The Non-Jewish Individual
Jewish history is a study of a people in exile. Since the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the experience of the Jewish individual in relation to non-Jewish society has often been that of an outsider looking in. In addition, the distinct Jewish culture, religion, and philosophy identifiably marked the Jews as a separate people. Although this demarcation exposed the Jews to many negative ideological trends, Isaac Deutscher’s “The Non-Jewish Jew” argues that this marginalization enabled the great thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries to revolutionize the European continent. As the title suggests, the non-Jewish Jews were individuals that abandoned Judaism. Deutscher argues that the historical exclusion imbued Jewish people with the innate perspective of the external critic. When the individuals liberated themselves from the ideological shackles of Judaism this now double marginalization provided the perspective of the extreme outsider. Once freed from both the restrictions of Jewish and Christian ideology they were then able to reinterpret society and develop the theories that would revolutionize the world. Deutscher asserts that the famous non-Jewish Jews such as Spinoza, Heine, Marx, and others were representatives of this perspective. In essence, their independence from society enabled them to criticize and fundamentally change the ideological landscape of Europe in ways that other thinkers bound by Christian or Jewish ideology could not. However, with an analysis of Deutscher’s argument through Franz Kafka’s “A Report to an Academy” it becomes clear that his “Non-Jewish Jews” were not only dependent upon society, but also more importantly they were not actually Jewish.
Initially, Kakfa’s “...
... middle of paper ...
...by the subjects of Deutscher’s “The Non-Jewish Jew” are reflected and exhibited in Deutscher’s work. His assertion that Jews have a special ability to critically analyze society because of their historical isolation supports the same race based ideology that the historical figures worked against. Additionally, the association of Marx, Heine, and the others to this racially decided independence from society fails to acknowledge their deep connection to their non-Jewish culture. Therefore, through an analysis of Deutscher’s work through the context of Kafka’s “A Report to an Academy” it becomes apparent that Deutscher undermines his argument by failing to appropriately state the relevance of the historical figures connection to society and most importantly, by allowing racial inflections to manipulate his perspective of his subject revolutionary individuals.
Although she always denied claims of having a distinct Jewish calling, being a second generation German Jewish immigrant, she has always been associated with Jewish New York. Wald has never laid claim to being a crusader for the Jewish people, and yet most of the information published about her comes from the Jewish community trying to sell her as an activist for the Jewish cause. Marjorie N. Feld gives readers a critical look into the life and work of woman dedicated to revealing the similarities of people not their differences. Lillian Wald’s story is an important one because she spent her life working towards a universal vision that would group people together and yet remembered by her difference from other progressive reformers of the time, being Jewish. In this book Feld describes Wald not as person fighting for a particular group, but a person fighting for humanity's equality.
Truthfully, it was inevitable that Wiesel would find himself connected so deeply to his religious beliefs. “‘By day I studied the Talmud and by night I would run to the synagogue to weep over the destruction of the Temple’” (Wiesel 3), the boy’s passion for Judaism so prominent at the beginning and
Beginning with the economic level of analysis, Smith points out how accusations regarding the Jews concerning the murder of Ernst Winter generally had a common trait in that several of the accusers had either “worked for the Jews they accused or had been in close business relationships with them” (Smith 2002, 139). Smith goes on to note that these accusers often came from low-class or low-middle class citizens and consisted of “unskilled workers, day laborers, masons and a civil servant, a prison guard and a night watchman, a poor farmer and his family, a handful of apprentices, and a large number of servant girls” (Smith 2002, 139). Unsurprisingly, Smith explains that the result of such noticeable differences in the possession of wealth between Konitz citizens led to poorer Christians seeking to place blame on Jews of middle-class status; thereby creating a “rudimentary form of economic or class protest” (Smith 2002, 140). However, Helmut Walser Smith is quick to indicate that this form of analysis cannot solely provide an answer to the rise of anti-Semitic sentiment in Imperial Germany. This explanation, Smith says, is rather simple; although it is true that Christians were perhaps motivated to falsely accuse their Jewish neighbors due to their social and economic trials, not all Konitz-residing Christians were disadvantaged and not all Konitz Jews
Elie Wiesel’s hope, as well as the rest of the hundreds of Jews’, diminishes tremendously. They originally suppress their
Yet he felt that he needed further preparation and study in order to be able to apply "philosophy to an historical interpretation of race relations." He decided to spend another two years at the University of Berlin on a Slater Fund Fellowship. W. E. B. -.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Gordon, Sarah. Hitler, Germans and the "Jewish Question." Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1984.
By stating, “racism itself is dreadful, but when it pretends to be legal, and therefore just, when a man like Nelson Mandela is imprisoned, it becomes even more repugnant” and “one cannot help but assign the two systems, in their supposed legality, to the same camp” (Wiesel, p.1), the Holocaust survivor is creating solidarity within two separate decades that are connected by the government’s tyranny. The rationale behind constructing a system of unity is to ensure the lives of the oppressed, regardless of their personal beliefs and cultures. Mandela is not affiliated with the Holocaust, nor is he a Jew – rather the former President of South Africa who stood up against anti-black movements – but he is still bound by a common
Marx, Karl. “Bruno Bauer, The Jewish Question, Braunschweig, 1843.” In Classics of Moral and Political Theory, edited by Michael L. Morgan, 1167-1182. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2011.
The delineation of human life is perceiving existence through resolute contrasts. The difference between day and night is defined by an absolute line of division. For the Jewish culture in the twentieth century, the dissimilarity between life and death is bisected by a definitive line - the Holocaust. Accounts of life during the genocide of the Jewish culture emerged from within the considerable array of Holocaust survivors, among of which are Elie Wiesel’s Night and Simon Wiesenthal’s The Sunflower. Both accounts of the Holocaust diverge in the main concepts in each work; Wiesel and Wiesenthal focus on different aspects of their survivals. Aside from the themes, various aspects, including perception, structure, organization, and flow of arguments in each work, also contrast from one another. Although both Night and The Sunflower are recollections of the persistence of life during the Holocaust, Elie Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal focus on different aspects of their existence during the atrocity in their corresponding works.
Upon analysis of Night, Elie Wiesel’s use of characterization and conflict in the memoir helps to illustrate how oppression and dehumanization can affect one’s identity by describing the actions of the Nazis and
Many themes exist in Night, Elie Wiesel’s nightmarish story of his Holocaust experience. From normal life in a small town to physical abuse in concentration camps, Night chronicles the journey of Wiesel’s teenage years. Neither Wiesel nor any of the Jews in Sighet could have imagined the horrors that would befall them as their lives changed under the Nazi regime. The Jews all lived peaceful, civilized lives before the German occupation. Eliezer Wiesel was concerned with mysticism and his father was “more involved with the welfare of others than with that of his own kin” (4).
Sokel, Walter H. “From Marx to Myth: The Structure and Function Of Self-Alienation In Kafka’s Metamorphosis.” Critical Insights: The Metamorphosis (2011): 215-230. Literary Reference Center. Web. 15 Mar. 2014.
In 1844, Karl Marx published the piece “Estranged Labor,” which touched upon four forms of estrangement and alienation of the Capitalist worker including estrangement of man from man, estrangement of man from his humanity, estrangement of man from the product of his labor, and estrangement of man from the act of labor itself. Just under a century later, the “normality and uniqueness of the Holocaust,” as described by Zygmunt Bauman, modeled Marx’s four estrangements. Found in his novel “Survival in Auschwitz,” Primo Levi’s Holocaust experiences served as an example of these four estrangements, representing the Lager as a heightened version of capitalist modernity.
Unlike many modern writers, Franz Kafka was heavily influenced by his religion and the culture that accompanied it. This interest caused him to maintain a substantial interest in the Yiddish Theater for the rest of his life. Kafka’s parents were very minimalistic regarding Judaistic practice, so Kafka did not embrace his spiritual culture until he moved away from his parents (Beck xii). Once he realized that there was a new outlet for him in spirituality, he identified as a Jew, but was uncertain in his beliefs after living for such a long time without religion (Wilson 1). Being that he was in a mentally turbulent state, his ambivalence toward religion was reflected in the confusion of The Metamorphosis. After taking interest in his religion, he began attending plays put on by the Yiddish Theater Troupe. More than anything, Yiddish ...
On May 5th, 1818, in Trier, Karl Marx was born of Heinrich and Henrietta Marx in the German Rhineland. Studies say that Karl’s family was of a large size, consisting of about four children: Karl, Sophie, Emilie, and Luise. His mother, whom belonged to a family of Hungarian Jews, died in 1863,yet was always considered to be a lovely wife and mother. The Jewish blood that ran through the family ultimately impacted Karl’s fate. When Karl was six years old, he adopted Christianity because at the time it was considered as an act of civilized progress. His father, a highly educated lawyer whom admired eighteenth century literature (of the French Enlightenment), was a “Prussian patriot” and a Jewish believer. Karl and his father held a personal relationship, to which they enjoyed a close friendship. His father did indeed influence him greatly, but Karl “did not believe in the power of rational argument to influence action,” (2) as did his father.