Customer Reviews

Anti-Semite and Jew: An Exploration of the Etiology of Hate

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I have read this book at least three times and I believe it provides some of the greatest insight into the jewish condition that has ever been committed to print. Sartre's understanding of the position of the jew in modern society is unparalled,as are his observations of the mind of the anti-semite. This book is a must for anyone who wants to understand the true nature of the phenomenon of psychological anti-semitism within the context of modern society.

90% of this book is great in examining the mindset of the anti-semite and the Jew that wants to assimilate but can't because of the anti-semite. Sartre is brilliant when he talks about the anti-semite's passion for the Jew (which explains why many anti-semites from Farrakhan to Christian Identity movements call themselves "the real Jews"), the assimilated Jew's overcompensation, the historical roots of anti-semitism, and the liberal democrat's damaging and weak defense of Jews on the basis of their common humanity at the expense of their Judaism (As the Napoleaonic position stated = "To the Jew as a man everything, to the Jew as a nation nothing").

Where the book fails is when Sartre tries to gauge the mindset of the Jew that doesn't want to assimilate and the mindset of the Jewish people as a whole. He claims that society makes Jews Jewish and that there is neither a national nor a religious identity holding them together. This was before Israel was a fact of life and when many Jews wanted to assimilate without a trace of guilt over the fact. Most of the Jews that he knows aren't particularly fond of the religious dimension of their lives and he reflects that. He is also erroneous when he characterizes an "authentic" Jew as someone who has thrown off universalism. Judaism believes in universalism but not at the expense of Chosen People status. Of course, what Sartre sees as a problem - Jews trying to assimilate but being pushed into being Jewish, Judaism sees as evidence of being a Chosen People.

Sartre's ignorance about religious Judaism aside, this is still an excellent book in the cause of multiculturalism and pluralism. He argue that ultimately anti-semitism is not a Jewish problem but a problem in his native France and that as long as anti-Semitism exists, no one is secure. He takes 150 pages to make the argument and some of the roads he takes to get there are questionable but it's still an excellent book in that respect.

There is an Anti- Semitic review in this page in which the following mistakes and errors are made. The writer of the review says that Sartre is Jewish. He is not and so far as I know none of his ancestors were Jewish. The Anti- Semitic reviewer says that the 'Torah teaches hatred of Gentiles' This is outrageous, and stupid. The Torah teaches that every human being is created in the image of God, and that we should love our neighbor as ourselves. The Torah teaches that every human being is of infinite value.
As for the Sartre book Sartre does understand a great deal about the attitude of assimilated Jews. However he does not know or understand Jews whose Jewish identity is not formed by ' the other' but rather formed positively through belief in their own heritage.
I too think that Anti- Semitism takes different forms at different times, and it is difficult to understand the present kind of radical fundamentalist Islamic anti- Semitism in the same terms as one understands the Anti-Semitism of the extreme left.
But with all this there is the point that Sartre was fundamentally sympathetic to the Jewish people and to the sufferings caused by the evil of anti- Semitism.

This book, written just after World War II, tries to explain what makes anti-Semitism attractive to anti-Semites, the effect of anti-Semitism on Jews, and the ultimate causes of anti-Semitism.

In Sartre's view, "By treating the Jew as an interior and pernicious being, [the anti-Semite] affirm[s] at the same time that [he] belong[s] to the elite." In other words, every person is a king so long as he/she has someone to look down upon. This seems like a perfectly plausible interpretation of mid-century antisemitism; it seems to me, however, that today's Arab Jew-hatred has more concrete causes.

Sartre's description of Jews is a bit narrow. He writes that "the Jew considers himself the same as others. He speaks the same language; he has the same class interests, the same national interests; he reads the newspapers that the others read, he votes as they do, he understands and shares their opinions." And according to Sartre, these "inauthentic" Jews seek to avoid any trace of "Jewish traits."

Perhaps an accurate description of the most assimilated Jews in France in the 1940s- but certainly not of more religious Jews, or even of most American Jews (though I do know some who seek to avoid overly "Jewish" physical traits). Few of Sartre's generalizations are true of (for example) the most insular Hasidic sects, and some are equally untrue as to America's more liberal Jews.

Finally, Sartre argues that anti-Semitism is the result of capitalism and of social classes, because anti-Semites seek to unite the bourgeiousie and the proletariat. Given the existence of anti-Semitism in communist and precapitalist societies, this view seems to me implausible.

This book is an excellent study on some of the origins of hate. Although Sartre may have wished to examine more the role of socialization as the fundamental root of prejudice, he does a good job in exposing the numerous "sins of omission" in religion and the media in causing hate, in this instance, the horrors of the Holocaust. He does so also with extreme rhetorical skill when he asks, for example: "Why were the concentration camps not in the news"?, or when he speaks of "Christian propaganda that the Jews killled Jesus." (It was the Romans.) Certainly, the world has advanced since then, (or so it seems) as evidenced in part by the late Pope John Paul II's apology for the role of Christianity in the Holocaust. And certainly that propaganda had nothing to do with what Christ taught, to do things for the "least of these" and to "love Thy neighbor." We can still see I think some of these forces at work today, especially in regard to extreme poverty throughout the world. It is as if "class" has become a new "blind spot". Why do we rarely hear about the one billion (referred often to as the "bottom billion") who go to bed starving each night, making each day merely a struggle to survive? What is it about our educational system and the media, that seem to block out such atrocities? We need to change all that, so that our minds (and hearts) are more open to the struggles of so many in the world.

Sartre's work is still a classic. His insights are provocative and pointed. I am especially impressed by his comments on what is now called universal human rights. Sartre is concerned that in stressing our common humanness we forget that there are important difference that should not be ignored.

To the question, "Why be an antisemite," Sartre answers: "Because it's fun!"

Still, as this work shows, the thrill of destructive and irrational behavior has its consequences: no one is safe if Jews must fear for their lives.

Perhaps the best part of the book is Sartre's characterization of antisemitic discourse. One might think that antisemitism is an opinion like any other. If it were, many antisemitic arguments would be logical, perhaps to explain why Jews are, as a people, just too different or too unhelpful to society at large, and explaining why something needs to be done about it. In addition, most antagonism to Jews would be the results of actual provocations.

Sartre convincingly shows that the majority of antisemitic discourse is quite different, consisting instead of taunts and threats. "Never believe," cautions Sartre, "that the antisemites are unaware of the absurdity of their replies." It's all part of the fun, given that their adversaries are the ones who believe in words and thus oblige themselves to use words responsibly.

This is a perceptive study and is well worth reading.

Imagine the value of a book on anti-Semitism composed by a non-Jew, a deep-thinker, a philosopher, a man living in France in 1944 during a period of fierce Jew hatred; imagine what ideas this book could impart. This is the value of Jean-Paul Sartre's short, but information-filled volume, his indictment of society.

Characteristics of an anti-Semite
An anti-Semite, Sartre explains in perhaps his most insightful insight, is an individual who hates Jews because he refuses to think. He is afraid of and threatened by thinking. Thinking requires the recognition that ideas change and grow. A thinking person never knows exactly what is true because he recognizes that ideas vanish like vapor; they develop and change as he gains new knowledge. But the anti-Semite needs to have an ossified never-changing world, a world set in stone, a stone that he can lean on, a stone that supports him, that holds him up. He cannot deal with knowing that what he understands today will change tomorrow.

It is easier for him to blame the Jew for evil, and speak of ridding the world of Jews to remove the evil, than seeing the true problems of society, thinking how to resolve them, and working to do so. Vaguely, without real thought, for he is unable to define "evil" or "good," he argues that the harmony of his life will be reestablished once the Jew is removed. His thoughts are vague and totally negative and destructive.

His notion of Jews is not based on ideas; "it is...a passion." Not only Jews, but even his conception of the world is based on passion. He has no real understanding of history and no real experience with Jews. His hatred is similar to irrational faith because he is "impervious to reason and to experience."

His passion disallows him to see anything good in the Jew. Just being a Jew, he feels, ruins the Jew and everyone around him. A Jew fowls everything that he does, even the air he breaths. When a Christian and a Jew work and create side by side and produce the same object, the Jew's production is tainted, infected, soiled, and besmirched, even though it looks, smells, and feels the same.

The anti-Semite admits that the Jew is intelligent and hard-working; "he even confesses himself inferior in these respects." But he thinks that his irrationality is better than the Jew's intelligence because it is not contaminated with Judaism. Thus, he needs the Jew so that he can feel better, more than mediocre.

The origin of anti-Semitism
There is nothing in the history of any nation that justifies anti-Semitism. The ancient myth that Jews killed Jesus cannot, or should not, be the reason for modern anti-Semitism. The Romans crucified Jesus. Even if the myth is accepted, people should recognize that we cannot punish the current generation of Jews for deeds committed by a few two millennia in the past.

Current anti-Semitism, Sartre insists, is based upon what Christianity did to the Jews. The Church forced Jews to become money lenders so that Christians could avoid the sin of usury. This bred the still-persisting notion that Jews have and control money and take advantage of non-Jews for personal gain.

"It is society, not the decree of God, that has made him a Jew and brought the Jewish problem into being.... In this situation there is not one of us who is not totally guilty and even criminal; the Jewish blood that the Nazis shed falls on all our heads."

Other Sartre insights
Sartre also discusses related subjects: What about people who are not anti-Semites but who do nothing to help Jews? These people, says Sartre, are not human beings, and may be unconscious anti-Semites. Are Jews a race? No, because Jews in different countries differ in looks and habits. What is a Jew? The Jew is what Christians have made him. What keeps Jews Jewish? Persecution and other bad treatment of Jews by non-Jews do not allow them the chance to forget being Jewish. What is Jewish history? Most Jews know little more of the history of Judaism than how their ancestors were persecuted. What has anti-Semitism done to the Jew's thinking and his behavior? Sartre spends half his book describing the many adverse ways that Jews have been affected. He adds that non-Jews have also been affected by not allowing Jews to contribute what they can to improve society.

"What must be done," the French philosopher ends his book, "is to point out to each one that the fate of the Jews is his fate. Not one Frenchman will be free so long as the Jews do not enjoy the fullness of their rights. Not one Frenchman will be secure so long as a single Jew - in France or in the world at large - can fear for his life."

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote ANTI-SEMITE AND JEW shortly after World War II. Not surprisingly, it was the specific form of anti-semitism of the preceding years that formed the basis for the views and positions expressed in this book. Times have changed and the expression of anti-semitism has changed with it. We are now more likely to see virulent anti-semitism from Islamic rather than Christian societies and from the political left rather than the right. Yet many of Sartre's observations are relevant nonetheless with only a bit of tweaking to modernize them.

Anti-semitism, according to Sartre, is not merely an opinion, but rather a stance towards the world and the society in which Jews live. In a passage relevant today, Sartre asserts that the existence of anti-semitism precedes any facts used to justify it. One cannot help but think of the excuse - and that is what it is - an excuse, of criticizing Israel over the occupied territories as a basis for anti-semitism. Yet Israel offered to return those territories in exchange for peace and was rebuffed. Clearly, Sartre's analysis should be with us still.

Further, as the anti-semite adopts his stance in order to portray the Jew as a non-belonging Other, the anti-semite will rarely think or act on his own. Again, could this be more relevant today, in which one almost longs to hear critics of Jews making an original accusation, not out of any desire to further the prejudice, but for the more simple reason of hoping against hope that some pebble of originality might be seen in a prejudice that should long ago have hit the ash heap of history? But no, it is the same old, same old, time and time again.

In contrast with the anti-semite, Sartre places the democrat. Some excellent points are made via this comparison. The democrat is a feeble defender of the Jew because, although the anti-semite hates the Jew as a Jew, the democrat defends the Jew on the more ambiguous grounds of being a man and a citizen. The democrat lacks the passion of the anti-semite, leaving the Jew with passionate enemies but only tepid defenders. It does not take a genius to figure out which side will make all the concessions and Sartre is correct when he argues that half of the battle against anti-semitism would be won if the friends of Jews brought the passion and perseverance to the cause as the anti-semite brings to his.

Sartre is on his weakest grounds when he inappropriately advocates socialism as the answer to anti-semitism and he quickly devolves into inconsistencies. Sartre openly advocates laws that prohibit statements tending to bring discredit to any Frenchman, including Jews. But then, on the very next page, Sartre states that political action can never be used against the freedom of citizens! Often it is amusing to watch socialists flop over their own ideas and make fools of themselves. This humor is blunted, however, when it is presented not as pure theory but as a means to address a serious issue.

Despite Sartre's misguided politics and abstract theorizing, his analysis of anti-semitism is still often spot on and still relevant to this day. Some of the statements one hears about Jews are nothing short of unbelievable and should be tackled head on. ANTI-SEMITE AND JEW is useful for such purposes.

This great understanding of hatred is truly a universal theme not limited to the Jew.

Sartre's key point is that hatred is a creation of the hater not rooted in fact but an imaginary fantasy that gives the hater a sense of superiority over that which he hates.

As he writes if no Jew exists the anti semite would need to create one. It is this creation of false myth, real or in fantasy, to give power to the anti semite that leads to mass hatred death camps,ongoing hatred.
Sartre further states that once you hate one man it becomes natural then to hate all Jews or mankind.
Anti Semites have a preconceived notion of a Jew even before meeting one ie: Jews all have horns.

This passion is anti democratic and racist and does not permit the "other" to freely choose however he wishes to define himself since in Sartre's philosophy one is born into a state of nothingness till he freely creates and chooses an identity from objects and phenomena existing in outside reality.

This book is not a statement on Jewish "superiority" , since Judaism never claims to be superior but a distinct worldview recognizing a creator and different roles for different nations.

Hostile anti semitism theological, political, racial, economic and so on is often based on the conflict between universalism and parochialism.

The Jew's uniqueness and aloofness is often a choosen path of protection from universalism. Universalism like hatred can also destroy Jewish continuity.

Jewish choice is rooted in freedom of will and respect for all living beings. It is the triumph of individualism and group identity in the face of what Sartre calls the mediocre conforming mass unthinking man.
Why Jew's continue to live as Jews is the key question.Are the doors of acceptance truly open? must Jews change and if so why?Sartre wrote this in the late 40's and fully understood the Nazi horrors. These days the question becomes one of promoting individual thinking rooted in diversity and respect for lifestyles different from the confirmist's simple and homogeneous uncomplicated simple view of reality.
Studies now show that people are indeed born with genetic predispositions which throws questions on Sartre's tabula rasa.