In the wake of the global condemnations following yesterday's events, I would like to raise an interesting question: Is Judeopathy (a.k.a. antisemitism, but I dislike that word as it is inherently and deliberately misleading) a naturalistic phenomenon? That is to say, can it be entirely explained in terms of political, social and psychological reasons? Or is there some metaphysical factor involved?
Prof. Menachem Kellner explains that one of the differences between the mystical school of thought (as represented by R. Yehudah HaLevi) and Rambam's school of thought is that according to the former, there is an inherent metaphysical difference between Jews and non-Jews, whereas according to the latter there is none. From this and other things it probably follows that according to Rambam, Judeopathy is a naturalistic phenomenon.
Personally, I can't bring myself to believe that. About 12 years ago I engaged in an extensive study of Judeopathy. (I even wrote a book on it, largely based on the teachings of Rav Moshe Shapiro, that I never published.) In the course of my research, one study that I read (Grosser and Halperin, Anti-Semitism, Citadel Press 1976) concluded that there are one hundred and eighteen factors that must be invoked to account for antisemitism! The longevity, extent, and irrationality of the phenomenon led me to the conclusion that it cannot be reduced to a solely naturalistic phenomenon.
Does that mean that I am not a rationalist? That depends on how one defines and applies rationalism.
40 comments:
If Judeopathy is a naturalistic phenomenon then the level of Divine Intervention must be great indeed, in order to bring about all the various factors which lead to this persistent hatred.
I personally tend to think that there is a combination of naturalistic elements and "essentialist" elements, which pertain to inherent differences between Jew and Gentile.
I must mention in passing that this is quite an interesting issue which the Admor has raised.
Interesting question. It should be said that even if you do hold that there is a metaphysical difference (something beyond scientific proof)this doesn't necessarily logically entail Judeopathy. If anything there would still be the problem of explaining how the unconscious metaphysical difference manages to have a causal effect on the social behavior.
I'm going to have to agree with the Rambam again.
If you hold that anything does not have a natural explanation then you don't think you can maintain a claim to be a rationalist.
I suppose you could stretch it by saying that Judeopathy is about as unlikely as evolution to occur on its own and therefore, while supporting it's natural explanation as a phenomenological explanation of a metaphysical reality. Personally I'd cut the metaphysics here as I find it very irrational (and even unacceptable) that there is a metaphysical difference between Jew and non-Jew. I'm with Rambam as well on this.
Is it correct to group many different hatreds under the all inclusive appellation of Judeopathy?
After all there are many types:
Religious hatred (like the inquisition)
Ethnic (like the Nazis)
and Political (like anti-Israel bias)
Although some may overlap perhaps there are different motivations behind different types of Judeopathy
Just to clarify - I am not saying that I necessarily believe that there is an inherent metaphysical difference between Jews and non-Jews. I am wondering if that can be detached from the idea that Judeopathy is a metaphysical phenomenon.
Rabbi,
I don't know how this affects your theory, but I think it worth mentioning.
Sociologist Rodney Stark studied mass outbreaks of deadly judeopathy in the middle ages. In his book "One True G-d" he discusses the results in his chapter "G-d's Wrath".
He concludes that such outbreaks of violence are very prone to happen when a large monotheistic religion is threatened by some heresy or other monotheism. He catalogs events from the time the church was putting down the Waldenians and whatnot. He also, naturally, discusses the crusades. It is notable to mention that when the crusaders (contrary to the wishes of the Church, by the way) were massacring Jews, moslems, who were also a large monotheism at war with religious opponents, were doing the same and in pretty much the same numbers.
For sheer social scientific rigor, Stark's essay cannot be beat.
I don't understand. We killed God. Of course they should hate us bitterly. It's perfectly natural.
What do you mean by non-naturalistic? Are you saying there is some supernatural cause for people hating Jews?
If so, I agree that you have to say that in this area you are not a rationalist.
You can say that hatred of Jews is not justified, that it is based on misconceptions, that it is the result of non-rational evolutionary drives, even that it is a cultural meme that persists when it doesn't convey any survival value to those who hold it.
But to say that there is some reason beyond nature for Jew hatred specifically seems to me to be unjustifiable.
Jewish fate, and per force the hatred of Jews by the nations, is of course not not "naturalistic." Read the Tochachot. Read the prophets. Will the war of Gog and Magog come about naturalistically? Is the redemption a naturalistic process? ואם תלכו עמי קרי
Drashot Haran, in the drasha on the end of last week's parshah, says the primary reason is because we are different and seperated; primarily because they reject our faith. He notes that when Moshiach comes, their will be no longer hatred and explains it based on the removal of the causes.
Every instance of hatred for Jews and the People of Israel can always be credibly explained at the time, or with hindsight, in a reasonable way.
What is impossible to explain reasonably and rationally is the historical totality of both Jewish survival and hatred towards the People of Israel (whether the latter is directed against individual Jews, communities, or an independent Jewish nation).
It is the future that always seems rationally impossible, whether you are thinking of Jewish survival or hatred towards Jews.
Case in point: Few reasonable people anywhere on the political spectrum could possibly have conceived during the heyday of the Oslo process, that in the end Israel would try to see that process through, and that the result would be the wall-to-wall hatred and delegitimization of Israel by the entire family of nations, condemnation, isolation, and diplomatic handcuffs that essentially make any future defensive military action by Israel impossible or, if taken, backfire into diplomatic losses of immense proportions that threaten the very existence of the state.
No, it isn't rational. One can acknowledge the value of reason and support rationalistic Judaism, but at the same time acknowledge that not *everything* is rational.
On a more positive note: Love isn't rational. Never choose who and what you love based on public opinion, popularity, or the consensus of the "international community." Keep loving despite them when you know that it is right!
Love God, Israel, and Torah.
Rafi writes: "If you hold that anything does not have a natural explanation then you don't think you can maintain a claim to be a rationalist."
Where did Rabbi Slifkin say or imply this? All he did was ask a question: "Does that mean that I am not a rationalist?"
If you don't want to use "anti-Semitism" (understandably) and are willing to use a term that is not commonly understood, then you should use "Judeomisy" ("Jew-hatred"). "Judeopathy" would mean either "suffering of Jews" or "suffering from Jews."
Strictly in response to your question, I'd say that you can remain a rationalist and still be unable to rationally explain EVERYTHING at the present moment.
However, as far as "Judeopathy" as you call it, goes, I feel there are very rational psychological reasons that underlie it.
Historically, there have been many reasons to hate Jews. Vehement anti-Paganism is naturally offensive to Pagans, and the Christian Deicide libel is pretty offensive to Christians, to list but two.
In contemporary secular society, however, for one, Judaism and the Jewish belief is (as well as basically any religious belief with strict moral codes), at its core, at odds with many values that society at large has come to embrace, such as egalitarianism and total ethnic universalism. If I was in the shoes of a totally secular individual who strongly believed in those values (which I actually was but two years ago!) the idea that a group of people would want to live in their own country with some sort of quasi-religious-ethnic label (aka The Jew) and follow their own ways (aka The Torah) which seem anachronistic and barbaric to me would naturally anger me too!
And to top it all off, I regularly read all of these biased news sources and all of my secular idols like Noam Chomsky (who is even a Jew, so I'm not actually being racist!) tell me that they're oppressing people and the like, and it totally fits into my skeptical Imperialist stereotype of any first world nation, and there goes my support for anything Israeli.
I had a philosophy professor who generally stressed the value of rationalism but stated that he is perhaps inclined to believe that anti-Semitism is somehow super-naturalist.
(By the way, I don't see any connection whatsoever between how one views the Jews and how one views anti-Semitism. One can easily side with the Rambam concerning the Jews but believe that anti-Semitism is somehow super-naturalist.)
Adrian,
Perhaps your point can be summed up like this:
Every iteration of human ideas from paganism to christianity to modern leftism has had a reason to hate the Jews. Therefore, there is a rational reason to believe that Judeopathy is a naturalistic phenomenon.
Okay. Let's go with that.
That leaves you with one more thing to explain:
Why did human ideas evolve in such a way as to provide every iteration of those ideas with a reason to hate the Jews?
Kudos to Well-Wisher. I am sure you realize that scores of people did see the consequences of Oslo. Let me rephrase what you say: The supporters of Oslo were generally "reasonable", i.e., deniers of the metaphysical.
If Jewish rationalism means denying the metaphysical, it is very dangerous. The metaphysical is the heart of Torah. Of course, false mysticism is dangerous as well.
Can't you just see it as a general case of midah kaneged midah? Basicaly, the tanach says all over the place if you sin and go against hashem then hashem will punish you, usually at the hands of foreign nations. Perfect example is the Arabs in eretz yisrael - it says in tanach that if we don't follow xyz then hashem will punish us with an "am lo am", a people who are not a people - what better description of the "palestinians" is there than that?
I believe that any definition of rationalism should be based on what is the most rational conclusion, not what is the most materialistic conclusion.
Rabbi Slifkin - You wrote: "About 12 years ago I engaged in an extensive study of Judeopathy."
Did you study the social sciences of hate, bullying and persecution of "the other"?
So much of human behavior and political behavior can be observed in school kids, and even high school kids. Look at how brutally they bully "the other" - the kids who are different, who don't fit in.
Adults only pretend they are not children, and try to act sophisticated. Psychologically, most people do not mature in their ideas of hate until old age, unless they work on it.
In Europe everyone hates the gypsies. There will always be hate, it's natural.
Jews are easy to hate, we are always different and that is why "Judeopathy" is always present. We're the bullied and beat up kid that just wont run away, change schools or die. So the bullying continues.
Being anti-black is still very strong in the south of the USA. Why? Haven't they gotten past all that? No. They still fly the confederate flag in places all over the south. Hate stays in families and communities, it survives war. It's the last tradition to die.
Also, as long as that small, weak, hated, and bullied victim keeps standing up after the beating, then the “strong” or “winner” cannot stand proud. This applies to every religious fight against Judaism. And as much as the secular want to deny it, religion still informs and fuels enormous passion in people.
“Judeopathy” seems so obviously natural and reflects so much of standard human social behavior.
I vote for the natural and rational explanations.
Why must you be so black and white? Does one have to be entirely rationalist or entirely not?
One does not need to resort to studies or literature searches to understand that Jew-hatred transcends the rational. One recent example will suffice:
Every year Toronto has a gay pride parade. This year the big controversy has been the group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid wanting to have a float condemning Israel during the parade.
Now think about it: Israel allows gays to live in peace and express their culture. It affords them full civil rights and recognizes their marital relationships when it comes to work benefits, etc.
The Palestinian authority holds that homosexuality is illegal. Gays in the PA can be beaten or killed without recourse to whatever passes for the law in that terrorist state.
And who do the gays want to condemn?
Need I say more?
Michapeset,
Your theory leaves one notable counterexample-- the Left.
You see, the Left has decided that its own "in-group" namely Western Culture is bad and that all other cultures are good. Witness the lack of condemnation of the felonies of the Third World, the lack of condemnation of the horrors of Communism, the lack of condemnation of Islamic Terrorism, etc.
Yet, the Left finds it in its heart to condemn Israel and Judaism just the same.
So, here we have an ideology that has no problem with the "other" but still has a problem with the Jews.
You need to account for that.
Garnel,
Who do the gays want to condemn? Traditional religious folk including Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Catholics, etc. Also how about everybody who contributed to the Prop 8 campaign or voted for the proposition?
Oddly there is little condemnation for Islamic homophobia among the American gay community (unless, of course, you talk to my right wing gay friends) They won't hesitate to condemn that.
"(O)ne study...concluded that there are one hundred and eighteen factors that must be invoked to account for antisemitism! The longevity, extent, and irrationality of the phenomenon led me to the conclusion that it cannot be reduced to a solely naturalistic phenomenon. "
Lets play with some numbers here. Lets say that you believe, with 99% certainty, that each of these 118 factors are purely natural, and that they're independent. Doing the math, you are now .99^118, or 30.5% sure that there's a completely natural explanation for antisemitism.
Maybe this works with evolution, too. Lets say you are 99% sure about 118 different specific theories about how 118 different creatures evolved. Does this mean that you are only 30.5% sure that evolution explains how all these creatures evolved?
Kindly don't pick apart the math too much; I realize its flaws. It's the concept that I'd rather you focus on.
Ari,
That's a great question and one that should be the focus of some serious academic research. I can only speculate.
I am very much a fan of paradox so I am not at all opposed to saying both "it must be this way" and "there are rational reasons everyone hates us".
If I had to give a short response to your terrific question, I'd venture to say that the dominant worldview of the day has always been a reflection on the basic human condition, albeit with modifications adjusting for historical and regional context.
Humans are by nature fragile beings who succumb to temptation much more often than we rise above it. As a side point that sort of fits into what I'm saying, I view the Halachah (and the psychological conditioning it inculcates upon the human), to put such a profound system very simply, as a cure for the weaknesses of the human condition.
But by nature some people are very skeptical toward professed cures because of various reasons (be they rational or not) that lead to all sorts of rubbish, like vaccine, AIDS, and even evolutionary theory denialism. And those people who are on the denial side end up, more often than not, vehemently hating those who oppose them. (The reverse is also true too, and the same applies, unfortunately, for Jews versus Non-Jews as well.)
So I don't really have an answer to your question, but I hope at least some of what I wrote was of value to you.
Adrian
Mevakesh - I have posted your comment on the relevant thread, "Letter to Rav Belsky."
Michapeset said...
“In Europe everyone hates…. There will always be hate [whether of Jews or non-Jews], it's natural.”
A very interesting statement. Makes me wonder, 1. what would be the general logic for that, and 2, what would be the evolutionary logic for it.
Adrian,
I would suggest a different (although not nearly satisfactory) answer to my question.
1) Jews are widely dispersed people. Not everybody hates, say, the Navajo because they're almost completely confined to the American Southwest. Perhaps if they were more widespread, there would be more hatred of them? Who knows.
2) Jews sort of stick together in their own social networks. In so doing, they pose a threat to various powerful institutions (religious groups in power, political powers that be, etc).
That's all I can think up at this moment. But its the start of an answer. But I do think that the answer is that Hashem decreed that the Nations of the world would hate us, and so it was.
Antisemitism is certainly semi-natural. It does not in any way violate the laws of Nature. Also, many instances of antisemitism could be explained naturally in sociological or other terms.
Who nevertheless deduces from the history of antisemitism that the phenomenon defies natural explanation, must, I think, concede that one could similarly conclude from the history of the evolution of life that evolution defies a natural explanation. One can acknowledge that random-chance mutation is, in many instances and in many ways, a good approximation for the driver of evolutionary steps, and yet hold that in the bigger picture, it is an illusion.
Moreover, if an aspect of mankind is not natural, how would this aspect have arisen in a natural way?
"Just to clarify - I am not saying that I necessarily believe that there is an inherent metaphysical difference between Jews and non-Jews. I am wondering if that can be detached from the idea that Judeopathy is a metaphysical phenomenon."
I don't understand the question. Do you think the Rambam would have said the survival of the jewish people is a naturalistic phenomenon and not a result of hashgacha klalit and the RBS"O keeping his promises? God forbid. Yet that doesn't imply a metaphysical difference between jewish and gentile souls. So why must antisemitism be a function of such metaphysical differences? In addition, it's not clear to me that Prof Kellner proved his point, or for that matter, that the point means all that much. When the rambam says in mishna torah וְכָל מִי שְׁהוּא אַכְזָרִי וְאֵינוּ מְרַחֵם, יָחוּשׁ לְיֵחוּסוֹ--שְׁאֵין הָאַכְזָרִיּוּת מְצוּיָה אֵלָא בַּגּוֹיִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "אַכְזָרִי הֵמָּה וְלֹא יְרַחֵמוּ" does this refute Prof Kellner's point? not necessarily, perhaps this trait is a function of culture. The rambam's null hypothesis is quite harsh for gentiles (see the sridei eysh's letters) and to explain this acc. to Prof. Kellner's hypothesis, one must posit that he sees a huge difference between cultures, with jews being impacted by the torah, their heritage etc.
Ari,
I agree that it definitely seems like the world has some sort of supernatural bias against Jews, but just think of the theological implications of stating such a thing. Even if you believe that God interferes in the workings of the world, and the extent of which that He does is certainly up for debate, I think it's a bit much to claim that God has put a permanent hatred of Jews into the core of every other human being. I'd much prefer to explain the phenomena naturally than have to grapple with the theological implications of God effectively being responsible for every case of Antisemitism.
Adrian
I just want to add that it's not much different from rambam's attitude to women. His null hypothesis is fairly negative e.g. ואף על פי שיש לה שכר, ציוו חכמים שלא ילמד אדם את בתו תורה: מפני שרוב הנשים, אין דעתן מכוונת להתלמד, והן מוציאין דברי תורה לדברי הבאי, לפי ענייות דעתן
yet he also famously writes
ולחם ובשר זה, הוא לידע ביאור האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן משאר המצוות. ואף על פי שדברים אלו, דבר קטן קראו אותם חכמים, שהרי אמרו חכמים דבר גדול מעשה מרכבה, ודבר קטן הוויה דאביי ורבא; אף על פי כן, ראויין הן להקדימן: שהן מיישבין דעתו של אדם תחילה, ועוד שהן הטובה הגדולה שהשפיע הקדוש ברוך הוא ליישוב העולם הזה, כדי לנחול חיי העולם הבא. ואפשר שיידעם הכול--גדול וקטן, איש ואישה, בעל לב רחב ובעל לב קצר.
women may be less likely to achieve this knowledge for the rambam, but they CAN or individual women can.
this is also why I wrote that I don't think Prof. Kellner proves his case. The rambam thinks women can surmount his basic presumption of אין דעתן מכוונת להתלמד, והן מוציאין דברי תורה לדברי הבאי, לפי ענייות דעתן
with effort. But does that mean he doesn't think there is a biological (if not metaphysical) difference between man and woman? did the rambam actually believe any difference he noted wrt intellectual achievement was cultural? Today, now that women are routinely educated, we may look back and say that the rambam's opinion was of the women of his times, not of our times, i.e. that his attitude is largely cultural. But did the rambam think so? Or rather did he not more likely think that women were born less capable of intellectual achievement. I think the latter is almost a sure thing, b/c if he thought it was a cultural phenomenon, due to lack of education, why not educate the women? Surely his opinion that it's mostly a futile endeavormust is due to an assumption of innate differences. And who says he didn't think the same of other distinctions, that there are different innate predispositions not just for men/women but also for jews/nonjews that both can overcome but are relatively unlikely to?
That said, I tend to think that the rambam saw innate differences between men/women, but not between jew and gentile = I'm just not sure Prof. Kellner has proven this.
Please, no more anonymous comments. Use your real name or a pen name if you are afraid.
I also just want to say that there are other reasons for using pen names other than being afraid. Really...! :)
Of course, this issue is extremely complex and certainly cannot be covered properly in a short blog. There are many factors that induce anti-Semitism, not the least that the most widely read book, the NT is laced with it.
That being said, there is one factor that I don’t see all that often discussed. By and large all societies throughout history have tended to distrust the stranger or the “different”, and blame them for their shortcomings, and even persecute them when things have gone badly. The reason this stands out more so for us (Jews), is because, most other sub-sects of society historically tended to assimilate or otherwise disappear under persecution, but the Jews have managed (maybe miraculously??) to survive. So, the irony is that our own success contributes to this constant harassment.
It should be worth noting that even among mystics, there is no difference inherent to non-Jews that cannot be rectified through conversion - except according to the Kuzari. Additionally, there are some Chassidic thinkers that maintain the Rambam's view that there are actually no differences whatsoever.
Ari,
It’s a good question, and I have to think about it.
My first thought was that most of the trend-setting Left in America and Israel are Jews. And no one is more critical than family (including, but not limited to, a mother-in-law).
But seriously speaking, I’ll give it some thought and write a response in a couple of days (after a good yom menuchah!).
Rav Slifkin, you wrote that the multiplicity of studied reasons for antisemitism leads you to suspect that it must be beyond "naturalistic phenomenon". But I think that the case of Am Yisrael is unique enough that it would have a far more varied reaction in terms of Judeophobia than other forms of hatred. For instance, Jews have eluded classification by gentiles for eras. Are they a race (of course not); an ethnicity (still lacking); a nation (yes but more than that); a religion (again, more than just that); a cultural heritage? Since Jews evade categorization by normative gentile norms which clearly separate nation, religion, race, ethnicity, and culture; hatred towards them will be similarly confused and multifaceted and from a multitude of angles.
Also of significance is the unique nature of the Jewish exile, where the entire nation was dispersed as minorities in a plethora of countries for an extended period of time, something unique in history; and while they lost to some extent their national identification, they still did not gain the full national identification of the countries they lived in.
The word, "Judeopathy..."
Is that a diagnosis of Woody Allen?
Personally I believe anti semitism to be supernatural, its just to powerful and deeply ingrained within the world for me to call it "natural" and not "supernatural." Despite that, at times I consider the possibility of the Torah's declaration of the Jews being a nation pretty much condemned to massive amounts of pain and suffering being a self fulfilling prophecy. Maybe its not tough to subjugate to genocide a nation that believes that their suffering is a fulfillment of a prophecy. Or maybe its easy to justify genocide of a nation with prophecies of their own demise. Just a thought... -Jake
Post a Comment