On May 14, the European Jewish Association (EJA) held its annual conference in Porto, Portugal, where it adopted a resolution calling for anti-Semitism to be “treated separately from other forms of hate and discrimination.” The association is urging “other Jewish organizations to reject ‘intersectionality,’” a conceptual framework that tends to categorize groups as being either “privileged” or “oppressed.” The EJA says that “anti-Semitism is unique and must be treated as such,” on the grounds that it is “state-sanctioned in many countries,” “given cover by the United Nations,” and not always regarded as a form of racism by other groups affected by hate.
Why are intersectionality and the demarcation between the privileged and the oppressed problematic from a Jewish standpoint? Generally speaking, intersectionality is a useful concept in social theory and practical analysis. When we consider particular individuals or groups, we discover that their experiences of oppression or privilege reflect a wide array of diverse factors.
Let us shamelessly quote Wikipedia’s definition:
“Intersectionality is an analytical framework for understanding how a person’s various social and political identities combine to create different modes of discrimination and privilege. Intersectionality identifies multiple factors of advantage and disadvantage. Examples of these factors include gender, caste, sex, race, ethnicity, class, religion, education, wealth, disability, weight, age and physical appearance. These intersecting and overlapping social identities may be both empowering and oppressing.”
The point, Anne Sisson Runyan of the University of Cincinnati says, is “that forms of oppression are not just additive, as if they were wholly separate layers of domination. Rather, women of color actually experience a different form of racism from men of color, just as they experience a different form of sexism from white women.”
By the same token, the anti-Semitic idea of the “Jew” combines features of religion, ethnicity, sexuality, education, wealth and physical appearance. To be stigmatized as a Jew entails the ascription of various other features, such as uncleanliness, dogmatic adherence to religious rules, nefarious financial speculation and hidden global influence — all of which featured prominently in Nazi propaganda. The upshot of intersectional analysis is that all individuals experience unique forms of oppression or privilege by dint of the makeup of their identities. Consider a low-income black lesbian: She is at a quadruple disadvantage almost anywhere in the world.
Why, then, do those who insist on the uniqueness of anti-Semitism reject intersectionality? The oppression faced by Jews in developed Western countries nowadays is somewhat more ambiguous, because Jews also tend to occupy positions of privilege (economically, culturally and so forth), and the association of the Jews with wealth and culture (“Hollywood” as Jewish) in the public imagination is itself a source of classic anti-Semitic tropes.
The EJA says that this combination of oppression and privileges makes anti-Semitism just another form of racial hatred, not only comparable to others, but even milder when set alongside other modes of oppression. When we apply an intersectional lens, hatred for “the Jew,” the EJA says, becomes a minor case in the broader taxonomy of hatreds.
The EJA is right to insist that there is something exceptional about anti-Semitism. It is not like other racisms: Its aim is not to subordinate Jews, but to exterminate them. The anti-Semite perceives them not as lower foreigners, but as secret masters. The Holocaust is not the same as the destruction of civilizations in the history of colonialism. It is a unique phenomenon of industrially organized annihilation.
It is the coupling of “oppressed” and “privileged” that provides the key to understanding anti-Semitism, at least in its modern form. Under fascism, “the Jew” served as the external intruder who could be blamed for corruption, disorder and exploitation. Projecting the conflict between the “oppressed” and the “privileged” onto a scapegoat can distract people’s attention from how such struggles are intrinsic to their own political and economic order. That many Jews are “privileged” (in the sense of their wealth, education and political influence) is thus the very resource of anti-Semitism: Being perceived as privileged makes Jews a target of social hatred.
Problems arise when one tries to use the exceptional status of anti-Semitism to support a double standard, or to prohibit any critical analysis of the privileges that Jews, on average, enjoy.
A 2020 Der Spiegel dialogue on anti-Semitism and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, includes the dictum: “The Jew, and not the potential anti-Semite, determines who is an anti-Semite” (“Wer Antisemit ist, bestimmt der Jude und nicht der potenzielle Antisemit”).
If that is the case, should we not apply the same principle to Palestinians in the West Bank? Solely by dint of being Palestinian, they are being deprived of their land and basic rights.
More than that, the EJA’s stance relies on its own intersectional framework. Any analysis of the privileged positions held by some Jews is immediately denounced as anti-Semitic, and even critiques of capitalism are rejected on the same grounds, owing to the association between “Jewishness” and “rich capitalists.” The Marxist thesis that anti-Semitism is a primitive, distorted version of anti-capitalism is thus inverted: Anti-capitalism is a mask of anti-Semitism.
If the implication is that Jewishness is both exceptional and inextricably bound with capitalism, are we not left with an age-old anti-Semitic trope? Do we not directly provoke the poor and oppressed to blame the Jews for their misfortunes? Other Jewish organizations should reject the EJA stance, not because of some obscene need for “balance” between different forms of racism, but to advance the struggle against anti-Semitism.
Slavoj Zizek is a professor of philosophy at the European Graduate School, international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London and author, most recently, of Heaven in Disorder.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
Historically, in Taiwan, and in present-day China, many people advocate the idea of a “great Chinese nation.” It is not worth arguing with extremists to say that the so-called “great Chinese nation” is a fabricated political myth rather than an academic term. Rather, they should read the following excerpt from Chinese writer Lin Yutang’s (林語堂) book My Country and My People: “It is also inevitable that I should offend many writers about China, especially my own countrymen and great patriots. These great patriots — I have nothing to do with them, for their god is not my god, and their patriotism is
RSS