Theological anti-Judaism and Religious Judeophobia

What is behind the stigma of Zhydovskaya ? Where does this fear and dread come from? Stanislawski (1983) argues that much of the anti-semitism that fueled Nicholas' policies was essentially theologically based (Stanislawski 1983: 4). Klier has said that in fearing the Jews, Russia feared for the purity of its religion; that from early times Jews were seen as "an abstraction in the form of a vague threat to the integrity of the Christian faith" (Klier 1986: 30).

The earliest forms of religious Judeophobia in Russia have to do with the notion of the Jew as Christ-killer. The extent to which anti-Semitism was theological varies from country to country and is certainly debatable. Fisher (1980) has traced the same idea of Jew as Christ-killer in Russia as far back as the 10th century.

In the Reform Era, theologically based Judeophobia was best articulated by periodical writer V.I. Askochenskii. He likened Jews and Judaism to the serpent of the garden of Eden&endash; tempting. He claimed that to allow religious freedom to the Jews was to follow the serpent, "the father of lies and falsehoods" (Klier 1995: 125). In the Modernist version, Judaism and Christianity are fundamentally opposed ideologies. Christianity is the natural companion to the modern world, and Judaism is its backward antithesis. Klier has done fascinating work tracing debate among Russian scholars through various scholarly journals of the reform era concerning the Talmud. Everyone seemed to want to join in the debate and discussion of the mysterious book of Jewish doctrine. It is here that theological Judeophobia translated itself into rational anti-Judaism. Aksakov stated it bluntly, writing (in 1862) that the Talmud contained teachings "counter to all the principles which lie at the basis of local, social and civil life in a Christian land" (Klier 1995: 128). He goes on to claim that Jews are the product of "a congealed moment in human development, forever hostile to the subsequent stages of human development," and that after the appearance of Christ on earth Jews became "a living contradiction." Thus, "The Jews...deny the successes of human history, and would return humanity to that level, to that moment of consciousness in which it abided prior to the appearance of Christ on earth" (Klier 1986: 142). Aleksandrov claimed that since the Talmud preached hatred of non-Jews, Jews of the present day who would not give up the Talmud couldn't be trusted with civil rights. By 1883 some newspapers were recommending that the government form a committee to censor the Talmud of its "anti-social" and "anti-Christian" elements (Klier 1986: 439).

This is a good place to return to Bhabha's discussion of colonial discourse. As explained above, this discourse creates a space for a group of people to be subjected to colonial power. Bhabha stresses that in constructing the colonized as Other, this group is at the same time "entirely knowable and visible" (Bhabha 1992: 313). The "regime of truth" created by the colonial discourse is "structurally similar to realism." In other words, the notion that the Talmud -the encapsulation of "Jewishness" could be summed up, understood, and then censored is driven by the desire in the colonial discourse to know the Other/colonized. This desire "to know" emerges out of a fundamental feeling of ambivalence which the colonizer has for the colonized: The colonizer's question, "Do I really know who they are?" reflects his ambivalence about his own identity. Epithets (Zhyd ) and labels (Talmud-as-anti-Christian) are attached to the Other to make it knowable, to decrease the feeling of ambivalence which destabilizes the identity of the colonizer. Aleksandrov could not be sure that Christianity represented human progress unless he was sure that Judaism represented "a congealed moment in human history." This is another example of the "self-defining Other."

Judeophobic Fantasy

After discussing the above topic in his article, Bhabha transitions from the realist regime of truth into the irrational world of fantasy. He cites Said, pointing out that while Orientalism "is on the one hand, a topic of learning, discovery, practice; on the other, it is a site of dreams images, fantasies, myths, obsessions..." (Bhabha 1992: 317). Judeophobia and its accompanying anti-semitism also comes in both realist and irrational forms. Judeophobic fantasies which have appeared throughout Europe are similar in structure and content to those which have emerged about the more "obvious" groups of Others&endash; "primitives."16

In his book, Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man Michael Taussig traces the history of the "Wild Man," a beast constructed by the collective European consciousness. The Wild Man existed first on maps of the Middle Ages where the "new world" is presently located, what was then unknown. In this unknown/fantasy space resided all kinds of fantastical creatures: people with gargantuan feet, etc. This Wild Man was eventually projected onto the European idea of the Indian. In the mind of the colonizer, the real-life aborigine is replaced by the Wild Man. Fantasy has played a significant part in the history of the idea of the Jew in Europe as well. Medieval drawings and engravings depict such fantastical images as the image of Jew with horns and a giant hook nose, or the image of Jews attending to the devil at his throne. Trachtenberg has outlined the existence of a being similar to Taussig's Wild Man, what he calls the "Mythical Jew":

"The Mythical Jew, outlined by early Christian theology and ultimately puffed out to impossible proportions, supplanted the real Jew in the medieval mind, until that real Jew to all intents and purposes ceased to exist. The only Jew whom the medieval Christian recognized was a figment of the imagination" (Trachtenberg 1943: 216).

Medieval notions of Jews and Judaism, as we will see, survived through and past the time of Nicholas I. In his book The Devil and the Jews, (1943) Trachtenberg documents the history of the perception in Europe that the Jews and the Devil are associates. He delineates a whole set of mythologies located in "the mass subconscious" about the Jew. His central argument is that notions which originated in the middle ages have survived in the mass subconscious of Europe through to the modern era.

Fantasy: (Fig.6) This detail from a woodcut dates from 17th century Germany. It is based on a design which dates from the 15th century. The subject is the "Judensau," which has appeared in various forms throughout these eras. The men are signified as Jews by their circular patches. One rides backwards on the sow, another is nursing from it, another is eating its feces. This image is certainly fantastic, surreal. The same type of ideas, completely unfounded in reality, were alive in the minds of Russians in the time of Nicholas I.

The legacy of the Mythical Jew has its abstracted forms, which have indeed survived through and past the era of Nicholas I. The single most repeated fantasy about Jews is the notion that Jews use the blood of Christians for ritual purposes. Throughout history, and across Europe, Jews have been brought to trial for "ritual murder." These trials have come to be known as Blood Libels. The Blood Libel, and the accusations associated with it (that Jews kidnap Christian children for their blood; that they ritually torture and murder them) has its origin in 11th century England. The Blood Libel spread eastward, appearing throughout Europe. It did not reach Russia until the post-partition period. It did exist, however, in pre-partition Poland. While the clergy played a large role in the accusations of earlier times, the Blood Libels of Russia were usually dealt with as civil trials. In Russia, as elsewhere the Blood Libel functioned as a projection of society's horrors onto the Other. Whenever a corpse was found dead or missing without an explanation the time was ripe to accuse Jews of ritual murder, especially if the body was found mutilated in any way, or near a Jewish settlement (Klier 1986: 418).

It is of major significance that Nicholas I himself wasn't absolutely sure that the Jews of the Velizsh case of 1823-1835 were innocent.10 In his doubt Nicholas is clearly affected by the abstracted Mythical Jew. He followed the Velizsh case closely. He worried that perhaps the acquitted were guilty, himself stating:

"Numerous examples of similar murders...go to show that among the Jews there probably exist fanatics or sectarians who consider Christian blood necessary for their rites" (Klier 1986: 418).

(Fig. 7) Here is an image of the abstracted Mythical Jew. The fantasy does not include racial (and therefore non-transferable) characteristics such as horns. Here,"Jewishness" is signified by the men's beards and kipot.. Secondly, their "Jewishness" is signified by what they are doing: sucking the blood out of a Christian child. This piece dates from 16th Century Poland.

 

Obviously Nicholas had never seen Jews ritually murdering Christian children and drinking their blood, yet he imagined it might be possible. Just as Trachtenberg argues, the collective subconscious was powerful enough to give imagined creatures like the Mythical Jew a life of their own to the extent that they were taken to real-life courtrooms and real people were punished in their place. This tradition of rational, real-world treatments of irrational, imaginary entities carried on in Russia throughout the century. Blood Libels cropped up all the way into the early 20th century! 11

For another model of Nicholas I's thinking, it is useful to look at Reform Era examples of "Occult Judeophobia." Klier has identified "Occult elements" of Judeophobia as those things which Russians feared in Jews but could not directly observe; ideas that were only limited by the "imagination of it creators." They include: the belief in ritual murder, Jewish fanaticism, and the Talmud as evil document. The umbrella accusation is a conspiracy of world Jewry, aimed at world domination and the destruction of Christian civilization (Klier 1995: 417). Klier writes that up to a certain point occult elements had affected official attitudes, but had never enjoyed public respectability and familiarity until writers discussed them in the Reform Era press (Klier 1995: 417). This type of rationalization is evident in this piece by Platonov. Written in 1879, he is discussing the possible guilt of a Blood Libel case which occurred that year:

"Isn't it possible that this hatred (of Christians) has led to inhuman extremes; could it not have turned into a rule, an obligation, a tradition, formalized for example into a certain specific command to torture children?" (Klier 1995: 429).

(Fig. 8) As late as 1879, people in Russia still believed that perhaps Jews tortured children. These men are signified as Jews by the circular patches and their facial characteristics.They are ritually murdering Simon, a Christian child. This depiction of the Simon of Trent Blood Libel dates from 15th Century Florence.

It is standard to explain such examples of Judeophobic thought as examples of "scapegoating," in which blame is laid on Jews for crimes committed by others. But this process of "scapegoating" deserves more attention in itself. The horrific fantasy behind Platonov's words of Jews torturing children exists in his individual psyche, as it does for many other people who believe, or are not sure of the invalidity of the Blood Libel accusations. But the collective fantasy which Trachtenberg locates in "the mass subconscious" functions in a more complicated way. In his book, The Sublime Object of Ideology, (1989) Slavoj Zizek outlines this process.

Similarly to Gilman and Katz' view of the Jew as Europe's "ultimate Other", Zizek often uses examples of anti-Semitic thought to illustrate his arguments. He in fact calls anti-semitism the "purest incarnation of ideology" (Zizek 1989: 125). Gilman & Katz' notion of the Jew-as-ultimate Other is well illustrated by Zizek who views the Jew in the European mind as a condensed embodiment of a series of "heterogeneous antagonisms" (Zizek 1989: 125). In his model, the singular Jew represents strife in any category. In economic terms the Jew is viewed as the profiteer, on political terms he is a "schemer" and keeper of secret power, morally and religiously he is a corrupt anti-Christ, etc. These are familiar ideas of the Jews; according to Zizek they are examples of "fantasy." It is his explanation of how fantasy functions as an element in the contemplation of the social that enlarges our idea of "scapegoating." According to Zizek, fantasies about the Other allow the self to identify with an idealized society of which he is supposed to be part, even though this society may not exist in its ideal form.

People struggle to create a 'Society' which exists in the Real. Like the "nation" in Anderson's model, this 'Society' exists first in the abstract: it is created by the "social-ideological fantasy" which envisions a "Society" that is corporate &endash;resembling the human body. It is made up of individual parts that work together to produce a unified whole. Yet in reality there always exists strife, hardship and imperfection which divide people from one another; there always exists an "antagonistic split." The body is never whole. In a parallel with Douglas' model, Zizek explains that this antagonistic split "cannot be integrated into the symbolic order" (Zizek 1989: 126). It does not fit into the social-ideological fantasy. "Society," and in our case "Russia" does not exist on earth the way it does in the mind of Nicholas I or anyone else who shares his vision of order, prosperity and religious homogeneity.

"How then do we take account for the distance between the corporatist vision and the factual society split by antagonistic struggles? The answer is, of course, the Jew: an external element, a foreign body introducing corruption into the sound social fabric" (Zizek 1989: 126).

Because the Real world does not look like the constructed vision of "society," any attempt to identify with the real society will fail. One can't identify with "Russia" if it doesn't look or feel like the social-ideological fantasy-Russia. The (Judeophobic) fantasy functions "to mask" the inconstancy, "compensating for the failed identification" (Zizek 1989: 128).

As the Other, as the element excluded from the symbolic order, "the Jew returns in the Real as a paranoid construction:

"the Jew appears as an intruder who introduces from outside disorder, decomposition and corruption of the social edifice &endash; it appears as an outward positive cause whose elimination would enable us to restore order, stability, and identity" (Zizek 1989: 128).

One can to continue to identify with a society that does not really exist, because the Jew can explain its failure to appear in the Real. This does not differ greatly from the usual version of scapegoating except that it comes with the understanding that the ideology is prepared for, adapted to the reality with which it is at difference.19 The Jew's Symbolic exclusion from the ideal precedes his physical presence in the Real. Jews are therefore seen as alien, positive embodiments of antagonisms.12

If we are to apply Zizek's model to 1823 Russia, it is more appropriate to think of Judaism, and not the bodies of the Jews themselves as the alien element, as the embodiment of antagonisms. Zizek's discussion is in reference to Fascist anti-semitism, which aimed to physically exclude (or exterminate) Jews from the state. My argument is that the conscription/ conversion policy is informed by a "Symbolic exclusion of [Judaism] from the ideal."

Again what is important in this understanding of the fantasy is that its function is "selfish." Ideas of ritual murder were not made up just because people were afraid of, or didn't like Jews. Instead, they function as tools to define what "Russia" should be, and would be without the presence of Judaism. They explain the difference between the envisioned ("imagined") Russia and the Russia that exists in the Real &endash;one which experiences hardship and strife.

(Fig. 9) This picture can be read in a number of ways. It dates from the early days of the reign of Catherine the Great. It can in many ways, be read as a social-ideological fantasy. Catherine fancied herself an "Enlightened" ruler. This is signified by the images of Jupiter and Peter the Great watching from the clouds. Here Russia is depicted as a continuation of the Western cultural tradition which began in Rome. The various angels and cherub-like figures surrounding her represent the "spiritual purity" of Russia. The symbol of the state is surrounded by religiously pure imagery. Peasants look on in awe. A woman dropping coins signifies prosperity. Though this is not a picture directly about Jews, they are most certainly excluded from this symbolic order.

Rationalism: The Enlightenment Take on the Jews in Russia

While the voice of fantasy was strong, the voice of Reason also attempted to answer the Jewish and Russian Questions.

Enlightened thinkers may have thought of themselves as "tolerant" in contrast to Slavophile or overtly anti-Semitic types, but they had their own more subtle brand of anti-Semitism. Nicholas' predecessor, Alexander I was greatly influenced by Enlightenment ideology in his early career. Some of his policy towards the Jews represent the basic, Western, Enlightenment take on the Jewish Question.

Klier has identified the basic Enlightenment position on the Jews as a translation of religious prejudice to the "secular plane." The flaws of the Jews were not seen as innate, but "transient... conditional ...to be remedied by "'Rational' reforms," with an emphasis on "tolerance" and "order" (Klier 1986: 38). Fisher has pointed out that though the philosophes opposed Christian intolerance of the Jews and appeared to sympathize with them, they also viewed Judaism as a particularly harmful version of religious superstition. (Fisher 1980: 31). The Rationalist fundamentals of the Enlightenment forced thinkers to assert that fearing the Jews as the Devil's associates was simply irrational. But this did not necessarily give them a dose of cultural relativism. So while the reforms proposed were certainly not nasty, neither were they aimed at preserving Jewish culture or identity. Just as Nicholas' brutal policy of forced conversion was aimed at assimilation through the erasing of Judaism and Jewishness from the body, so was Enlightened reform.

A good example of "Enlightened Reform" is Alexander I's "Jewish Constitution" of 1804. This document outlined his stance on all the facets of the Jewish Question. In the first chapter, entitled "On Enlightenment," he proposes that Jewish children get free access to public schools, gymnasiums, and universities, and that Jews be allowed to open their own secular schools. His comments from a meeting of his "Committee for the Amelioration of the Jews" (1803) are another example of the Enlightenment-type solution outlined above:

"...it seems both better and safer to guide the Jews to perfection by throwing open to them the awareness leading to their own happiness... without using any manner of force, without establishing special agencies for them... as many liberties as possible, as few restrictions as possible... these are the simple elements of any social order" (Dubnow vol. 1 1916: 340).

But Alexander's Enlightenment gave way to other forces, and in his later career he much more resembled Nicholas. Dubnow has identified this change in policy as evidence of a struggle of two opposing ideologies in answering the Jewish Question: "Humanitarianism" demanded "unconditional emancipation" based on the idea that if the Jews were left to decide for themselves, they would "choose the way which leads to perfection." That is, that they would voluntarily give up the religious and cultural markers which differentiated them from the category of "Russian." This was opposed to "utilitarianism" which is characterized by "correctional measures" and the "compulsory transformation of Jewish life" (Dubnow vol. 1 1916: 341, 339).

GO TO THE CONSCRIPTION/CONVERSION POLICY