In this essay I will advance the argument that Strauss’s account of cultural Zionism’s limitations is inaccurate as well as revelatory. Strauss’s critique of a strictly cultural Judaism reflects not so much his affirmation of Orthodox religious practice, but his rejection of cultural particularity more generally. Recognition of the universalist undercurrent animating Strauss’s rejection of Jewish cultural particularity affords us the additional opportunity to reassess Strauss’s analysis of the Jewish condition in Why Remain Jews. Finally, we will suggest that recourse to a number of pertinent details in Strauss’s biography proves helpful in interpreting Strauss as a political philosopher. In the essays Progress or Return and Why Remain Jews, …show more content…
Unlike the gentile nations, for whom cultural identity remains over and above religious character, Jewish cultural self-expression and nationhood can only be understood as an advanced manifestation of Judaism’s theological underpinnings. If Strauss’s critique of cultural Judaism solely revolved around this assertion it would not merit much dissension, though one could question the absolute accuracy of this identity relation . However, I have a sneaking suspicion that Strauss’s account of cultural Judaism’s limits relies upon a prejudice of Strauss’s far more fundamental to his philosophical thought—Strauss rejected Jewish culture as a sufficient basis for national identity because he rejected culture as a sufficient basis for national …show more content…
For Strauss, reason, which could not be indexed temporally or geographically, could serve to constrain man’s appetites and ensure the stability of a universal moral order. This explains why Strauss revered liberal democracy and the American political order. He understood the American political tradition as emerging from universal philosophical ideals of equality and democracy rather than as the specific expression of an Anglo-Protestant people. As Strauss acknowledged time and again, such a “propositional society” offered a sound basis for inclusiveness, superior to the “nations of the old world which certainly were not conceived in liberty.” The nation-states of Europe, constituted from specific ethno-cultural characteristics, were not subject to the humanizing influence of universal
Late into the 19th century, Zionism (a biblical name for Jerusalem) started to rise when Theodor Herzl published an article that concluded Jewish assimilation and emancipation could not work in Europe. It was this that started plans for the creation of a Jewish statehood. During this time, the population of Jews were spread out across different countries, and in each of these countries, they had represented a minority. Throughout this period, they had longed for a state in which they called Eretz Israel, the land of Israel. Herzl’s proposed solution was for the revival of a Jewish homeland where they could set up a state belonging to themselves. Following his publishings, the First Zionist Congress was held in Switzerland. The program state that “The aim of Zionism is to create for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine secure by public law”. Much of the Jewish community at this point held mixed views about this movement but it was this time period of the late 19th ce...
New York: William Morrow. Lipsett, S. M. & Co., P.A. and Ladd, E. C. (1971) The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secon "Jewish Academics in the United States: Their Achievements, Culture and Politics." American Jewish Yearbook -. Cited for Zuckerman, Harriet (1977).
I chose to write about Jewish-Americans after my mother, who was raised Christian, chose to identify herself as Jewish. In my reading I examined Jewish culture and how it is in American society. I looked at how Jewish-American culture has become a prominent component of American society. I looked at the historical forces that have shaped Jewish-American experience in the United States. I looked at demographics of where most Jewish-Americans live. I examined how Jewish-Americans have contributed to our culturally pluralistic society in the United States.
Benjamin Harshav’s “Language in Time of Revolution” teaches the reader that social factors, historical factors, willpower, and accidents of history brought back and revived the Hebrew and Yiddish language. This was important because it created the base for a new, secular Jewish society and culture to emerge again with their own language and a new social identity. This new social identity meant that there was a nationalistic movement toward having a common language, literature, and cultural heritage. However, the reason why the Hebrew and Yiddish language lagged in the first place was due to Nazism and Stalinism. These two totalitarian empires wiped out the Yiddish culture since the Jews were not the majority population in places such as Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires. Since only one language of government and education was imposed on various ethnic groups, it is not a surprise that the Yiddish language became irrelevant. Stalinists argued that Jews can’t be a nation because they do not have a territory and a common language; the Zionists, however, tried to help by enforcing the Hebrew language on immigrants from all countries and languages because they believed in “national power and sovereignty rather than mere cultural autonomy.”
In Democracy in America, Alexis De Tocqueville explains the dangers of democracy and explains the virtues that temper these dangers. In this paper, I will look at two issues Tocqueville discussed extensively in late 19th century American democracy and posit what Tocqueville may say about these issues today. The points I will discuss are materialism and religion. In a democracy, such as America, the individual’s opportunity to succeed makes him more likely to become attached to material and money. However, in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, this danger is tempered by religion, which quenches the lust for material by reducing its importance in comparison to good mores. These two elements of American democracy are a small portion of the “Habits of the hearts” of Americans; they are two ideas that complement each other to make democracy appealing and possible anywhere and everywhere. Is this the case today? Is the American’s relationship to materialism and religion similar today to what it was when Tocqueville visited America?
Viennese Jews proportionally did have more representatives in the cultural sphere. This can be because they had the means, ways and opportunity to exploit their situation to pursue the arts. Steven Beller states quite unequivocally "Whether it be Freud, Schoenberg, Schnitzler or Wittgenstein, the number of individuals at the top level of Viennese culture - or rather that type of culture for which Vienna is today so famous - who are of at least partly Jewish descent is so large that it cannot be ignored." (2) And indeed it has not been ignored, rather it has been used to create myth.(3) with many of the authors who write on the Jews of fin-de-siecle Vienna depicting a golden age and of a homogenuous Jewish culture with a shared common identity.(4) Yet Ernst Gombrich recently controversially asserted, whilst giving a lecture on the topic of, "Fin de siecle Vienna and its Jewish Cultural influences", "I am of the opinion that the notion of Jewish Culture was, and is, an invention of Hitler and his forerunners and after-runners. (5) There is then a controversy centered around Jewishness which likewise examines the individual and their level of faith, secularisation or assimilation.(6) For indeed what at this time did it mean to be a Jew? What also was the Cultural life in this Vienna? (7)
Theodor Herzl is often referred to today as the Father of Zionism, a man known for his role in the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people. His most famous pamphlet, The Jewish State, inspired thousands of Jewish men and women from across the world, although particularly in Europe, to leave their homes to realize the glory of creating their own homeland in Palestine. While Herzl was originally a believer in the gradual assimilation of German and Austrian Jews into the European cultural world, the growing anti-Semitism within Europe led him to believe that the only solution to Jewish ostracism was the creation of a separate state for Jews in Palestine. Although Theodor Herzl became, over the course of his lifetime, a man who held a crucial role in the creation of a state that Jews across the world could take pride in and refuge from the prejudice they faced throughout the European world, he was never truly a believer in the traditions of Judaism and was primarily concerned with the necessity for the “reformation” of the Jewish culture instead of the founding of a prejudice-free environment.
The Jewish people and culture have always been an integral part of western society. Many of society’s core values and outlooks derive from those of the Jews (Cahill 3). Every economy involved the Jews. Some of their most common professions were bankers and doctors; even when one neglects to consider the necessity of these professions, one must consider that just by existing they boosted the economy through commerce (Taft 1). The New York Times recorded that in London in 1902 it was “surprising how quickly they improve[d] their condition and beg[a]n to save money” and were building up a tailoring business to rival Germany (“Jewish Immigration Into London”). According to then-former President Taft, Jews in 1919 were given legal equality in every country except Romania and Russia, a...
middle of paper ... ... This comment suggests that the current idea, liberalism, may just be a phase in human ideology that has spread worldwide. Though he made a compelling argument and posed thought provoking questions that supported his argument, the flaws in his argument, after stringent analysis, contradict his main points. Works Cited Ferguson, C. (Director).
In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville writes that, “equality of conditions is the fundamental fact from which all others seem to be derived” in America. With the Gettysburg Address, President Abraham Lincoln rededicates America to this fundamental creed, holding the Declaration of Independence’s claim that “all men are created equal” as the nation’s ideological foundation. Lincoln’s speech evokes Pericles’s Funeral Oration, which similarly flaunts equality as the bedrock of Athens. By linking the two speeches and states, Lincoln expands America’s national duty in demanding that the country provide an example to the world like Athens. Lincoln uses this duty as a reason to continue the war effort, following Pericles’s example of protreptikon. Most importantly, the linkage draws a contrast between the two states: Athenian exceptionalism is based on realized cultural values, while Lincoln’s American exceptionalism is purely doctrinal. In comparing the two, Lincoln displays that America must follow through on past intentions in order to realize its greatness.
In the early times of the synagogue had an essential role in the evolution of American Jewish life. Around the colonial period, the synagogue was the only Jewish institution and came to be compatible with the community. They gave both the religious and social needs for the environment. It symbolized the Jewish community as a whole. But it has undergone many changes. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the dynamic had shifted a little. There were movements to provide the needs of the Jewish communities. There was a Reform movement and a Conservative movement. These movements were a mix of religious and social functions. This was a precursor used for all the other synagogues had followed. Today, the role of the synagogue is retaining itself as an authoritative and dominating central building for American Jews. The temple has become an accepting association funding and shares the community obligation for Jewish education. Not only that, they have began to strengthen community building through social and political work. The synagogue remains a religious establishment for Jewish
In order to understand how these influences or principles have spread, it must also be figured out how these principles developed. Again here, it must be asserted that the historical context is of vital importance because it reveals the manner in which some actions that took place at particular points in time had formed consensus notions. It is these notions that were carried through and developed into what have become western democratic principles. These had evidently developed with the passage of time due to the occurrences that took place on the American continent; the types of people that landed there were responsible for the influences they had in the formulation of law. Though other western countries experienced similar transition America is one country that must be particularly mentioned (Kagan et al, 2000).
"Dehumanization of the Jews." . Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh , n.d. Web. 16 Dec 2013. .
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
MacDonald, K. (1998). The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences. In, MacDonald, K., The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. California State University: Long Beach, pp. 20-50.