 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 8 - 14 July 1999 Issue No. 437 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 8 - 14 July 1999 Issue No. 437
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Features Focus Books Travel Living Sports Time Out Chronicles People Cartoons Letters A chosen community, an exceptional burden
By Abdelwahab Elmessiri *Jewish communities, especially in Europe, are a prime example of the functional group. The Hebrew Kingdom of David and Solomon, and the United Kingdom of Judah and Ephraim, were not characterised by high technological standards. Therefore, they failed to offer job opportunities to the population. This forced large numbers of people to emigrate, forming functional groups in new host societies. Due to their weakness, and consequently their failure to afford protection to their population, the Hebrew Kingdom and the United were the source of thousands of captives who worked as mercenaries or merchants. The idea of Zion, a country of origin, was deeply entrenched in the Hebrew imagination, which loosened the ties binding Hebrews (and later Jews) to the countries they lived in. The Mediterranean and the ancient Middle East were dominated by a number of powerful empires which recruited members of the Jewish communities as mercenaries, settlers, and spies. But the decisive reason that contributed to the transformation of the Jewish communities into functional groups is the very nature of Western feudal society. Commercial and financial activities were not subsumed under the two main normal activities of this society, agriculture (the peasantry) and warfare (the knights). Therefore, they had to be assigned to a group of people imported from outside the society.
What complicated matters was the nature of land ownership in Western feudal societies. There were laws prohibiting members of the Jewish communities (as well as monasteries and churches) from owning land. Due to this, members of the Jewish communities were concentrated in the commercial and financial sectors, and their status as middlemen was firmly established. By the 13th century, they were largely landless, which made their transformation into functional groups almost inevitable.
Contractualisation (utility, neutrality, rationalisation, and instrumentalisation): The Western world viewed the Jewish communities as a function to be discharged and a role to be performed, an abstract objective element, merely useful matter. Members of the Jewish communities were usually "foreigners", and were therefore (at least according to the German hunting law) considered the emperor's "property", or in the Latin phrase servi camerae regis, that is "serfs of the Royal Chamber". Many charters given to members of the Jewish communities contained phrases such as "Judaeos tenere" or "Judaeos habere" meaning that whosoever issued the charter (usually the prince or the emperor) literally "owned" the Jews. One English charter referred to the Jews as "the King's chattel". In other words, the emperor, prince, or king who owned the Jews could "sell" them at will, just as any city would sell mining rights or the right to use its roads.
A great deal of analytical confusion resulted from the fact that many students of Jewish history in the West did not realise the nature of the Jewish communities' special status within Western civilisation. They continued to consider them a "class", overlooking the fact that they were basically a function. In other words, they were decidedly not a force of production, but rather a means of production.
Charters issued to members of the Jewish communities were never final. To emphasise their temporary nature, they had to be renewed every year and members of the Jewish communities had to pay a tax to the emperor or prince (sometimes a nominal sum) to assert his right of ownership. This was a continuation of the Fiscus Judaicus, supposedly imposed on them after the "destruction" of the temple.
In short, it could be said that the ties between members of the Jewish communities and the host society were contractual, utilitarian, neutral and objective. There was no mutual love or hatred between the two parties, just utility. As long as each party found the other of some use to it, the relationship continued. The picture, however, changed completely once the Jewish functional group lost its function. Members of the Jewish communities became "useless matter" that could be disposed of and should be transferred.
It should be pointed out that, most of the time, members of the Jewish functional group became the prince's (or the emperor') tool of exploitation. Take money-lending, for instance. Members of the Jewish functional group would take exorbitant interest rates (sometimes exceeding the original sum). But they were not the beneficiaries, for the prince (called the Principal Money-lender) would in turn impose exorbitant taxes on members of the Jewish communities, siphoning off any profits they might have made. That is why the members of the Jewish communities were called "the sponge" with which the prince would suck any extra money from his population. Still, they remained the obvious tool of exploitation, and the target of popular anger and rebellion. For the masses, they were the ones who took the money, and they were the ones who made the exorbitant profit. When members of the Jewish functional group proved too much of a liability for the prince, he usually handed them to their enemies. After all, the tie that bound him to them was never organic; it was mainly contractual and utilitarian. Shakespeare, in his Merchant of Venice, illustrated and immortalised this aspect of the relationship between members of the Jewish functional group and Western society.
Isolation, alienation, and powerlessness: When Western societies "imported" members of the Jewish communities to perform the role of a functional group, they isolated them by placing them in a ghetto, by imposing a certain code of dress, or even by making them wear a certain badge. Members of the Jewish functional group sometimes spoke a different language (Yiddish, for instance) and, naturally, believed in a different religion. This resulted in the fact that members of the Jewish communities were completely isolated from the masses of the host society, and became the target of popular resentment. But this resentment made them feel more insecure. Consequently, they grew even closer to the ruling elite that made use of them, yet at the same time protected them against the resentment of the masses. This process deepened their isolation from society at large.
Even though they were the tools of the ruling elite, at no point were members of the Jewish functional group allowed to share in power or the decision-making mechanism. Actually, the ruling elites preferred them to indigenous elements because they had no power base. They could be used, but could not accumulate any power or wealth. In the literature dealing with the Jewish communities, this is called "the problem of powerlessness".
The external isolation imposed by society was translated into a deep sense of alienation and a superiority complex among members of Jewish communities. All this was reinforced through a number of doctrines (the chosen people complex) and rituals (dietary laws, laws of purity, etc.), as well as a ferocious attachment to a hypothetical country of origin (Zion or Eretz Israel).
Separation from time (history) and place (homeland) and the illusory feeling of a separate identity: As indicated earlier, members of the Jewish functional groups experienced a sense of belonging to a hypothetical country of origin, to which they claimed they would return at the end of time. This translated itself into the messianic doctrine which loosened their ties to any specific time or place. This fundamental isolation and deep sense of alienation, powerlessness, and separateness from any specific time or place deepened the sense of a separate identity among the members of the Jewish functional group. But in fact, this so-called separate identity was nothing but a state of mind, for the concrete real identity of the members of the Jewish community was formed through their daily interaction with the cultural discourse of the host society, not outside it. Therefore, despite the claim of the members of the Jewish community that they were distinct and unique (indeed chosen) they were thoroughly assimilated in their societies.
The dualism of the claim of an abstract distinctiveness and chosenness, and the concrete reality of assimilation, was necessary if the members of the Jewish functional group were to perform their function. They could then stay in the society without being of it. Only then could they deal with the host society with a high degree of efficiency, which they could not achieve without mastering its cultural discourse. Because of their illusory separate identity, however, they could maintain a mental and emotional distance from members of the host society.
Double standards: Members of the Jewish functional group espoused a dualistic view of the world that sharply divided it into the sacred and fully human "I", and the permissible indifferent "other", who was simply useful matter and a legitimate object of exploitation and utilisation. Therefore, moral criteria only applied to the inner group -- in this case, members of the Jewish functional group -- for the "other" was outside the circle of sanctity and the pale of full humanity. There was an elective affinity, of course, between this sharp dualism and members of the Jewish communities, since Judaism has rigidly divided the world into insiders and outsiders, Jews and gentiles.
Mobility: Members of the Jewish communities were among the most mobile elements within the Western cultural formation. They were not attached to the land like the peasants and noblemen, nor to the city like members of the guilds. They could move freely in medieval society, under the protection of the emperor or the prince who granted them the charter that formed the basis of their presence in the society. This mobility was further deepened by the repeated expulsion of the members of the Jewish communities and their endless migration. Besides, the fact that the ties between the host society and members of the Jewish community were quite weak (on account of the contractual, utilitarian nature of this relationship, and on account of the messianic doctrine) made for greater mobility. Finally, the fact that members of the Jewish community did not subscribe to the moral code governing the society at large led them to see everything as permissible, which in turn made for maximal mobility.
The paradoxical combination of centricity around the self (subject/limitless freedom) and around the non-Me (object/ruthless determinism -- pantheism/immanence: Members of the Jewish communities, like most functional groups, developed a pantheistic view of the world. This is evidenced by the rising levels of pantheism in Judaism, manifested first in the Talmud then in the Kabbalah, and finally in the transformation of Kabbalistic exegesis into the standard exegesis of the Talmud itself. By the 19th century, Jewish monotheism was largely undermined by a pantheistic outlook.
The more pronounced manifestation of this pantheism is the paradoxical combination of self-centredness and limitless freedom on one hand and, on the other, centricity around the object (function) and ruthless determinism. Through the process of isolation, alienation, and a deepening sense of a separate identity, members of the Jewish functional group became self-referential and self-sufficient (which eventually makes for some kind of self-centredness). This made it possible for them to act freely, according to their wishes and as their will dictated, exploiting and instrumentalising the other. It also helped both justify and deepen their isolation.
But as much as they were centred around themselves, they were also centered around their objective abstract function, accepting the status of mere tool that performed certain tasks. This shuttling between self- and object-centredness is also a shuttling between the limitless freedom of the self-centred members of the functional group and ruthless determinism resulting from being centred around the object (function).
The same paradoxical combination manifests itself in the chosen people complex (and the doctrine of exile and return). The Jew, according to this doctrine, is a member of a self-referential, self-sufficient people, which is completely centred around itself. He enjoys many absolute rights because he has been chosen by God, his will is God's and his acts are divine. Consequently, his freedom is limitless, especially in view of the fact that, as an exile, he is a figure unattached to any time, or code of values.
But precisely because he is exiled from his country, unattached to any time, place, or code of values, his humanity is not completely fulfilled. Complete fulfillment is contingent on the return to Palestine or Eretz Israel at the end of time. It is only in this hypothetical country of origin that he can restore his sanctity and full humanity. Otherwise, he is subject to a ruthless determinism, for he cannot exercise his will freely. Chosenness then ceases to be a basis for certain privileges; it becomes a burden the Jew must carry, a severe limitation on his freedom.
* The writer is professor emeritus of philosophy at Ain Shams University.
Part one: The function of outsiders
Part two: The kindness of strangers
