contradictory tendencies. A
pogrom is essentially giving way to rage and destruction and sadism with
the permission of the authorities."
The relationship between social and political antisemitism demands
further investigation. Is the former simply a "milder" variety of the
latter, or are the two unrelated? It is commonly assumed that the one is
the tinder to which the spark of the other may be applied, but this has
never been verified by obective data. We do not know whether those who
discriminate socially against Jews or who look askance at them are also
those most likely to succumb to political antisemitism, or whether the
latter appeals to an entirely different type.
It is in this realm that we can perhaps make profitable use of the in-
sights of psychoanalysis. With the aid of psychoanalytic techniques we
may learn why certain types of personality and culture are more sus-
ceptible to antisemitic influences than others. The conclusions of Fenichel
20
"The Psychology of Hitlerism," in Political Quarterly IV (1933), p. 373-84.
21"Psychoanalysis of Antisemitism," in The American Imago I (1940), p. 24-39.
and Lasswell, for instance, would lead us to believe that the middle class,
and those raised by an unusually strict father, or otherwise in fear of
authority, succumb more easily than others. Similarly, psychoanalysis
may be able to throw light on the vexed question of why certain differences
arouse more hostility than others? By observing the distinction between
its political and social forms we shall also be able to discern more clearly
the possible future of antisemitism. It is by no means certain that political
antisemitism can survive for any length of time without the support of a
powerful group which intends to use it in the conquest of power; eco-
nomic depressions and dislocations of trade do not automatically pro-
duce it.
XVithout attempting to forecast the future, it is important to bear in
mind that antisemitism has been defeated at least twice in modern times:
once in the Dreyfus case and again after the Bolshevist Revolution. In
both cases it was defeated not because the virtues of the Jews were dis-
covered, but because it was recognized as the instrument of a hated group.
It is therefore at least possible to assume that, if the Nazi regime is super-
seded not only by a non-Nazi, but by an anti-Nazi government, political
antisemitism may, in spite of its extensive inculcation, suffer a reverse.
But for that the antisemite must be identified as the hateful enemy.
Finally, the distinction between political and social antisemitism also
has an important bearing on Jewvishmorale. The former is incompatible
wvithdemocracy and with a rational outlook on society, nor does it allow
for Jewvishsurvival. Social antisemitism, on the other hand, is much more
deeply rooted in the mores of our society and will diminish, if at all, but
slowly, under different political and economic conditions and with a
better educational and psychiatricapproach. But Jews possessingsufficient
inner resouircescan adjust themselves to it without undue pain.
Necessity of Scientific Controls
16. Psychology, however, is but one of the avenues through which our
problem may be approached. Equally important is sound logical method.
Nowhere is this need more imperative than in the investigation of causes.
Properly speaking, a "cause"can be determined only in conditions which
approximate a controlled experiment. To arrive at precision we must
build a system of challenging differences, and then by a careful study of
these differences isolate the special causal nexus for which we are search-
ing. We can ask why Jews were more persecuted in one era or country
than in another, how the attitude towards Jewish money lenders was
similar or different from that towards their Gentile co-professionals, how
the attitude adopted towards Jews resembles or differs from that adopted
towards other minorities, and many other specific questions, all arranged
as comparison. Only under such conditions can the word 'cause' have
any meaning. To ask why there have been a variety of attitudes towards
Jews under a great variety of conditions is bound to be futile. New in-
formation and new insights into the nature of the attitudes towards Jews
will come not from speculation on the causes of a two-thousand-yearold
mysterious hostility, but through careful comparative studies in various
fields.

Shlomo Bergaman - Some Methodological Mistakes in The Study of Antisemitism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shlomo Bergaman - Some Methodological Mistakes in The Study of Antisemitism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Some Methodological Errors in the Study of Antisemitism

Author(s): Shlomo Bergman

Never before has antisemitism so powerfully affected Jewish life as

blithely identified with degrees of antisemitism. We must teach ourselves

Basic Causes and Immediate Occasions

General Critique of Suggested Origins

dialectically dubious manoeuvres which have perforce to be introduced in

The Theory of Xenophobia

in Hadassah's serviceable volume Jewish Survival in the World Today

The Error of 'Generic' Explanations

The Theory of a Christian Origin

1?"Antisemitism in the Hellenistic-Roman World," in Essays on Antisemitism (New

minorities was, in general, tolerant, Judaism, although a religio licita,

'Antisemitism' and 'Anti-Jewishness'

semitism.' By the former term he denotes the ordinary variety of racial

antisemitism as such, but as a rule have compared attitudes toward Jews

the instrument of a practical strategy aimed at the seizure of power. It

Necessity of Scientific Controls

You might also like