Обсуждение:Антисемитизм (термин)

Категория:Определения

@Покровитель хлебных злаков, на мой взгляд, для этой категории больше подойдёт статья en:Working definition of antisemitism — когда будет написана в рувики. Pessimist (обс.) 07:01, 24 декабря 2022 (UTC)

• Данная статья не об определении, а о термине, имеющем большое число коннотаций. Nikolay Omonov (обс.) 08:07, 24 декабря 2022 (UTC)

Материал

@Pessimist2006, коллега, возможно, что-то отсюда Антииудаизм#Термин можно было бы использовать в статье, там часть текста непосредственно о термине аннтисемитизм (ввиду близкой связи терминов аннтисемитизм и антииудаизм). Nikolay Omonov (обс.) 07:06, 15 сентября 2023 (UTC)

• Да, спасибо, я попробую добавить. Pessimist (обс.) 07:17, 15 сентября 2023 (UTC)

Mark Gelber

@Pessimist2006, коллега, возможно, что-то из этого источника можно использовать в статье, текст непосредственно по теме:

Despite Daniel Walden’s asseveration that “the definition of anti-Semitism is easily written,” the extended debate concerning the term “antisemitism,” its appropriateness, and its numerous, common predicates certainly attests to the complex and diverse nature of the phenomenon to which the term purports to refer. In fact, there are many different definitions of antisemitism; adjectives appearing before the term in composita—“religious antisemitism,” “Christian antisemitism,” “anti-Christian antisemitism,” “pagan antisemitism,” “economic antisemitism,” “social antisemitism,” “racial antisemitism,” “black antisemitism,” “pathological antisemitism,” “eternal antisemitism,” “political antisemitism,” “Jewish antisemitism,” and “literary antisemitism,” to name some of the most common types— generally “denote the specific cause, nature, or rationale of a manifestation of anti-Jewish passion or action,” or the actual proponents of behaviors or attitudes hostile to Jews or Judaism. The relatively late appearance, however, of the term “antisemitism” itself, a neologism of the late nine- teenth century, indicates in fact an attempt to construe something new in the complex of anti-Jewish thought and behavior emerging in Western Europe around 1880. As Alex Bein writes:

‘The fact in itself that a special term for Jew-hatred was created and became current at that time shows that the Jewish question had entered a new phase. It is no accident when a collective term comes into existence to describe a social movement. Such terms are generally created when a movement has reached that stage in its development in which different tendencies combine to form one comprehensive outlook, a stage in which the movement attains, to some extent, awareness of itself, and can therefore move forward more systematically to the realization of its aims.”

For Wilhelm Marr, a journalist generally believed to have coined the word in 1879, the new element was race; thus, the neologism “antisemitism” purports to emphasize and exploit the newly apprehended biological, scientific-racial (sic) basis, as opposed to the older Christian, religious rationale, of the then current Jew-hatred in Europe. In late 1879, Marr changed the name of his “anti-Jidischer Verein” to “Anti-Semiten- Liga.” Gershom Scholem explains this transition: “From calling Jews ‘Semiten,’it is only a short distance to calling the anti-Jews, ‘antisemiten.’

Of course, because of the very composition of the compound term, “antisemitism” presupposes the word and idea of “semitism.” According to Gotthard Deutsch, the first writers “already in the 18th century to employ the term ‘Semitic nations, albeit in a philological sense” were the distinguished linguists, August Ludwig Schlézer (1735-1809) and Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752-1827), both professors at the University of Géttingen. Not until Franz Bopp (1791-1867) had established a comprehensive vocabulary for the different language families, however, did the term “semitic,” referring originally only to a linguistic phenomenon, become a valorized, ethnic designation as well. Deutsch cites the scholar, Christian Lassen (1800-1876), a professor in Bonn, as the first to “draw a picture of the ethnical character of the Semites as contradistinguished from the Aryans.” In Indische Altertumskunde (1844-1861), Lassen writes:

History proves that Semites do not possess the harmony of psychical forces which distinguishes the Aryans. The Semite is selfish and exclusive. He possesses a sharp intellect which ‘enables him to make use of the opportunities created by others, as we find it in the history of the Phoenicians and, later on, of the Arabs.

For Lassen, as well as for others sharing his sociolinguistic point of view, the term “Semite” by no means refers exclusively to Jews, but rather to peoples who inhabit the Middle East and North Africa, speaking related languages common to those areas, with additional reference “to political history and civilization.” The particular transference of this term from philology to the realm of ethnology and, ultimately, race is fraught with contradictions, which have corroborated the numerous objections of many writers. Interestingly, the Biblical account of the sons of Noah —from which the word “Semite” derives, that is, from the name of Noah’s son, Shem — characterizes other speakers of common Semitic languages not as the descendents of Shem at all, but rather as descendents of Ham, another son of Noah (Gen. 9:18). Independently of Lassen, Ernst Renan (1823-1892), the French philologist and scholar of early Christianity, also asserted the ethnic inferiority of the Semitic peoples:

ly a dans cette race de haute passions, de complets dévouements, des caractéres incom: parables. Ilya rarement cette finesse de sentiment moral qui semble étre surtout Papanage des races germaniques et celtiques.

Christoph Cobet, in his lexicon, Der Wortschatz des Antisemitismus in der Bismarckzeit, notes that after 1880 the term “antisemitism” began to appear with a high degree of frequency, especially in different compound terms or “Komposita.” As propounded by Marr and others, the term signifies “die Bekimpfung des Sen tentums,” the struggle against Semitic influence in society, represented by Jewish incursions, in other words Jewish emancipation or assimilation, into Western society. The specialization of the term to denote in practice only Jews, while at the same time neglecting completely other Semitic peoples, carried on apace, As Salo Baron points out, because the term has no positive connotation, it could conceal the divergences among different antisemitic movements: “Such an omnibus term could easily cover a multitude of motives and impulses.” Thus, initially, the term “became a source of strength to those who gathered under it.”

The increasingly popular term was not accepted universally or consistently, even in the writing of Marr, for instance. According to Alex Bein, the avoidance by late nineteenth century writers of terms like “Judenhass” or “Judenfeindschaft,” words with an explicit reference to the discredited term, “Jew,” should be viewed as an attempt to dissociate the new form of anti-Jewish expression from the older, no longer universally valid (sic) Christian-religious anti-Judaism.* Eugen Diihring, for instance, often referred to as one of the first and most important theoreticians of racial antisemitism, rejected unconditionally the use of the words “semite” and “antisemitism,” because of their lack of precision. Didhring preferred the continued use of “Jude” (“Jew”) and its various compound forms. Dilhring wrote:

Man sage also eben auch dann, wenn man die Race meint, kurzweg Jude und nicht etwa Semit. . . . Uberdies ist es ein bestimmter Volksstamm, der die Eigenschaften einer Race im markirtesten Gegensatz zum iibrigen Menschengeschlecht ausgebildet hat, und nicht die ganze semitische Race, was in unserer modernen Cultur und Gesellschaft in Frage kommt.

Despite Diihring’s and others’ reservations about the logic of the term, the word “antisemitism” established itself securely. Also, very soon after its appearance the word came to be used in a more expanded and generalized sense: “. . . in its wider sense it may be said to include the persecution of the Jews at all times and among all nations. . . At the same time, the term more and more came to refer exclusively to Jews and to no other semitic people or peoples who spoke semitic languages. In light of the controversial nature of the early use of the world “antisemitism,” and its peculiar linguistic specialization and subsequent generalization, the strong tendency to append adjectives to clarify the exact nature of anti-Jewish phenomena under discussion can be easily understood. In fact, Marr’s original meaning of “antisemitism” came to be known as “modern antisemitism,” although to this day, various writers have understood and defined the new, late nineteenth century European variety of an- tisemitism in significantly different ways. Thus, although the common designation of antisemitism as a new word for an old phenomenon must be taken with a “grain of salt,” nevertheless the etymology of the term and common usage establishes the term’s applicability in the premodern periods.

Bernard Lazare (1865-1903), a controversial French writer mostly forgotten today except for his prominent role in the Dreyfus affair and for his flirtation and short-lived visibility in the nascent Zionist movement at the end of the nineteenth century, was one of the first to attempt a comprehensive treatment of the subject of antisemitism. Lazare argued for maintaining the important distinction between “l'antisémitisme” and “l'antijudaisme,” although in his major study of antisemitism, L’Antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes, written in 1894, he himself is inconsistent when employing these two terms. Lazare writes:

Partout oit les Juifs, cessant d’étre une nation préte a défendre sa liberté et son indépen- dance, se sont établis partout s'est développé 'antisémitisme, ou plutdt "antijudaisme, car antisémitisme est un mot mal choisi, qui n'a eu sa raison d’étre que de notre temps, quand ona voulu élargir cette lutte du Juif et des peuples chrétiens, et ui donner une philosophie en méme temps qu’une raison plus métaphysique que matérielle.”

That the neologism “antisemitism” reflects for Lazare the “metaphysical- philosophical” justification of the modern form of Jew-hatred should be seen in view of his categorical refusal to admit the slightest validity to racial doctrines then current in Europe, as well as in view of his strong desire to distinguish the self-conscious, modern variety from the earlier, more violently emotional and prominantly religiously-motivated Christian antisemitism. Lazare explains:

Les chrétiens d’antan détestaient les déicides instinctivement, et ils n’essayaient nullement de justifier leur animosité: ils la témoignaient. Les antijuifs contemporains voulurent expli- quer leur haine, c’est-a-dire, quis la voulurent décorer: l'antijudaisme se mua en antisémitisme [p. 116],

Yet, Lazare also seems to evince an awareness of the futility and inappropriateness of delimiting the term in the way he does. For example, he argues that whereas even in the seventeenth century “anti-Judaism” is at times really more social than religious, by the nineteenth century economic together with social factors predominate.

Примечания

• Gelber, Mark H.. What Is Literary Antisemitism? (англ.) // Jewish Social Studies. — 1985. — Vol. 47, no. 1. — P. 1–20.

Nikolay Omonov (обс.) 15:04, 28 февраля 2024 (UTC)

• Шикарный материал, большое спасибо, тут есть что использовать для дополнения. Pessimist (обс.) 16:12, 28 февраля 2024 (UTC)