Anarchist Analysis and the Blindspot to Antisemitism
The following is the text of a talk I gave on the panel “Anarchism and Responding to Anti-Semitism,” at the 2006 conference, “Facing a Challenge Within: A Progressive Scholars’ and Activists’ Conference on Anti-Semitism* and The Left.”
In my short presentation, I laid out a very basic hypothesis about why U.S. anarchists have a blindspot regarding the issue of antisemitism. The hypothesis is by no means meant as a comprehensive theory to the topic. Rather, it focuses specifically on the limitations of an analytical approach based on a “generalized critique of hierarchy.” The inability of U.S. anarchists to address antisemitism is not meant to stem entirely from this explanation, as the topic is certainly complex. I am hoping that this short text contributes in some way to understandings of this under-analyzed topic. Feedback is certainly welcomed.
***************
The following is a preliminary attempt to understand why contemporary anarchism tends to be blind to antisemitism.
My working thesis is that anarchism’s social analysis is based on a general and theoretical critique of hierarchy. Today, anarchism has broadened out to be a general “anti-authoritarianism,” that is “against all forms of oppression, domination, and hierarchy.”
Today, anarchism understands society as being a hierarchical arrangement of power, where domination occurs between groups: socio-economic classes, racialized groups, gender groups, and so forth. Anarchism analyzes social problems by “seeing oppressed groups” occupying subordinate positions in a framework of hierarchical relations.
When in the 60s and 70s, challenges to heteronormativity emerged to the point of challenging the hegemony, and a powerful movement arose, anarchism understood heteronormativity by “discovering” new forms of domination on the old map (that is, within anarchism’s analytical framework of hierarchical power relations). Anarchism “discovered” “queers,” and grafted “them” onto its schema by showing how queer people or non-hetero life is marginalized in political, economic, social, cultural, and other ways.
If this is an accurate sketch of anarchism’s social analytical framework, this means that anarchism will only be able to see antisemitism if it can see the subordination of jews in hierarchical society, or if it can see the marginalization of “jewish culture,” in a similar way that it saw the marginalization of “queerness” or non-hetero life, or “blackness” or african-american culture, etc. (but “seeing jewishness” remains problematic anyway, and a bad direction, in my view for the struggle against antisemitism).
According to anarchism’s framework of analysis, the place of jews in hierarchical relationships does not resemble that of african-americans, queer people, or the working class, or immigrants. In the last decades, formal restrictions on jews have been lifted, and jews are incorporated into society in the U.S. In fact, compared to other social groups, jews are doing quite well. Based on this anarchist analytical framework, antisemitism appears to be overcome.
When the topic of antisemitism is brought up then, it is viewed firstly with a kind of confusion, then a kind of skepticism, and finally with outright antagonism. Anarchist confusion is based on the fact that jews are generally free from social, political, and economic exclusion, so therefore, it is assumed that antisemitism doesn’t really exist. Anarchist skepticism is based on the view that conversations about antisemitism, is a distraction from “real oppression,” which happens to African-Americans, Arabs and Muslims, queer people, working-class people, etc., which you can see in the hierarchical structure of “material reality.” Anarchist antagonism toward conversations about antisemitism occurs because anarchism eventually sees such conversations as a *coverup for some ulterior motive.*
This “ulterior motive” is found to be “zionism.” Anyone, involved in a discussion about Israel and Palestine, or the Middle East more generally, that charges something or someone as antisemitic is said to be wielding ideological weapons, and their charge is completely discounted on the Left and in anarchist circles. Their words are said to be disingenuous manipulations employed only to insulate Israel from criticism. This charge of “zionist manipulation” has become a generalizable “truth” to the extent that nearly any conversation about antisemitism is now seen as a mere coverup for “zionism.” The result is that no conversation about antisemitism is allowed. In my experience, the raising of the topic has resulted in first being called a “zionist,” and then, by deduction, a “racist”.
These events, I wonder, may derive from the anarchist framework of analysis that I described:
Desiring the overthrow of hierarchical society and unequal power relations, anarchism analyzes the world according to a hierarchical structure. It’s cyclical in this way in that what it’s looking to overthrow is the framework for its analysis. This is its attachment to ideology in the worst sense, as a trap that prevents novel or social-historical analysis. All can be accounted for and understood through the already given theoretical framework. Society is the “material” that needs to be reorganized, according to a set of principles laid out in doctrine.
I think that anarchists, or anyone for that matter, who desires a genuine engagement with antisemitism, must grapple with antisemitism not in its adaptability to a given framework, and not as a form of prejudice. Instead, the fight against antisemitism might only be possible if we understand antisemitism in its social-historical specificity.
Because anarchism views antisemitism as nothing but a zionist plot, the result is that anarchists end up giving tacit support to anyone who “opposes zionism” — as long as these “opponents” don’t speak of “jews” too much. Any conversation about the antisemitism of the President of Iran, of the Convenant of Hamas, or other similar positions, is said to be mere cover-up for support of “zionist” and U.S. aggression. By dismissing conversations about antisemitism, anarchists lend tacit support to antisemitic movements. They do so today through a “political” language of “anti-imperialism,” “anti-americanism,” and “anti-zionism.”
I think that the explicit language of antisemitism as jew-hating is unacceptable in public discourse today. And that antisemitism doesn’t function in that language anymore. I think what we’re experiencing much of the time is an antisemitism that is not conscious of itself as antisemitism. I think anarchists are susceptible to this tacit support of antisemites or susceptible to antisemitic ideas because of a lack of engagement with what antisemitism means social-historically. Anarchism tries to see antisemitism through its own framework, and therefore fails to see it at all.
What anarchism fails to address — the social-historical specificity of antisemitism — is that antisemitism operates as an oppositional movement and critique. Antisemitism, both today and historically presents itself as a movement against hierarchical power. It wants to eliminate the so-called “hierarchy of finance over productive power,” eliminate the “cabal that controls the media,” and destroy the “elite lobby” behind politics. This is what I call a deranged form of oppositional politics.
When the Left, progressives, and anarchists are critical of power relations, of mainstream media, or politics (as it exists in the form of the state and international organizations), we have to be cognizant of the ways in which antisemitic critiques also operate in these critiques. If we are to fight against antisemitism we have to see it as a deranged form of oppositional politics — not just as a prejudice that is attached to critique, but as a specific kind of critique itself. The movement against hierarchy is one I hope to strengthen and support. But not all hierarchical or oppressive movements or ideas operate in the same way. Not “another form of prejudice” in a generic way, but a specific worldview in a historically specific way, should antisemitism be understood. In my view, the struggle against antisemitism does not rely on a fight against “oppression” in a non-specific way. Instead, it relies on a critical engagement with what antisemitism is, how it functions, and why it is embraced in the world today. As Jean-Paul Sartre wrote in his “Anti-Semite and Jew,” anti-semitism is a “great explanatory myth.” It’s power to “explain” the world gives power to it as a movement. And it is this “explanation” that demands our criticism in the fight for a liberatory world.
This entry was posted on Saturday, June 28th, 2008 at 4:36 pm and is filed under blog, antisemitism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
on June 29, 2008 at 11:23 pm Matt wrote:
I don’t see that this is peculiar to anarchism. Rather, it seems to me typical of antisemitism of all sorts that it describes Jews as privileged and Jewish action as the leveraging of (Jewish) power. So antisemitism itself, whether it’s an anarchist’s antisemitism or a fascist’s antisemitism, denies the existence of Jewish oppression whenever possible.
on June 30, 2008 at 5:22 pm contestedterrain wrote:
Thanks Matt for your comment.
I see what you’re referring to in my text, but my main focus was not about antisemitism amongst anarchists, but rather, more simply, the lack of substantive discussions about antisemitism in anarchist circles. And therefore I focused on developing some ideas about why that is occurring.
As I mentioned, I think this has to do with the attempt to stretch a hierarchy-analysis to account for the phenomenon of antisemitism (rather than analyzing antisemitism in its social-historical specificity.) [The same thing happens with anti-zionism, but that is a topic for another day.]
As a result, there is a blindspot regarding the analysis of antisemitism because 1) it can not be addressed by thinking simply in terms of “oppression”, and 2) because antisemitism itself functions as a twisted critique of hierarchy.
The reason I say that antisemitism can’t be adequately analyzed (particularly in the U.S. context) by thinking in terms of “oppression” is because of the relative success of the American Jewish population in overcoming much of the discrimination and oppression that was earlier widely established in law and civil society.
Of course, attacks and discrimination against Jews and Jewish institutions continue to occur in the U.S, and so do stereotypes about Jews. But what fails to be captured in an oppression/discrimination-based analysis of antisemitism in the U.S., is the discursive level in which antisemitism widely circulates, in particular, conspiracy theories about Jewish power.
Take for example, the highly popular conspiracy theory that Jews working in the World Trade Center were alerted before the 9/11 attack and told to not go to work. (Or the more extreme version which accuses Jews and Israel as plotting the attacks.) Or take the conspiracy theory about the Israel Lobby, which is supposedly controlling U.S. foreign policy, and was responsible for the Iraq War.
These accusations are certainly expressions of antisemitism, but they don’t fit easily into the category of “oppression” or “discrimination” or “prejudice.” It might be more accurate with such examples to speak about a kind of defamation or demonization.
There is certainly a relationship between these two forms: 1) defamation/demonization and 2) “oppression” “discrimination” or “prejudice.” Here’s an example: When an irate man barged into a Seattle Jewish Community Center and open fire on the women working there, he justified his actions on his conspiratorial view that U.S. foreign policy is controlled by Jews.
I think the example illustrates a clear connection between the two aspects of antisemitism. The defamations/demonizations provide the perpetrator a “justification” for anti-Jewish violence. But the former does not always result in the latter, and there needs to be a way to speak about antisemitism then, on the ideational level.
But attempting to bring this rant back together, I will rephrase my concern. The reason I was speaking of a blindspot for anarchists on this issue, is because I think that those who advance an analysis based on a generalized critique of hierarchy, face a unique problem on this issue. It is because antisemitism functions as a critique of hierarchy, as a critique of power (although deranged). Just as racism can be perpetuated in the immigration debate in the U.S. without any mention of particular social groups, antisemitism can be perpetuated without the mention of Jews in particular. Depictions of “the Zionists” and “the neo-cons” replicate the structure of the conspiracy theory (of Jewish power).
Because conspiracy theories are so widely circulated today — from the 911 conspiracy groups to the Israel Lobby theorists — a particular analysis of these tendencies need to be grappled with. A generalized critique of hierarchy just doesn’t grasp the phenomenon, and in some cases, even plays into it. But, in some ways, this is nothing new. Social phenomenon can’t be understood from a general theory or ethical assertion. Social theory has to constantly grapple with the situation on the ground, and its historical precedents, if it is going to be relevant for understanding the world.
on July 1, 2008 at 1:45 am Matt wrote:
A reduction of “oppression” to manifestly economic discrimination. That would seem to be even more a problem for socialists than Marxists, though. (To be clear, I agree with absolutely everything you say here.)
When I think of anarchists and antisemitism, personally, I’m dumbfounded by the justification of Palestinian territorial and property rights.
on July 1, 2008 at 11:44 am contestedterrain wrote:
I think you mean “socialists and Marxists” rather than “socialists than Marxists.” Is that correct? And I’m not sure what difference you’re particularly referring to in the distinction of these two groups though.
There’s a valuable set of work on the topic of antisemitism done from a Marxist analysis. One of the most developed theses is that of Moishe Postone’s. He wrote a foundational essay about Nazi antisemitism, arguing that antisemitism is a kind of fetishized anticapitalism. [Anti-Semitism and National Socialism]
I think it’s true that antisemitism presents a particular problem for anti-capitalists and those doing research on the topic, because antisemitism is an expression of “anti-capitalist” resentments. The field of anti-capitalism is not the sole possession of people on the Left, not of those who seek or advance an egalitarian worldview. An example for the contemporary U.S. context is the Minutemen, whose anti-immigration politics are closely related to their attack on U.S.-Mexico free trade agreements (NAFTA).
I am hypothesizing that the specific power analysis, based on a general critique of hierarchy, that is specific to an anarchist (or “anti-authoritarian”) critique, will, lacking a social-historical analysis of antisemitism, be unable to address antisemitism until, or unless, it is explicitly expressed in black and white terms or in violence.
Of course, some will be and are currently blind to such expressions too. That’s the limit of this particular hypothesis, which takes for granted the intention of anarchists to recognize antisemitism when they see it. I am only discussing one structural reason why I think they often fail.
Regarding your comment about anarchists’ “justification of Palestinian territorial and property rights,” it’s not clear to me what you’re specifically “dumbfounded” by. So I’ll leave it rather than speculate about it.
Thanks for the feedback.
on September 6, 2008 at 9:21 pm jordan wrote:
I think Carey McWilliams’ book, “Antisemitism: A Mask for Privilege” is useful in this context. Marx conflated antisemitism and anticapitalism himself (”the language of commodities - hebrew” sez Marx, in his typically idiotic, authoritarian fashion)… Bakunin also fell into that trap of fashionable antisemitism; most anarchists haven’t though. The really central industries (manufacturing, mining, etc) have almost always excluded jews; jews have always been perceived as an easily wiped out competitive sector or as a threat to them, and so have been shoved into what were at first considered marginal industries. If you’re jewish you won’t be let into a lot of the country clubs, you’ll always have a subtle change in treatment when you mention your last name (people somehow feel deceived), you’ll always be considered a zionist if you critique islamist movements or the standard leftist line, etc. It’s like being black, only you look the same as anyone else. Anarchists should look at the construction of jewish “otherness” and see a way for power to create an easy distraction from its real nature: the compulsive construction of hierarchical distinctions and their illusory privileges is a mask for the poverty of the whole system. It’s almost automatic to talk about what “people” think or what “people” say; how easy to abstractify individuals like that… As Malatesta, I believe, put it: “the state operates on a process of taking the abstraction for the real being.”
As for the palestinian property and territorial rights thing over there, I think the no-state, (total self-management) solution is the only one that’ll ever really work.