How to Define anti-Semitism

Below I reproduce a long and convoulted conversatin I had with Peter Staudenmaier about how he defines anti-Semitism. The upshot: Peter will define it in any way that includes Steiner, and not in any way that does not, even if that requires creating a special category of people who are anti-Semitic "just because".

Daniel Hindes (February 25th, 2004):
Peter,
I am hoping I can eventually understand your definition of "antisemitic".
Despite much writing on your part, I must confess I remain confused.
A pro-assimilation stance is sometimes anti-Semitic, and sometimes not.
Appearently it depends on:
Who said it.
When they said it (micro context as well as macro context - that is, the immediate context as well as the historical context).
Who they were (what other view the held, either when they said it, or earlier, or later).
What nationality or ethinicity they are.
What they intended (though innocent intentions are not enough escape the charge of anti-Semitism).
What they "meant" (by whatever standard the accuser decides to apply).
From one point of view, you have denied the defence of Steiner any grounds for claiming Steiner was not anti-Semitic in his pro-assimilation stance. On the other hand, you definition now appears to be so murky that it boils down to, "Anti-Semitism applies to any pro-assimilation stance I choose to apply it to." Perhaps you could attempt to formulate an objective standard so we
know what you mean by the term.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 26th, 2004):
Hi Daniel, you wrote:

"A pro-assimilation stance is sometimes anti-Semitic, and sometimes not."

Yes. I think that is obvious. Treitschke was an antisemite. The leaders of the Centralverein were not.

"Appearently it depends on: Who said it. When they said it (micro context as well as macro context - that is, the immediate context as well as the historical context). Who they were (what other view the held, either when they said it, or earlier, or later). What nationality or ethinicity they are."

Yes, all those things can be significant factors.

"What they intended (though innocent intentions are not enough escape the charge of anti-Semitism). What they "meant" (by whatever standard the accuser decides to apply)."

Those are probably less useful, but sometimes worth exploring.

"From one point of view, you have denied the defence of Steiner any grounds for claiming Steiner was not anti-Semitic in his pro-assimilation stance."

No, I certainly haven't. Theodor Mommsen was a philosemite, not an antisemite, and his stance on assimilation was substantially similar to Steiner's.

"On the other hand, you definition now appears to be so murky that it boils down to, "Anti-Semitism applies to any pro-assimilation stance I choose to apply it to.""

No, not at all. First off, antisemitism applies to lots of anti-assimilationist stances, obviously.

"Perhaps you could attempt to formulate an objective standard so we
know what you mean by the term."

Objecting to Jewishness is the simplest description, though it's important not to reduce this to a merely personal distaste. In the words of the famous study The Authoritarian Personality, "anti-Semitism is best conceived pyschologically not as a specific aversion but as an ideology, a general way of thinking about Jews and Jewish-Gentile interaction."

In the case of a historical figures, there are a number of factors that we might consider: Did they participate in existing antisemitic discourses? Did they publicly praise prominent antisemites and endorse their views on Jews? Did they defend anti-Jewish tracts and their authors against charges of antisemitism? Did they derive terminology or central concepts from sources in which antisemitic features played a prominent role? Did they express their views on Jews and Judaism within contexts in which antisemitic themes were already conspicuous? Did they incorporate longstanding antisemitic tropes into their own doctrines? Were their overall judgements on contemporary Jews and Jewishness predominantly negative?

Considerations like these are often important in determining how to classify particular viewpoints on the "Jewish question".

Peter Staudenmaier (February 26th, 2004):
In light of Linda Clemens's uncomprehending reply from yesterday, I'd like to address once more the question of how to make sense of antisemitism from a historical perspective. I have the impression that many listmates are beholden to a series of general misconceptions about this topic, which then distract from our more specific discussions of how and whether some of Rudolf Steiner's doctrines relate to this theme.

It is certainly true that there was a vigorous debate over assimilation in Steiner's day. But the terms of this debate were very different from what Linda and others appear to think. The very meaning of the term "assimilation" was under dispute at this time, to such an extent that some historians try to avoid the term entirely due to its built-in ambiguity. There are a number of excellent scholarly studies of this phemonenon.

One of the classics is the book that Daniel quoted extensively (thanks, Daniel), Uriel Tal's Christians and Jews in Germany. Tal's book examines "the double aspiration of the Jews in the Second Reich to integrate into the dominant society and at the same time retain their Jewish identity. This endeavor on the part of German Jews was part of a larger struggle of men to achieve freedom in modern society without forfeiting individuality." (p. 290) But as Tal notes, "this twofold aspiration of German Jewry did not meet with approval." (ibid.) One of the reasons it did not meet with approval was that many non-Jewish thinkers rejected this conception of assimilation as integration plus retention of Jewish identity, and insisted instead on a conception of assimilation as the disapearance of Jewish identity.

Historian David Sorkin explored this fundamental divide between contrary understandings of "assimilation" in his important article "Emancipation and Assimilation: Two Concepts and their Application to German-Jewish History" (Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook XXXV, 1990). Sorkin distinguishes between "broad" and "narrow" conceptions of assimilation, the first shared by those non-Jews whom Sorkin labels "illiberal Liberals" and the second shared by liberal and pro-assimilationist Jews. Using several German terms that were current in the 19th century -- "Amalgamierung" or amalgamation and "Verschmelzung" or merger -- Sorkin notes that the broad conception of assimilation "assumed that 'Amalgamierung' and 'Verschmelzung' meant the disappearance of the Jews through conversion." (p. 20) In contrast, the narrow conception promoted by Jewish reformers explicitly rejected the disappearance of the Jews as such. Sorkin concluded: "The more scholars excavate the complex layers of the process of integration, the less adequate will an undifferentiated concept of assimilation appear." (p. 30)

Such distinctions are crucial to understanding how antisemitic thinking operated in German-speaking Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many of the most prominent antisemites of the era championed a model of assimilation that meant the disappearance of the Jews. From Richard Wagner to Heinrich von Treitschke to Paul de Lagarde, this sort of assimilationist antisemitism played a powerful role within German culture. These figures were vigorously opposed by many pro-assimilationist Jews, as well as by philosemitic gentiles. It was not at all uncommon for antisemites at this time to praise ancient Hebrew culture, have Jewish friends, and explicitly reject racial and ethnic hatred while nevertheless taking a firmly negative attitude toward Jewish existence in the modern world and calling for Jews to disappear into the German people. This was, in fact, one of the most common patterns within the antisemitic thinking of the era. It is essential to keep this historical background in mind when considering Steiner's various statements on the "Jewish question".

I encourage responses from anyone and everyone, even those who think it is not antisemitic to hold that the existence of Jews as a people retards the healthy development of humankind. I will be blissfully away from computers all weekend and will return to the fray on Monday evening.

Linda Clemens (February 27th, 2004):
Before continuing, I'd like to interject a question: Why do you insist on using the term "antisemitism" to explore "this theme", when it's been born out that the "general" everybody fails to understand the term as you prefer to define it, thus "distracting" from your meaning?
The only explanation which comes to mind would be that you prefer using the term because it is emotionally explosive and implies Steiner is somehow implicated in Germany's "Final Solution" without necessarily having to argue the case with more dubious evidence such as the nichts weniger als. I'm sure you'd have a better reason that this so I look forward to your answer.

"The very meaning of the term "assimilation" was under dispute at this time, to such an extent that some historians try to avoid the term entirely due to its built-in ambiguity."

I can appreciate that. It doesn't change the point. The point is that disputes about "assimilation" and what it implied were the historical context in which Steiner's remarks were made. They were contributions to the debate. I submit you're perhaps overcomplicating this. In this country, we have disputes about immigration and what it means to "be an American", and controversial opinions over the "melting pot" idea. France is engaged in a debate now over their immigration issues, and to what degree cultural identity must be given up to a common French identity. These are highly charged issues that only become more polarized and incomprehensible when one side tries to identify the other as "racist" or anti-whatever. There's even less value in doing so in the context of some kind of exploration or dissertation on an historical issue.

Well, Mr. Staudenmaier....having spent considerable amount of time on the WC's list reading opinions which implied the world would be better place if people were irreligious altogether (the Christology, Catholic and LDS bashing raised nary an eyebrow there), I wonder that Steiner wasn't guilty of failing to anticipate the unhealthy developments of a humankind anxious to rid themselves of Jews. People make remarks like this in other contexts all the time even now--in America, there are certain social progressives who think that humanity will be healthier when we no longer have black, brown, and white people. This is an objectionable idea to others. Some (you?) look forward to the day when we no longer consider ourselves part of a national identity. Both of those ideas would take a completely different cast to future generations if, during the intervening years, harsh actions were taken against certain people in order to secure these utopian dreams.

Rudolf Steiner, regardless of how well-meaning his remarks were, really blew it on this one. There were innumerable Jews on the other side of the debate who predicted the future much better than he did. Clearly, mankind was not "retarded" because Jews weren't willing to give up their culture. Jews in that day knew very well that giving up their "Jewishness" wouldn't positively impact the world or how the world viewed them. Their Jewishness wasn't going to go away through "assimilation".....they were being persuaded to give up their thousands of years old "national" identity as Jews for what? A German identity? That didn't play out well, did it?

It's ridiculous today to maintain that his ideas on this subject hold real value today. You have to shut your eyes to too much -- it's beyond stupid to willfully ignore it now to reexplore any such concerns over Jewish identity and "the future of mankind" when the evidence shows it to be the German/Aryan identity which unleashed some of the most unspeakable evil the planet has ever seen.

Peter Staudenmaier (March 1st, 2004):
"Before continuing, I'd like to interject a question: Why do you insist on using the term "antisemitism" to explore "this theme","

I use the term philosemitism as well. Surely this did not escape your notice?
[A classic evasive answer. What does philosemitism have to do with Linda's question?]

"when it's been born out that the "general" everybody fails to understand the term as you prefer to define it, thus "distracting" from your meaning?"

What I presented are not my personal preferences. I urge you to consult the existing historical literature on antisemitism.

"The only explanation which comes to mind would be that you prefer using the term because it is emotionally explosive and implies Steiner is somehow implicated in Germany's "Final Solution" "

That makes no sense, Linda. I explicitly reject the interpretation you just imputed to me. Steiner was not implicated in the Final Solution.

"The point is that disputes about "assimilation" and what it implied were the historical context in which Steiner's remarks were made."

No kidding.

"They were contributions to the debate."

Indeed. Some of his contributions to this debate were philosemitic and others antisemitic, in my view.

"These are highly charged issues that only become more polarized and incomprehensible when one side tries to identify the other as "racist" or anti-whatever."

I disagree completely. In both the French case and the US case, racist beliefs play an important role within anti-immigration discourse.

"Could you be more specific about what you think Steiner was advocating? That they be converted to Christianity?"

Steiner wasn't clear about this, though conversion was part (an ambivalent part) of Thieben's proferred "solution". For other assimilationist antisemites at the time, intermarriage was more important than conversion. Steiner did hold it against Jews that "they marry among themselves"; he neglected the fact that non-Jewish Germans also overwhelmingly married among themselves.
[Notice that Peter Staudenmaier offers no citations of where Steiner might have said that it is bad for Jews to marry among themselves. This is because Steiner never said such a thing. Peter Staudenmaier likes to slip these types of generallizations in places like this.]

"People make remarks like this in other contexts all the time even now"
[Remarks like what? Peter Staudenmaier has snipped this so short it is not possible to figure out what Linda meant. Linda said: "I wonder that Steiner wasn't guilty of failing to anticipate the unhealthy developments of a humankind anxious to rid themselves of Jews. People make remarks like this in other contexts all the time even now--in America, there are certain social progressives who think that humanity will be healthier when we no longer have black, brown, and white people. This is an objectionable idea to others."]

Indeed. Some of those remarks are antisemitic. Some are racist. Some are neither of these things.
[Ok, so when someone says they "think that humanity will be healthier when we no longer have black, brown, and white people" this is sometimes anti-Semitic and sometimes racist?]