- Amazon Business: Make the most of your Amazon Business account with exclusive tools and savings. Login now
- Business Prime : For Fast, FREE shipping, premium procurement benefits, and member-only offers on Amazon Business. Try Business Prime free.
Other Sellers on Amazon
$46.64
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
Sold by:
SuperBookDeals---
Have one to sell?
Add to book club
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club?
Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Flip to back
Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
OK
History, Religion, and Antisemitism Paperback – February 15, 1993
by
Gavin I. Langmuir
(Author)
|
Gavin I. Langmuir
(Author)
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
Are you an author?
Learn about Author Central
|
Enhance your purchase
-
Print length391 pages
-
LanguageEnglish
-
PublisherUniversity of California Press
-
Publication dateFebruary 15, 1993
-
Dimensions6 x 0.98 x 8.8 inches
-
ISBN-100520077288
-
ISBN-13978-0520077287
New from James Patterson
Aaron Paul leads an all-star cast in the Black Book audio drama. Listen now
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
-
Apple
-
Android
-
Windows Phone
-
Android
|
Download to your computer
|
Kindle Cloud Reader
|
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Toward a Definition of AntisemitismPaperbackIn Stock.
The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jew and Its Relation to Modern Anti-SemitismPaperbackOnly 8 left in stock - order soon.
Customers who bought this item also bought
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Special offers and product promotions
Editorial Reviews
Review
"Langmuir critically probes the vast literature on the nature of religion--the work of Emile Durkheim, Clifford Geertz, Robert Bellah, Mircea Eliade, William James, and others. He finds standard definitions and descriptions wanting, but his appraisals brilliantly survey the basic worlds that have shaped religious studies."--Charles H. Lippy, "Church History
About the Author
Gavin I. Langmuir, a distinguished medievalist, is Professor of History at Stanford University and the author of Toward a Definition of Antisemitism (California, 1990).
Start reading History, Religion, and Antisemitism on your Kindle in under a minute.
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Yo-Yo Ma: Beginner's Mind
Hear an icon's life story, timeless music, and message. Listen free
Product details
- Publisher : University of California Press; First edition. (February 15, 1993)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 391 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0520077288
- ISBN-13 : 978-0520077287
- Item Weight : 1.3 pounds
- Dimensions : 6 x 0.98 x 8.8 inches
-
Best Sellers Rank:
#1,961,695 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #2,713 in History of Judaism
- #7,177 in Jewish History (Books)
- #8,364 in Middle East History
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
3.8 out of 5 stars
3.8 out of 5
7 global ratings
How are ratings calculated?
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on June 3, 2015
Verified Purchase
Interesting, to be sure. But questionable. I took a class from Prof. Langmuir in 1960 and had no idea that he would turn out to be such an opinionated critic of Christianity.
Reviewed in the United States on September 27, 2010
Verified Purchase
My book came in the time I expected and in the condition I hoped for. Good all the way around.
Reviewed in the United States on September 4, 2001
Gavin Langmuir's text '"History, Religion and Antisemitism" is a landmark book in the area of defining religion and its relationship to cultural movements and reason.
In the first part of the book, Langmuir surveys the efforts made to define "religion" by a number of scholars, and finds problems with all of them. Religion is a notoriously difficult concept to define, so this is no surprise. What Langmuir contributes to this issue is a separation between private religious impulses, and religious institutions. Langmuir refers to the former as "religiosity" and to the latter as "religion." Under these definitions, almost all humans have religiosities of one form or another, but they do not become a "religion" until some form of institutionalization takes place. This definition is not without difficulties, but it does deserve serious engagement.
"History" is also covered in the first part of the book. With regard to "history," Langmuir's book is more about the interpretation of history rather than history itself. In looking at the motivations and judgments of historical figures, Langmuir questions why we must accept explanations of earlier scholars or historical figures with regard to their actions or motivations. Langmuir argues that as present-day critics and judges we can reach different conclusions about the past rather than be bound by those people's explanations for their own behavior.
In the last part of the text, Langmuir weaves these two notions together to analyze antisemitism. While others have tried to provide social, theological, or racial reasons for antisemitic actions and behaviors, Langmuir concludes that antisemitism is reducible to an "irrational" form of religiosity., a paranoid conspiracy theory about a group of people---like that found in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Some worldviews are irrational and illogical, and antisemitism is one of them, according to Langmuir.
I disagree with Langmuir's analysis of antisemitism, although his work on history and religion is still valuable. Antisemitism has many facets, from theological to social. Certain New Testament quotations can be used to justify antisemitism and early Christian theology, including Augustine, is notoriously uncomfortable with the presence of Jews. Antisemitism and fascism have histories of their own, and are not simply periodic insane ramblings from people who lack appropriate medication. Rather, they are human worldviews with a coherence and logic of their own. This in no way justifies them as practices, but running away from them and dismissing them as simply "illogical" will not make them go away or help us to understand these all-too-human worldviews any better.
For a better treatment and analysis of contemporary antisemitism read Michael Barkun's work "Religion and the Racist Right."
In the first part of the book, Langmuir surveys the efforts made to define "religion" by a number of scholars, and finds problems with all of them. Religion is a notoriously difficult concept to define, so this is no surprise. What Langmuir contributes to this issue is a separation between private religious impulses, and religious institutions. Langmuir refers to the former as "religiosity" and to the latter as "religion." Under these definitions, almost all humans have religiosities of one form or another, but they do not become a "religion" until some form of institutionalization takes place. This definition is not without difficulties, but it does deserve serious engagement.
"History" is also covered in the first part of the book. With regard to "history," Langmuir's book is more about the interpretation of history rather than history itself. In looking at the motivations and judgments of historical figures, Langmuir questions why we must accept explanations of earlier scholars or historical figures with regard to their actions or motivations. Langmuir argues that as present-day critics and judges we can reach different conclusions about the past rather than be bound by those people's explanations for their own behavior.
In the last part of the text, Langmuir weaves these two notions together to analyze antisemitism. While others have tried to provide social, theological, or racial reasons for antisemitic actions and behaviors, Langmuir concludes that antisemitism is reducible to an "irrational" form of religiosity., a paranoid conspiracy theory about a group of people---like that found in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Some worldviews are irrational and illogical, and antisemitism is one of them, according to Langmuir.
I disagree with Langmuir's analysis of antisemitism, although his work on history and religion is still valuable. Antisemitism has many facets, from theological to social. Certain New Testament quotations can be used to justify antisemitism and early Christian theology, including Augustine, is notoriously uncomfortable with the presence of Jews. Antisemitism and fascism have histories of their own, and are not simply periodic insane ramblings from people who lack appropriate medication. Rather, they are human worldviews with a coherence and logic of their own. This in no way justifies them as practices, but running away from them and dismissing them as simply "illogical" will not make them go away or help us to understand these all-too-human worldviews any better.
For a better treatment and analysis of contemporary antisemitism read Michael Barkun's work "Religion and the Racist Right."
7 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on December 23, 2015
Langmuir is making the case for "psychocentric" religion, or religion based in posteriori human reason and intellect, and thus individually founded and held subjective truth, over "physiocentric" religion that is based in a-priori knowledge of the world based in group-perceived objectively held truth.
This book is a poorly constructed and argued contribution to man's seemingly eternal conflict between the perception of man-as-god (subjective truth) based in flattened ontology and the existence of an ontologically different God (objective truth) as the foundation of man.
In other words, he is making the case for religion ( in the book, represented by Judaism that is philosophically rooted in Aristotelian logic - and also, by implication, rationalism's ever evolving flattened individualist ontology and nihilistic outcroppings) based in continued subjective analysis of truth (posteriori knowledge ) over a religion (in the book, represented by classical Christianity and Nazism that are, supposedly, together philosophically rooted in hierarchical neoplatonism and its resultant moral objectivity) based in assumption of an objectively viewed prior known truth (a priori knowledge).
In making this case, he argues on several fronts. The two most notable fronts can be distilled as follows:
1. The author implies that the underlying a-priori metaphysics of Christianity are fatally flawed because they make assumptions about the world that are not always born out in reality, and that often such a system of thought must maladaptively react (ie: the Holocaust) in a manner that seeks to correct reality's reflection of those assumptions. The author places Nazism and Christianity In the same metaphysical category.
In contrast, the author argues that a system based not in hierarchical metaphysics (physiocentric) but in logic (psychocentric) avoids this issue and its ostensibly bad results by continuously analyzing both truth and reality according to individual observation and interpretation.
Ie: if German gentiles had been able to view European Jewry correctly using observed posteriori knowledge, supposedly instead of according to erroneous a-priori assumptions about their supposed nature, then the Holocaust wouldn't have occurred.
2. The author primarily selects historical aggression against European Jewry as a means of attempting to illustrate a negative consequence that was supposedly of the underlying metaphysics of Christianity.
Why the author gets it wrong:
1. The author begs the question when he argues that a differing common-perception of German Jewry would have been obvious, by implication if only the Germans had been rational atheists for instance.
He begs the question further in his willful ignorance of the myriad of demonstrable political-historical reasons for why groups conflict, which have absolutely nothing to do with metaphysics / ontology.
Proximal group sociopolitical and resource competitions are the most obvious contradicting causes. There are dozens of provable reasons for why the Holocaust occurred, and why all genocides occur, that have nothing to do with religious belief or philosophical foundations of society.
Specifically, in reference to the Holocaust, the author requires the reader to disregard the copious documented prior political history and pre-conflict interactions and complaints, between Germans and Jews, toward an agreement with his bigoted conclusion that the very philosophical-theological essence of the European gentile mind was the problem.
Also, he would have the reader disregard other genocides wrought by members of his vaunted psychocentric worldview.
Were the Christian slaughters by Yousef As'ar or at Mamilla reservoir due to a defect in the Jewish mind or, perhaps, are these able to be reconciled to other reasons of tribal conflict that do not require us damning Judaism itself? Or are we to apply a double standard?
What about the biblical Jewish facilitated genocide of the Canaanites? Was that merely a product of a combination of murderous tribal entitlement and land /resource imperialism or is there something more essential to the Jewish mind that requires that we essentially damn Judaism for it? Surely, according to the author, such genocide couldn't be due to the nature of psychocentric religion.
Last, the author compels us to ignore the long world history that encapsulates the much more frequent genocides between peoples that share similar if not the same philosophical foundations. Muslim on Muslim, Nationalist on Nationalist, Communist on Communist, etc.
If this logical and demonstrable house of cards crumbles, then so does the author's book.
Next, we can use the author's reductionist logic to argue the other side of the coin.
Metaphysically speaking, if we are to accept that Christianity and Nazism are two manifestations of the same underlying a-priori philosophical foundation and thus are essentially the same, then we are justified in applying the same method to all practical philosophies and can recognize that all political-theological movements rooted in rationalism are of the same underlying foundation.
Thus, using the authors method, we can now with ease recognize that rationalist Judaism, atheism, and communism are of the same foundational philosophy.
Utilizing the author's method, we can now imply that the hundred or so million dead humans, due to the actions of communists in the 20th century, are essentially, at least in-part, due to Judaism's influence.
Is this the logic that the author means to thrust upon the world, or can the rest of us return to a reasonable moral and rhetorical standard and ignore his associative hyperbole?
Using this comparison in logic, we can see that the author engages in the very practice that he claims to revile: he over-generalizes to damn an entire people and belief system by irrationally trimming down and distorting the context of historical tribal conflict to fit his objective truth.
This tactic isn't limited to a priori belief systems (ignoring that the author's historical evidence for this tactic is specious at best). Posteriori (psychocentric) systems employ this as well, and demonstrably often in the modern day. Establishment science often censors and censures authors, methods, and results that conflict with the metaphysical individualist and rationalist worldview and that undermine its foundational narratives.
The rationalist establishment, in all spheres, practices what the author accuses a-priori philosophy of practicing, except instead of changing reality to fit a an idealized morality (ie: by creating laws that work to shape society toward a universal moral standard), it works to change morality to fit and idealized reality (ie: by reducing punishments for traditional acts of immorality in favor of laws that allow for more natural behavior for groups or individuals, even if traditionally immoral).
The former leads to a more moral world and the latter leads to nihilism, willful cultural amnesia, and social disorganization. It certainly does not lead to rigorous philosophical exposition free from starting conclusions and political agendas.
In conclusion, this anti-Christian book is the pseudo-academic logical equivalent of the dross that attempts to lay the blame for communism with Jews. It should be held in no higher regard.
This book is a poorly constructed and argued contribution to man's seemingly eternal conflict between the perception of man-as-god (subjective truth) based in flattened ontology and the existence of an ontologically different God (objective truth) as the foundation of man.
In other words, he is making the case for religion ( in the book, represented by Judaism that is philosophically rooted in Aristotelian logic - and also, by implication, rationalism's ever evolving flattened individualist ontology and nihilistic outcroppings) based in continued subjective analysis of truth (posteriori knowledge ) over a religion (in the book, represented by classical Christianity and Nazism that are, supposedly, together philosophically rooted in hierarchical neoplatonism and its resultant moral objectivity) based in assumption of an objectively viewed prior known truth (a priori knowledge).
In making this case, he argues on several fronts. The two most notable fronts can be distilled as follows:
1. The author implies that the underlying a-priori metaphysics of Christianity are fatally flawed because they make assumptions about the world that are not always born out in reality, and that often such a system of thought must maladaptively react (ie: the Holocaust) in a manner that seeks to correct reality's reflection of those assumptions. The author places Nazism and Christianity In the same metaphysical category.
In contrast, the author argues that a system based not in hierarchical metaphysics (physiocentric) but in logic (psychocentric) avoids this issue and its ostensibly bad results by continuously analyzing both truth and reality according to individual observation and interpretation.
Ie: if German gentiles had been able to view European Jewry correctly using observed posteriori knowledge, supposedly instead of according to erroneous a-priori assumptions about their supposed nature, then the Holocaust wouldn't have occurred.
2. The author primarily selects historical aggression against European Jewry as a means of attempting to illustrate a negative consequence that was supposedly of the underlying metaphysics of Christianity.
Why the author gets it wrong:
1. The author begs the question when he argues that a differing common-perception of German Jewry would have been obvious, by implication if only the Germans had been rational atheists for instance.
He begs the question further in his willful ignorance of the myriad of demonstrable political-historical reasons for why groups conflict, which have absolutely nothing to do with metaphysics / ontology.
Proximal group sociopolitical and resource competitions are the most obvious contradicting causes. There are dozens of provable reasons for why the Holocaust occurred, and why all genocides occur, that have nothing to do with religious belief or philosophical foundations of society.
Specifically, in reference to the Holocaust, the author requires the reader to disregard the copious documented prior political history and pre-conflict interactions and complaints, between Germans and Jews, toward an agreement with his bigoted conclusion that the very philosophical-theological essence of the European gentile mind was the problem.
Also, he would have the reader disregard other genocides wrought by members of his vaunted psychocentric worldview.
Were the Christian slaughters by Yousef As'ar or at Mamilla reservoir due to a defect in the Jewish mind or, perhaps, are these able to be reconciled to other reasons of tribal conflict that do not require us damning Judaism itself? Or are we to apply a double standard?
What about the biblical Jewish facilitated genocide of the Canaanites? Was that merely a product of a combination of murderous tribal entitlement and land /resource imperialism or is there something more essential to the Jewish mind that requires that we essentially damn Judaism for it? Surely, according to the author, such genocide couldn't be due to the nature of psychocentric religion.
Last, the author compels us to ignore the long world history that encapsulates the much more frequent genocides between peoples that share similar if not the same philosophical foundations. Muslim on Muslim, Nationalist on Nationalist, Communist on Communist, etc.
If this logical and demonstrable house of cards crumbles, then so does the author's book.
Next, we can use the author's reductionist logic to argue the other side of the coin.
Metaphysically speaking, if we are to accept that Christianity and Nazism are two manifestations of the same underlying a-priori philosophical foundation and thus are essentially the same, then we are justified in applying the same method to all practical philosophies and can recognize that all political-theological movements rooted in rationalism are of the same underlying foundation.
Thus, using the authors method, we can now with ease recognize that rationalist Judaism, atheism, and communism are of the same foundational philosophy.
Utilizing the author's method, we can now imply that the hundred or so million dead humans, due to the actions of communists in the 20th century, are essentially, at least in-part, due to Judaism's influence.
Is this the logic that the author means to thrust upon the world, or can the rest of us return to a reasonable moral and rhetorical standard and ignore his associative hyperbole?
Using this comparison in logic, we can see that the author engages in the very practice that he claims to revile: he over-generalizes to damn an entire people and belief system by irrationally trimming down and distorting the context of historical tribal conflict to fit his objective truth.
This tactic isn't limited to a priori belief systems (ignoring that the author's historical evidence for this tactic is specious at best). Posteriori (psychocentric) systems employ this as well, and demonstrably often in the modern day. Establishment science often censors and censures authors, methods, and results that conflict with the metaphysical individualist and rationalist worldview and that undermine its foundational narratives.
The rationalist establishment, in all spheres, practices what the author accuses a-priori philosophy of practicing, except instead of changing reality to fit a an idealized morality (ie: by creating laws that work to shape society toward a universal moral standard), it works to change morality to fit and idealized reality (ie: by reducing punishments for traditional acts of immorality in favor of laws that allow for more natural behavior for groups or individuals, even if traditionally immoral).
The former leads to a more moral world and the latter leads to nihilism, willful cultural amnesia, and social disorganization. It certainly does not lead to rigorous philosophical exposition free from starting conclusions and political agendas.
In conclusion, this anti-Christian book is the pseudo-academic logical equivalent of the dross that attempts to lay the blame for communism with Jews. It should be held in no higher regard.
Reviewed in the United States on March 31, 2015
Rubbish. Langmuir has no intellectual integrity whatsoever. He falsely blames Christians for anti-semitism,
when clearly the behavior of Jews is the real reason for anti-semitism. For a more accurate and detailed assessment
of anti-semitism throughout history, get a copy of "Separation And It's Discontents."
when clearly the behavior of Jews is the real reason for anti-semitism. For a more accurate and detailed assessment
of anti-semitism throughout history, get a copy of "Separation And It's Discontents."
Top reviews from other countries
J. J. Bradshaw
5.0 out of 5 stars
Addresses the fundamental questions of what and why for anti-Semitism, an essential book if trying to understand the holocaust
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on January 17, 2016Verified Purchase
A very thought provoking book. In all of the history of the holocaust the deeper question of what anti-Semitism is and of why anti-Semitism exists is seldom considered with any real depth. Some holocaust books attempt to answer these questions but generally provide superficial and unsatisfactory answers. Even the seminal work of Raul Hilberg "The Destruction of the European Jews" feels somewhat light and lacking in the section which addresses these questions. Gavin Langmuir was a historian of the medieval period who became famous for two books on these underlying questions. These two books were "History, Religeon and Antisemitism" and "Towards a New Definition of Antisemitism". Whilst both books are strongly recommended for anybody with an interest in trying to understand why anti-Semitism could exist and cause people to accept policies of genocide it is "History, Religeon and Antisemitism" which is the stronger, more satisfying book I think.
In this book Gavin Langmuir studied the subject of religion and how it is treated in history. He takes the story back to the middle ages to explore where anti-Semitism comes from and why it became embedded in European culture. Langmuir divided his analysis into considering non-rational and irrational behaviours and dividing religion and religiosity. He considered that non-rational behaviour is a characteristic of religion but that there is a fundamental difference between the non-rational and the irrational. Religeosity he saw as a function of individuals accommodating their own experiences and ideas with the dictates of religion. In this context he argued that anti-Semitism fundamentally changed in the 12th and 13th centuries as anti-Judaism became anti-Semitism which became racial anti-Semitism in response to socio-economic changes of the period. The book shows the evolution of anti-Semitism from a position of religious difference to one based on absurd and irrational racial caricatures as medieval societies struggled to adapt to changing conditions.
This argument has sometimes been interpreted as an anti-Christian argument but this accusation fundamentally misinterprets Langmuir's argument I think and misses the fundamental argument of religion and religiosity. Clearly the arguments in the book are not sufficient to try and answer, far less understand, why anti-Semitism took such a murderous and virulent form in 20th century Germany (and certain other European countries) but it does provide the wider historical context as to the pre-existing culture of racial anti-Semitism which provided the well spring from which these movements flowed. Overall I have found that Gavin Langmuir's works come closer than any others in attempting to explore the what and why of anti-Semitism, and that to try and answer these questions is an essential part of trying to understand the holocaust.
In this book Gavin Langmuir studied the subject of religion and how it is treated in history. He takes the story back to the middle ages to explore where anti-Semitism comes from and why it became embedded in European culture. Langmuir divided his analysis into considering non-rational and irrational behaviours and dividing religion and religiosity. He considered that non-rational behaviour is a characteristic of religion but that there is a fundamental difference between the non-rational and the irrational. Religeosity he saw as a function of individuals accommodating their own experiences and ideas with the dictates of religion. In this context he argued that anti-Semitism fundamentally changed in the 12th and 13th centuries as anti-Judaism became anti-Semitism which became racial anti-Semitism in response to socio-economic changes of the period. The book shows the evolution of anti-Semitism from a position of religious difference to one based on absurd and irrational racial caricatures as medieval societies struggled to adapt to changing conditions.
This argument has sometimes been interpreted as an anti-Christian argument but this accusation fundamentally misinterprets Langmuir's argument I think and misses the fundamental argument of religion and religiosity. Clearly the arguments in the book are not sufficient to try and answer, far less understand, why anti-Semitism took such a murderous and virulent form in 20th century Germany (and certain other European countries) but it does provide the wider historical context as to the pre-existing culture of racial anti-Semitism which provided the well spring from which these movements flowed. Overall I have found that Gavin Langmuir's works come closer than any others in attempting to explore the what and why of anti-Semitism, and that to try and answer these questions is an essential part of trying to understand the holocaust.
2 people found this helpful
Report abuse
