assimilation 1
From: Peter
Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:13 pm
Subject: assimilation
Sorry to have caused confusion. I will try
to restate what I think is relevant about the concept of assimilation
and its role in Rudolf Steiner's views on Jews, Judaism, and
Jewishness.
Assimilation is most certainly not antisemitic in and of itself.
In the Germany of Steiner's day, most Jews were firmly in favor
of assimilation, and they definitely weren't antisemites; in
fact the most prominent organization of pro-assimilationist Jews,
the Centralverein, was also a major opponent of antisemitic agitation.
There were other tendencies within German Jewry that were much
more ambivalent toward assimilation, including many Orthodox
Jews and many Zionists, but these were minority viewpoints at
the time.
Within the non-Jewish population (which is to say, the vast majority
of Germans), there were many supporters and defenders of Jewish
rights; these people are sometimes called philosemites (though
that term, particularly in Germany, carries a quite a few complicated
connotations). In my view, Steiner belonged to this stream around
the turn of the century, when he published a series of articles
denouncing organized antisemitism. Along with these philosemites,
there were of course also many antisemites, who appeared in a
great variety of ideological types, from religious antisemites
to cultural antisemites to political antisemites to economic
antisemites to racial antisemites and more. To complicate matters
further, the range of general attitudes toward assimilation among
non-Jewish Germans was spread more or less evenly across this
ideological spectrum: some antisemites were in favor of assimilation,
as they understood it, and others were opposed. Moreover, many
philosemites also shared an emphatically pro-assimilationist
perspective.
The trouble is that for the most part, Jews and non-Jews meant
very different things by the term 'assimilation'. For Jews, especially
assimilationist Jews, it generally meant fuller integration into
mainstream German society while retaining their Jewish identity.
For many non-Jews, in contrast, assimilation meant the abandonment
of Jewish identity as such. This is how Steiner understood the
concept, for example. This fundamental difference greatly exacerbated
the existing social conflicts surrounding the so-called "Jewish
question" in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
I hope this won't muddle things even further,
but it's important to keep in mind that racism and antisemitism
are two different things. Although they do often coincide, there
are certainly racists who are not antisemites and antisemites
who are not racists. This is relevant to the contested notion
of assimilation because most racial antisemites -- those who
viewed Jews as racially distinct from 'German' or 'Aryans' --
opposed assimilation. However, there are instances of antisemites
who favored assimilation and who also held a more or less racial
conception of Jewishness; in my view, some of Steiner's mature
views on Jews (after his turn to Theosophy) fall into this category.
In summary: assimilation itself is neither necessarily antisemitic
nor necessarily racist; it is, instead, a significant distinguishing
issue in the complex debates over the status of Jews within German
culture and society in Steiner's day. The difference between
Jewish and gentile understandings of 'assimilation' is a mainstay
of the abundant historical research on German-Jewish history;
when I get back to the computer later today I will try to post
a selection of quotes from various works that will hopefully
give a fuller picture of this multifaceted question.
Peter Staudenmaier
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
This is something I have been puzzling over
for some time. Given:
1. It is not anti-Semitic if "assimilation" means integration
into mainstream society without loss of separate ethnic identity.
2. If assimilation results in a loss of separate cultural identity,
whether inadvertent or intentional, then it is anti-Semitic.
The next question is what to think if someone says (either then
or now) "It would be nice if the Jews lost their separate
identity and merged completely with mainstream culture."
By most definitions, this is an anti-Semitic position, whether
or not it is intended with an element of compulsion or not.
What are we then to make of the following fact? In modern US
society many Jews have lost their separate identity and been
assimilated into mainstream culture, becoming non-practicing
agnostics. Does that make US society anti-Semitic? If you find
this development good, does that make you an anti-Semite? Are
such Jews themselves anti-Semitic? If the definition of anti-Semitic
is stretched so far that the freedom of an individual Jew to
choose to abandon their heritage becomes anti-Semitism, that
seems inimical to a humanist view of individual freedom of conscience.
On the other hand, if there is no objection to an individual
choosing to abandon their heritage, why is it wrong for someone
to say that they feel, in principle, such an occurrence would
be desirable? It seems like a catch-22.
I'm curious whether anyone else has any thoughts on the matter.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:05 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] assimilation
Hi Daniel, great questions. I think we're
getting much closer to the heart of the matter, as I see it.
Here are my off the cuff thoughts:
1. It is not anti-Semitic if "assimilation"
means integration into mainstream society without loss of separate
ethnic identity. 2. If assimilation results in a loss of separate
cultural identity, whether inadvertent or intentional, then it
is anti-Semitic.
Not necessarily. It takes more than an improper conception of
assimilation to make a specific set of beliefs antisemitic, in
my view. You also have to look at contextual factors, and at
the overall judgement of Jews and Jewishness that is explicit
or implicit in the set of beliefs.
The next question is what to think if someone says (either
then or now) "It would be nice if the Jews lost their separate
identity and merged completely with mainstream culture."
By most definitions, this is an anti-Semitic position, whether
or not it is intended with an element of compulsion or not.
I certainly think such a position can be antisemitic, but it
need not be; alot depends on why the person thinks such
an outcome would be nice. I hasten to add that this "why"
question is not, to my mind, primarily a matter of motives or
intentions; I think the more central issue is the broader ideology
of rejecting Jewishness as such.
What are we then to make of the following fact? In modern
US society many Jews have lost their separate identity and been
assimilated into mainstream culture, becoming non-practicing
agnostics. Does that make US society anti-Semitic?
No, I don't think it does, certainly not overall.
If you find this development good, does that make you an anti-Semite?
Again, I think it depends on why you find this development
good. If you find it good because you associate Jewishness with
the prime evils of modern society, then yes, there's a good chance
that this stance is antisemitic.
Are such Jews themselves anti-Semitic?
Not in my eyes, except in rare cases.
If the definition of anti-Semitic is stretched so far that
the freedom of an individual Jew to choose to abandon their heritage
becomes anti-Semitism, that seems inimical to a humanist view
of individual freedom of conscience.
I agree, that is one good reason not to stretch the definition
of antisemitism too far.
On the other hand, if there is no objection to an individual
choosing to abandon their heritage, why is it wrong for someone
to say that they feel, in principle, such an occurrence would
be desirable? It seems like a catch-22.
I don't see it as a catch-22. It makes a difference, after all,
whether a Jew or a non-Jew announces their thoughts on the disappearance
of Jewishness. I'm sorry that I still haven't gotten around to
explicating my own arguments regarding Steiner's attitudes toward
Jews (still just trying to catch up with all the current replies!),
but I will try to do so soon and expand on the other factors
that made his position partially antisemitic, in my estimation,
above and beyond his stance on assimilation. Thanks for a very
thoughtful post,
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
assimilation 2
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
February/March
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
